I've always thought that arguments about wording are just arguments about values disguised as something else. The problem is, when we have proxy arguments ("don't call veganism a diet") we fail to actually talk about the important issues. Well said David.
Proxy arguments is a good way to describe it. I used to get caught up in them all the time. I might actually prepare a workshop on avoiding proxy arguments, to go with the work I’ve already done on avoiding proxy metrics (like for example using a high view count on a video as a proxy for effective activism). Thanks for the idea!
Well said. It's an important issue. Something I have challenged myself many times — the vegan echo chamber. I devote a chapter to it in my book, because it comes with real risks to animal rights. Cowbells on the Kill Floor, if you ever want to give it a read.
Thanks for the article. I generally agree with it. After 50 years of vegan, animal rights advocacy, one lesson I learnt is the importance of meeting people from their perspective. We need to be sensitive to where people are coming from them by responding to their comments in a way that invites, even cajoles, them to think differently about animals. Further, every situation is different. Every engagement with someone is unique. We must also be sensitive to this and respond accordingly. Sometimes my responses are gentle and encouraging. Other times, they're angry and confrontational. And, more often than not, somewhere in between the two. And even a mixture of both.
One thing that helps me is to remember that I wasn't always vegan and the people that influenced my path to becoming vegan were the people that told me about their personal journeys. It was a great way to make a personal and ethical connection.
I have a vegan food cart and the thing that I encounter the most is people don't want to give up the things they enjoy. But food is just taste and texture, then we decide if it's cruel. I try to be encouraging to those that are willing to be open minded.
Thanks so very much, David. Very well said. I wish I had read this in the 1980s. My life has been a net negative in the world because I spent so many years in the Vegan Club, as opposed to the Help Animals Club. https://mattball.substack.com/p/the-end-of-veganism
I broadly agree with this, especially the language issue. But I think that many people don't see the concept of "diet" as "an ethical diet to help animals." I think that people who go vegan thinking of it as a diet are people who do it to lose weight, get better skin, more energy, that kind of thing. Or because they simply believe it is healthier, and helping animals is a nice bonus. I know that falls into the health category you mention, and you already say that this isn't an effective reason. But I doubt people who go vegan for ethics see it as a diet, that's what I mean.
Yes, yes, yes! As a vegan of 35 years (and vegetarian for 15 years before then), and a long time activist, I have for many years thought that far too many activists are acting as if they seek to create a small club of people who think exactly like them rather than to influence vast numbers of the diverse members of the larger society.
We need to pay much more attention to the impact of our words, actions, and example on the vast majority of people who are not vegan.
I've never been vegan, though I've been in relationships with 2, and largely was, by default, vegan just due to proximity and practicality. I do recognise much of what you're saying as it applies to my experience. I think it's understandable that many people see veganism as a primarily diet, as this is largely how, on a daily basis, it manifests in a vegan's behaviour (unless of course they're an activist). I think you're right in your conclusions about language, and I also think there's a larger strategy problem that vegan advocacy has. Of course, vegans are going to be on a spectrum of attitudes towards what it means to be vegan and what the goal is. But much of what I've experienced is fairly militant dietary absolutism, which is a huge turn-off for me, and I suspect, most non-vegans. As an example, I simply don't understand the logic, if veganism is about avoiding harm to animals, why vegans will mostly insist on separate utensils where there is mixed cooking going on. Maybe I've missed a huge point, but this practicality does nothing to further veganism and seems to be entirely policing what goes into your body down to the smallest residue. This then makes it look as if veganism IS just all about diet and the wider message gets lots. In any case, what do I know, not being vegan and all.
Hey, thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts.
On your point about why vegans insist on using separate utensils, I think some vegans (me too in the past) confuse impact with principle. What makes sense based on principles doesn't always have a positive impact on animals, and what makes sense in helping animals doesn't always perfectly line up with vegan principles.
A vegan may hold the view that they don't want animal products to come into contact with something they're going to consume out of disgust, due to the principles they hold that animals aren't food. Eating farmed animals to them is as sick/perverted as eating someone's pet dog, or even a human. So on that basis, you can understand the aversion to cross-contamination. But this doesn't always translate into a positive impact for animals as you rightly stated.
But there is something to say about this issue with cross-contamination having an impact when it comes to society's views on animals. You could argue that taking this stance helps denormalise farmed animals as products. That refusing to consume something that has touched animal products helps shift the needle. That it moves it towards the same place as refusing to consume something that has touched dog or human meat, which would be viewed as entirely normal and understandable by most people. But to clarify, I do think it’s more a personal preference rather than a strategy to help animals for most vegans.
