North Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi?
?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi?
US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog.? We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).?
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader 2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony Public Inquiry >>
Voltaire, international edition
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?112 Fri Dec 13, 2024 15:34 | en
Israel Passes Law Allowing Four-Year Detention Without Trial or Evidence Fri Dec 13, 2024 15:27 | en
Jihadist Mohammed al-Bashir, new Syrian Prime Minister Fri Dec 13, 2024 15:24 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N?111 Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:25 | en
Attempted coup d'?tat in South Korea Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:17 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
Welfarism, New Welfarism and Abolitionism
international |
animal rights |
opinion/analysis
Tuesday October 28, 2008 18:38 by An Experienced Activist/Strategist
Considering the implications of effective action
Ok, as a "foreign" activist who has had the pleasure of meeting NARA I feel that I should clarify a few things for the readers here and the NARA actvists themselves relating to this thread here:
https://indymedia.ie/article/89205 Much is made of this "New Welfarism" concept, first introduced by the philosopher Gary Francione, (who in my opinion has since been widely discredited), with his ideas of "Abolitionism", "New Welfarism" and "Welfarism" which were first published in 1996(?)....as if somehow there wasn't a commited movement of animal rights/liberation activists who already had a clear idea of how we would end animal exploitation, (although thankfully Francione appears on the scene to tell us what we already know, and of course to skew some of the issues that we should already know).
Singer had long since been discredited, by his own mouth, long before Francione decided to add his "revolutionary" ideas about how to achieve the abolition of animal exploitation....however, what we must remember at this stage is that both Singer and Francione are philosophers. They are neither experienced activists, nor do they have much grasp of human psychology (although Singer certainly leads in the understanding of human behaviour stakes).
For example, Francione has an absolute obsession with his idea that no change can ever be progressive....and any such change is somehow detrimental to the vegan revolution which he believes we can enact by sensitising people to animals using skewed ideas of personhood etc etc. However, any intelligent person can tell you that human psychology is not "rational", but is instead "progressive", (people don't like changes, they prefer things to remain in the status quo, and they need changes to happen slowly so they can adjust to them).
This most basic tennet of human psychology is directly contrary to the ideas and strategies that Francione proposes, and central to the failings of Francione's philosophies when they are actually enacted in any practical sense. What Francione believes, (in my opinion wrongly), is that the most effective strategy to introduce animal "rights" is to communicate abstract concepts to every individual so that they will then change their lifestyle....and thus the animal exploitation industries will change direction in order to satisfy the new desires of the converted masses.
Francione clearly states that the animal exploitation industries are not the problem, it is the culture within which we live that is the problem and we must therefore convince people to change their outlook in order to change the nature and behaviour of the animal exploitation industries....however this flawed understanding of the entire problem doesn't take into account the nature of the animal exploitation industries, their influence on society and the lifestyles we lead or the basic human psychology that we need to address in order to make the changes we want to see in the world.
However, anyone with any idea of the strategic nature of campaigning knows that it IS the animal exploitation industries who are the problem! They peddle their influence and use their substantial means in order to ensure that the consumer lifestyle continues in an exploitative manner from which they can profit. They are more afraid of "welfare" reforms than they are of hardline, no compromise, activists that perpetuate the very myths that Francione has created.
So what is "New Welfare"?
New welfarism, is simply welfarism....there's nothing "new" about it, it's just a buzzword that Francione created that has quickly spread and led to vast amounts of confusion about what actually constitutes abolition, welfarism and the demise of the animal exploitation industries. Welfarism is welfarism, but when applied intelligently it can actually lead to abolition...much as Francione tries to deny it, he never offers ANY empirical evidence which shows that his theories are even relevant, let alone effective!
So, let's now consider how we could target an industry and consider the implications of the two approaches.
We will take one of the crudest froms of animal exploitation, one which most people can agree is neither necessary nor acceptable in the 21st century....The Fur Industry!
Ok, so we have a target and we have our two conflicting strategies....Francione's "abolitionism" and "welfarist" reform. Let's ditch the idea of "new welfarism" because it's a misenoma used to confuse and obsficate rational campaigning strategies. It's simply a dirty word, which means something different depending on who you ask, so we'll just focus on (Francione's) "abolitionism" and basic "welfarism" to consider how the two approaches might impact the fur industry .
Francione would suggest that to abolish the fur industry, instead of targeting the industry itself (or supporting any (new)"welfarist" agenda which might destabilise or weaken the industry) we should target the consumer....in order to make them understand that all forms of animal exploitation are wrong and that they shouldn't wear fur. This strategy would involve mass-leafletting, whilst telling anyone who suggested that bigger cages or providing acces to water for mink (which are aquatic animals) is wrong because that in some way justifies the industry and the exploitation of the animals.
A welfarist agenda would demand bigger cages, better housing and access to water for the mink....thus improving their short lives before their eventual butchery for the sake of the skin on their backs. A welfarist would say, "well at least they had a 'nice' life before they were brutally killed (and might even promote the use of "welfare friendly" fur).
What are the implications and impacts of these two massively differing approaches?
