What the abolitionist movement is not

Abolitionist theory, with its rejection of animal welfare campaigns, is sometimes a shock to animal advocates encountering it for the first time. This is understandable since it asks us to question many of the assumptions about animal advocacy we have been conditioned to believe by the corporate animal welfare and "new welfare" organizations, through whom many of us became interested in animal issues in the first place. The abolitionist movement makes no apologies in criticizing these organizations' methods, and because of this, certain misconceptions about the abolitionist position seem to recur among skeptics' reactions. This post will discuss just a few of these reactions.

Abolitionism is not about "divisiveness", about creating ill-will and strife amongst a group otherwise committed to the same cause in order to deter their energies from the common cause. Rather, it is about pointing out the fundamental differences in two positions - the position that it is permissible to use nonhuman animals as resources as long as we follow certain husbandry standards in order to prevent gratuitous or "unnecessary" suffering, and the position that it is not morally permissible to use sentient nonhumans instrumentally, no matter how well they are treated in the process - and presents a case for why those of us who adhere to the second position should only participate in and support actions consistent with this goal. The first position, that of the animal welfare groups (and the animal exploiting industries as well!), has nothing to do with animal rights and so does not provide us any guidance if rights for animals is indeed our goal.

Abolitionism is not about attacking people's character. It is true that corporate organizations' collective motivations are put into question, as large bureaucracies tend to take on a life of their own to ensure financial survival. This is no less true when they are charities relying on mass public appeal for donations. A critique of the corporate organizational model itself, and of the welfarist tactics that must be pursued to retain the donations of the masses, however, does not equate to an insult to the character of individual activists who are involved with or support these organizations. There is no question that animal advocates work tirelessly for nonhuman animals and have the best of motivations. What the abolitionist movement aims to point out are the inherent flaws of welfare reform campaigns in order to convince these activists of the need to reject such campaigns and the organizations and organizational structures that cling to them, of the need to reject using ineffective means whose underlying premises actually contradict our goals. That the abolitionist position is often argued emphatically, confidently, passionately, and illustrated with specific examples from within the welfarist movements, should not be taken as a "personal attack" and should certainly not be seen as a reason to defensively dismiss the abolitionist theory. The arguments should be considered rationally on their own merits, regardless of one's personal opinion on the discourse style of Gary Francione or any other abolitionist advocate.

The abolitionist argument is not about elitism or achieving some sort of personal purity. It is impossible to be 100% vegan in our society, and postulating that veganism must be the moral baseline of a movement for animal rights does not mean getting bogged down with questions like animal products having been used during the production of tires and the like. It means recognizing that we cannot respect someone's rights while we are separating her from her child and taking her milk, while we are wearing pieces of his skin on our feet, while we pay someone who keeps her in captivity for the opportunity to go take a look at her, while we are using them instrumentally in any way. It means recognizing that financially and culturally supporting exploitation is unjustifiable from a rights perspective, and committing to changing our behaviour accordingly. Veganism can seem daunting at first, but when we are motivated to truly respect the rights of nonhumans, it becomes second nature after the initial phase of adjustment. Those who claim that veganism is elitist tend to subscribe to the mentality that it is something dificult that is "just not for everyone". On the contrary, the abolitionist movement aims to show that yes, veganism is for everyone, that one does not have to be "special" in some way to become vegan, and that any situation that may present a true barrier to veganism for some people in our society (such as the problem of inner-city-US "food deserts" in some poor areas, where the only food accessible to those without vehicles is highly processed junk food) is just a symptom of other forms of oppression such as classism and racism. The abolitionist position opposes all forms of oppression.

Abolitionism is not an all-or-nothing proposition that is doomed to achieve "nothing" by only asking for "all" at once. Abolitionist theory is consistent with incremental change and provides ample guidance for activism (for example Gary Francione discusses this topic in this blog entry and this post). The most important incremental steps we need to take at this point in time are those such as vegan education and activist education that increase the number of ethical vegan abolitionists. This may seem to some to be a slow approach with few tangible rewards, but its importance cannot be overstated. Before we can effect other changes that reflect our own paradigm shift, we need to help more people make that same shift. We cannot achieve rights for nonhuman animals while 99.9% of humanity sees them as commodities and natural resources.

This does not mean that we are ignoring the suffering of animals who are being exploited right now. Convincing other humans of the moral necessity of veganism reduces immediate demand for animal "products" as well as setting the stage for a societal attitude shift. We cannot allow the belief that it's okay to use animals instrumentally as long as we do it "humanely" to go unchallenged, which is what happens when we implicitly accept it in campaigns for welfare/husbandry reform. We need to actively speak out against this belief by drawing attention to the root of the human-nonhuman problem. To do otherwise is to engage in campaigns that disregard the inherent worth and right not to be considered resources of those very animals suffering right now.