It's an interesting discussion, thanks for bringing it up!
" Building bridges rather than walls... " . I think this should be a good option for anyone who truly wants to promote veganism among the population . The problem is that kind of arguments often arise even among vegans themselves , about who are the " purest " , or even the most " extreme " . For my part , i believe whe should include vegetarians as much as possible , who are often rejected by vegans for their perceived lack of information , courage or willpower . Yet , they are the closest to the stage that can lead to veganism , and they should be encouraged to persevere , rather than ctiticized or even rejected . This gives a degraded and authoritarian image of the vegan movement...
Hm I have never seen anyone who genuinely went back to eating animals because of health. "Health" IS the number 1 excuse to going back to eating animals though. Take Cosmic Septic for example. His case is the textbook case of why vegans stop being vegans. He vaguely rambled on about health, but the truth is he wasnt as popular as an animal rights activist and he craved popularity and fame.
I think it’s safe to assume that if we undo society’s most deeply engrained habits through people acknowledging animals not as resources but as individuals deserving of moral consideration, they’d extend that consideration to other animals too.
From the post: “If we’ve actually managed to get people to connect with animals on that level, enough to change the most habitual, deeply ingrained behaviour there is, I think we’ve probably done the hard part.”
As evidence of some of what you speculate, after being an active vegan advocate for a wile, I retreated for 25 years to quietly being a mostly-vegan with no contact with advocacy because I could not stand to associate with those naive, sanctimonious idiots anymore (yes, I just said that). There is no question in my mind that they do more harm than good.
As for non-dietary concerns, I find it completely silly that someone does not recognize that everything else is a rounding error and a very heavy lift. You have a chance to convince any decent person that factory farm pain is far too high a price to impose for fifteen minutes of culinary entertainment. It is a much bigger ask, and for far less benefit, to ask them to give up decent durable goods for the cause. Or to oppose particular health research. I get a bit queasy whenever my work needs to recognize the results of animal research, but it seems like a really poor choice of things to try to challenge, given the whole food issue.
I've always thought that arguments about wording are just arguments about values disguised as something else. The problem is, when we have proxy arguments ("don't call veganism a diet") we fail to actually talk about the important issues. Well said David.
Proxy arguments is a good way to describe it. I used to get caught up in them all the time. I might actually prepare a workshop on avoiding proxy arguments, to go with the work I’ve already done on avoiding proxy metrics (like for example using a high view count on a video as a proxy for effective activism). Thanks for the idea!
Really well said
Well said. It's an important issue. Something I have challenged myself many times — the vegan echo chamber. I devote a chapter to it in my book, because it comes with real risks to animal rights. Cowbells on the Kill Floor, if you ever want to give it a read.
Thank you. I’ll check out your book!
Much obliged, David.
Thank you for all you do for the animals.
Thanks for the article. I generally agree with it. After 50 years of vegan, animal rights advocacy, one lesson I learnt is the importance of meeting people from their perspective. We need to be sensitive to where people are coming from them by responding to their comments in a way that invites, even cajoles, them to think differently about animals. Further, every situation is different. Every engagement with someone is unique. We must also be sensitive to this and respond accordingly. Sometimes my responses are gentle and encouraging. Other times, they're angry and confrontational. And, more often than not, somewhere in between the two. And even a mixture of both.
Another great post David!
One thing that helps me is to remember that I wasn't always vegan and the people that influenced my path to becoming vegan were the people that told me about their personal journeys. It was a great way to make a personal and ethical connection.
I have a vegan food cart and the thing that I encounter the most is people don't want to give up the things they enjoy. But food is just taste and texture, then we decide if it's cruel. I try to be encouraging to those that are willing to be open minded.
Thanks David. It's a really good article, and you make lots of excellent points about effective communication.
Thank you, I’m glad you found it useful.
Thanks so very much, David. Very well said. I wish I had read this in the 1980s. My life has been a net negative in the world because I spent so many years in the Vegan Club, as opposed to the Help Animals Club. https://mattball.substack.com/p/the-end-of-veganism
I broadly agree with this, especially the language issue. But I think that many people don't see the concept of "diet" as "an ethical diet to help animals." I think that people who go vegan thinking of it as a diet are people who do it to lose weight, get better skin, more energy, that kind of thing. Or because they simply believe it is healthier, and helping animals is a nice bonus. I know that falls into the health category you mention, and you already say that this isn't an effective reason. But I doubt people who go vegan for ethics see it as a diet, that's what I mean.