The welfarist agenda, (if successful), would impact on the fur farmers by raising their production costs, (and thus raise the price of the fur products), however it is conceivable that they would be able to charge a premium for the product because it is "welfare friendly".
The "Francione" abolitionist agenda, (relying on the distribution of leaflets), would seek to reduce the consumption of fur by sensitising people to the suffering of the animals. However, (and here's where the crunch comes), people are resistant to change....and, even when they know it's bad, they still tend to buy products based on price and convenience rather than from any ethical concerns (think about the consumption of Fairtrade products for example). So, ironically, those who are actually affected by the leaflets, (around 10% is the upper end estimate), they receive will look for a "middle-way", where they can consume the products they want without feeling so guilty (so they'd most likely end up buying the "welfare friendly" products instead.
This actually leaves us in the bizarre position where the message, (as Francione would portray it), is at best inneffective and at worst supporting the welfarist agenda....so how can this be?
At this point it's necessary to return to the power and influence of the industry, which they generally choose to masquerade as "consumer choice"....whereas a "true abolitionist" would seek to remove the choice entirely, after all people can't "choose" to consume a product which has been (truly) abolished!
The point that Francione so eloquently avoids is the fact that every scenario and situation is different, there are no fixed rules in order to achieve a goal...other than every progressive step towards that goal is both an acceptable and necessary step towards achieving the desired outcome.
Despite Francione's claims, the animal exploitation industries are the "problem". For example, fur farmers simply aren't going to diversify into developing realistic fake-fur products....instead they are going to continue exploiting animals in the most intensive, cost effective, manner possible in order to make the most profit they can. And the only way in which we are going to stop fur farmers from breeding animals to murder for their fur is to use basic economic principles to remove the incentive.
Francione also (wrongly) suggests that we have used these methods for over 100 years without result, however the methods we have employed for the last 100 years (and longer) are the very same flawed arguments he proposes of sensitising people to animals....rather than attacking and destablising the exploitation industries, (a tactic which has been employed extensively, and extremely effectively, in the UK for the last 30 years).
A classic example of Francione's flawed logic is in his calls to Californians to vote "No" to Proposition 2, (a wide ranging animal "welfare" bill that would outlaw the use of battery cages for hens, amongst other things, in California). Francione wrongly states that this will lead to an increase in the consumption of eggs because they are now "guilt-free"....however Francione fails to understand that people care so little about where their eggs come from, that they will eat them whether they are from caged hens or hens that have come from cage-free, (barn), production systems.
In fact, the only thing that motivates consumers is the price....and should the price of eggs increase then their consumption will decrease, (especially when used needlessly in processed food products)!
Therefore anything which increases the cost of animal exploitation will, in turn, reduce the consumption of those products and reduce the viability of the economic model....thus forcing exploiters to diversify into non-exploitative practices or simply drive those who are unable to diversify, (such as fur farmers), into bankruptcy.
If it was no longer economically viable to produce fur due to the price of increased (and enforced) welfare considerations, such that it effectively bankrupted the industry....this would be abolitionism in action!
The idea that animal welfare and animal rights, (personally I avoid the use of the words "animal rights" in favour of the words "animal liberation"), are somehow at odds is actually a myth perpetrated by a certain few individuals who are either SERIOUSLY deluded or who have a different agenda to the one they portray.
Those of us who have been campaigning since before Gary Francione became a household name have long understood the most effective strategies in order to achieve abolition, generally through tried and tested methods which have been refined over the years....such as raising costs through the support of "welfarist" agendas and the use of direct action in order to force the exploiters to employ more security and raise the costs of insurance etc etc.
Gary Francione is a philosopher, his ideas about animal exploitation are useful and all animal rights activists should be aware of his philosophies because they can be useful in an argument with people trying to justify animal exploitation....however it must be remembered that Gary Francione is neither a strategist nor someone with ANY kind of grassroots campaigning experience! He is an author, he writes books and his speciality is self-publicisation....but when it comes to effective campaigning, (or even a basic understanding of human psychology), he falls flat on his face!
If you want to look at Francione's "abolitionism" in action, look at the French movement and their, (ahem), achievements. The French population believes that animal rights activists ONLY care about animals, (something perpetuated by the activists themselves as per Francione's teachings), and are unwilling to consider any kind of positive or progressive measures towards better treatment of animals.
This manifests itself in the fact that France is THE worst place in Europe for animal exploitation. They are number 1 for vivisection, (with the laxest rules in Europe), think foie gras, think bullfighting (which unlike in Spain is for the locals not the tourists), think fur, think meat consumption, think about pet shops full of puppies....you name it, if it involves the exploitation of animals France is terrible for it....and the French are probably THE least sensitised to the idea of animal "rights" despite the main focus of the French "movement" being the ineffective public-outreach which Francione champions.
If we were to compare the state of the French exploitation industries with those in Switzerland, (who have just implemented wide reaching "welfare" reforms), we would see that not only are the Swiss industries substantially weakened in comparison...but that those Swiss who were able to have actually shifted their operations across the border into France! For example, the pharmaceutical giant Novartis is based in Basel, Switzerland, (which is on the German/French/Swiss border), however the worst of their animal research is conducted in a laboratory 2 miles from the main Novartis site...in France!!!