Some of us who promote abolitionism once supported or even initiated new-welfarist campaigns ourselves, just as most vegans were not vegan at some point in the past. In becoming vegan we had to question our assumptions and conditioning before we rejected animal use in our own lives. The process of transition from a new-welfarist view of activism to an abolitionist view is similar - it requires an openness to consider a different viewpoint and to allow the possibility of admitting to ourselves that our own previous way of doing things was not consistent with our values and goals. This can be difficult when we are actively involved in the types of campaigns and advocacy being criticized - but having a consistent approach that respects animal rights and having solid theoretical reasoning behind the efforts we undertake, and thus engaging in more effective activism, is worth this period of questioning and personal discomfort. Let's not be afraid to question our assumptions and conditioning, reflect deeply, and grow and change as activists in order to bring our activism in line with our goals.

What is the Abolitionist Movement?

The abolitionist animal rights position, as developed by Gary L. Francione in his 1996 book Rain Without Thunder, takes the philosophical stance that animals are not ours to use as resources in any way and follows it to its logical conclusion: first of all, if we want to abolish animal exploitation, the first thing we must do is abolish it from our own lives by becoming vegan. Then we must persuade others of the moral necessity to end animal exploitation, and in doing so we must not use methods or tactics that go against animal rights or more generally that employ or endorse any form of exploitation or oppression of sentient beings (including humans – sexist PETA ads anyone?).

The abolitionist position rejects actions and campaigns that are inconsistent with animal rights – such as animal welfare reforms. Some groups (or individuals) who pursue welfare reforms subscribe to the “welfarist” philosophy, that there is nothing wrong with using animals as long as they are treated “well” or “humanely” in the process (groups such as Humane Societies, IFAW, Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals, and people who claim that we can be “conscientious omnivores” subscribe to this philosophy), while others disagree with animal exploitation and would like to see it abolished, but in the meantime believe that it is necessary or acceptable to pursue welfare reform campaigns, believing that these will lead to eventual abolition or at least “reduce suffering right now”. This latter group (organizations such as PETA, Farm Sanctuary, etc. subscribe to these views) is what Gary Francione has dubbed “new welfarist” – they have a different philosophy or “long-term view”, but they pursue many of the same tactics as the welfarists.

Abolitionism postulates that these tactics cannot in fact lead to abolition, but only to more welfare reforms and to people feeling better about eating animals who have been treated “humanely”. Pursuing and supporting these types of reforms only lends legitimacy to the exploitation (sometimes very explicitly, such as when “animal rights” groups praise companies like Whole Foods, McDonald’s, or Burger King, for pledging to treat the animals they exploit “more humanely”). Industry partnerships like these as well as legislation for new “animal welfare standards” are great PR for the animal exploiters (as well as for the welfarist and new welfarist groups who claim “victory”), and more often than not the welfare reforms change very little if anything concerning the animals’ level of suffering. Welfare reform campaigns take the exploitation of animals as a given, and in doing so, by not speaking out absolutely against this exploitation, they reinforce the perceived legitimacy of animal exploitation in our society.

These campaigns do not challenge the view of animals as economic units, as commodities. They do not challenge the root of the problem – the fact that animals are property. While animals remain legal property, the only reforms that are going to occur are those that, in the end, are accepted as cost-effective by the property owners. The rights of property owners to use their property as they see fit will always trump even the most fundamental interests of the “property”, since property has no rights. Thus, welfare reform campaigns do not actually have anything to do with animal rights; we can’t claim to be giving animals “rights” in attempting to change details about the ways they are exploited, when they don’t even have the most basic right not to be considered the property of humans. In a sense the only right animals need to be accorded is the right not to be considered legal property. Then exploiting them, violating their bodily integrity, killing them merely because we enjoy the taste of their flesh and bodily fluids, will no longer be permissible. The speciesist attitudes of society need to be challenged, to be broken down, for this to occur. It will not occur if we as the animals’ advocates are endorsing or asking for “nicer” ways to continue using sentient beings.

Of course it is better to do less harm than more harm, but pursuing and supporting campaigns that accept any animal use is contradictory and goes against animal rights. There is also the question of finite resources: pursuing welfarist campaigns takes time and resources away from vegan advocacy in addition to undermining this advocacy.

What need to do is to promote veganism, focusing on the inherent harm of any kind of animal exploitation rather than only focusing on blatant abuse and suffering. We need to build a grassroots abolitionist movement: to increase the number of people who commit to going to root of problem by rejecting the property status of animals and living as vegans, as abolitionists.

We need to promote the paradigm shift toward seeing animals as sentient beings worthy of true respect and all that this entails, rather than as property, lesser beings, to dominate, exploit, use, kill for our whims. Without people making that paradigm shift, nothing is ever really going to change.

This change begins with us. Each of us has the power to change our own consumption habits to make them free of animal exploitation. Each of us has the power to speak out against speciesism in a manner that is consistent, uncompromising, and attacks the root of the problem: that is, in an abolitionist manner.