Yes, yes, yes! As a vegan of 35 years (and vegetarian for 15 years before then), and a long time activist, I have for many years thought that far too many activists are acting as if they seek to create a small club of people who think exactly like them rather than to influence vast numbers of the diverse members of the larger society.
We need to pay much more attention to the impact of our words, actions, and example on the vast majority of people who are not vegan.
Thanks David, your post is very useful.
I've never been vegan, though I've been in relationships with 2, and largely was, by default, vegan just due to proximity and practicality. I do recognise much of what you're saying as it applies to my experience. I think it's understandable that many people see veganism as a primarily diet, as this is largely how, on a daily basis, it manifests in a vegan's behaviour (unless of course they're an activist). I think you're right in your conclusions about language, and I also think there's a larger strategy problem that vegan advocacy has. Of course, vegans are going to be on a spectrum of attitudes towards what it means to be vegan and what the goal is. But much of what I've experienced is fairly militant dietary absolutism, which is a huge turn-off for me, and I suspect, most non-vegans. As an example, I simply don't understand the logic, if veganism is about avoiding harm to animals, why vegans will mostly insist on separate utensils where there is mixed cooking going on. Maybe I've missed a huge point, but this practicality does nothing to further veganism and seems to be entirely policing what goes into your body down to the smallest residue. This then makes it look as if veganism IS just all about diet and the wider message gets lots. In any case, what do I know, not being vegan and all.
Hey, thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts.
On your point about why vegans insist on using separate utensils, I think some vegans (me too in the past) confuse impact with principle. What makes sense based on principles doesn't always have a positive impact on animals, and what makes sense in helping animals doesn't always perfectly line up with vegan principles.
A vegan may hold the view that they don't want animal products to come into contact with something they're going to consume out of disgust, due to the principles they hold that animals aren't food. Eating farmed animals to them is as sick/perverted as eating someone's pet dog, or even a human. So on that basis, you can understand the aversion to cross-contamination. But this doesn't always translate into a positive impact for animals as you rightly stated.
But there is something to say about this issue with cross-contamination having an impact when it comes to society's views on animals. You could argue that taking this stance helps denormalise farmed animals as products. That refusing to consume something that has touched animal products helps shift the needle. That it moves it towards the same place as refusing to consume something that has touched dog or human meat, which would be viewed as entirely normal and understandable by most people. But to clarify, I do think it’s more a personal preference rather than a strategy to help animals for most vegans.
It's an interesting discussion, thanks for bringing it up!
" Building bridges rather than walls... " . I think this should be a good option for anyone who truly wants to promote veganism among the population . The problem is that kind of arguments often arise even among vegans themselves , about who are the " purest " , or even the most " extreme " . For my part , i believe whe should include vegetarians as much as possible , who are often rejected by vegans for their perceived lack of information , courage or willpower . Yet , they are the closest to the stage that can lead to veganism , and they should be encouraged to persevere , rather than ctiticized or even rejected . This gives a degraded and authoritarian image of the vegan movement...
Hm I have never seen anyone who genuinely went back to eating animals because of health. "Health" IS the number 1 excuse to going back to eating animals though. Take Cosmic Septic for example. His case is the textbook case of why vegans stop being vegans. He vaguely rambled on about health, but the truth is he wasnt as popular as an animal rights activist and he craved popularity and fame.
How come in a world where we don't exploit animals for food, we would not use animals for sports and entertainment?
I think it’s safe to assume that if we undo society’s most deeply engrained habits through people acknowledging animals not as resources but as individuals deserving of moral consideration, they’d extend that consideration to other animals too.
From the post: “If we’ve actually managed to get people to connect with animals on that level, enough to change the most habitual, deeply ingrained behaviour there is, I think we’ve probably done the hard part.”
As evidence of some of what you speculate, after being an active vegan advocate for a wile, I retreated for 25 years to quietly being a mostly-vegan with no contact with advocacy because I could not stand to associate with those naive, sanctimonious idiots anymore (yes, I just said that). There is no question in my mind that they do more harm than good.
As for non-dietary concerns, I find it completely silly that someone does not recognize that everything else is a rounding error and a very heavy lift. You have a chance to convince any decent person that factory farm pain is far too high a price to impose for fifteen minutes of culinary entertainment. It is a much bigger ask, and for far less benefit, to ask them to give up decent durable goods for the cause. Or to oppose particular health research. I get a bit queasy whenever my work needs to recognize the results of animal research, but it seems like a really poor choice of things to try to challenge, given the whole food issue.