Understanding the implications of our actions is central to taking effective action towards abolition, however we are obliged to do this in the most effective manner possible in order to expediate the liberation of the innocent animals that suffer now. Instead of relying on abstract terms and vague philosophies, we are obliged (for the sake of the animals) to assess our actions in terms of empirical data and the evidence available to us.
It is not enough to claim to be "abolitionist" because we follow the teachings and philosophies of an author who has coined the word, if we are to be truly abolitionist then we are oblged to have a coherent strategy which will actually achieve abolition....that is of course if we actually care about the abolition of animal exploitation, and aren't simply acting as part of a clique and following the leader so to speak.
To sumarise, "New Welfarism" doesn't exist. It is normal, everyday welfarism and nothing more.
The underlying idea behind so called "New Welfarism" is the use of welfarist tactics and strategies to weaken and undermine the animal exploitation industries....such that it will lead to abolition, and that is an effective campaign strategy that has been used countless times over the years and proves to be as effective then as it is now. Why someone would wish to denegrate and sully such effective tactics is quite incomprehensible, unless of course their agenda were different to those seeking to abolish the exploitation industries.
Of course not all welfarism is effective, and we should ALWAYS carefully consider the impact and affect of our actions in the greater scheme....however Francione has yet to show, (with any conclusive proof), that the support of welfarism actually undermines the goal of "rights", except with his own abstract ideas and suggestions, (but remember these are not hard facts and figures!).
Welfarism and Abolitionism are merely mindsets with differing goals, however as I have tried to illustrate above the differences aren't just in the approaches and the ideas, but often also in the outcomes due to the strategies employed. Often "abolitionists" actually end up reinforcing the very things they are trying to dismantle through a mix of intransigence and a failure to clearly define what they are trying to achieve and how they are going to achieve it.
True abolitionism is achieved by whatever means necessary, be that welfarism, illegal activity, political lobbying, community development or whatever works in a given strategy....but we must remember that their is only one goal of abolitionism and that is total animal liberation, therefore our actions must be guided by that overriding principle and not abstract philosophies or unsubstantiated ideas!
Think, act and then think again....but ALWAYS demand empirical proof that what you are doing is effective and remember to ask yourself what the animals who are suffering now would want!!!
Further reading:
A well considered essay on the idea of rights, welfarism and abolition which strongly considers the viewpoint of the animals and their wishes:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/AWperpl...d.pdf
The infamous exchange between Martin Balluch, (of the Austrian 10), and Gary Francione which provides an interesting insight into Francione's mindset...and of course blows holes in his arguments, (read all 3 essays!)
Essay 1; (Balluch's proposal):
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/20080325A...n.php
Essay 2; (Francione's reply to Balluch's proposal)
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=140#more-140%20
Essay 3; (Balluch's comment on Francione's reply)
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/20080325A...n.php
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (10 of 10)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Just to add that the points made in the article above are in response to the comments made on the original article about PeTA, and it is not a comment on the article itself. However as a full explanation of the above was too big for a comment I created a new article for it!
Finally, respect goes to NARA for all their successes fighting animal exploitation in Dublin over the last year. Ignore the idiots and keep struggling for animal liberation!
As a general matter, I found this article’s tone very negative – quite apart from much of it being plain wrong. It is not clear that the author has read much of Francione’s philosophy and there are also problems with the claim about Singer.
The author may feel that Peter Singer has “long since” been discredited and yet the article itself was prompted by a piece about a recent visit to Ireland by a representative of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). During a debate at UCD, the PeTA rep said at least once – and once more before the event – that Singer is PeTA’s philosopher. Singer may be discredited in some animal advocates’ eyes but his utilitarian philosophy is currently driving another major animal welfare initiative in the USA in the shape of Proposition 2.
Indeed, the author claims that a classic example of “Francione’s flawed logic” is his position on Proposition 2, which she mistakenly suggests is “a wide ranging animal ‘welfare’ bill that would outlaw the use of battery cages for hens, amongst other things, in California”. This is unlikely to be true since imprisoning hens in battery cages is not prohibited by Prop 2. It amounts to legal requirements that “calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely”. In the case of hens, just like in the “ban” of battery cages in Europe in 2012, it is likely that “enriched” battery cages will replace conventional battery cages, increasing space for each bird from about 432 to 750 square centimetres of floor area.
An “enriched” battery cage is a wire cage “furnished” with a nest box, scratch pad and a perch. Animal advocates have spent millions of dollars trying to alter chicken prisons in one US state. Fair enough, I suppose: a loo in a prison cell is better than slopping out. However, some of us have a rather bigger idea. Moreover, just as building toilets in prison cells does not lead to the end of human imprisonment, it is not clear how altering chicken “confinement systems” will lead to the eventual abolition of exploitation. These are the complications one gets into when trying to regulate atrocities.
We are told that change is driven by economics and yet the supporters of Prop 2 are expecting the hen imprisoning industry to benefit because there are substantial numbers of people willing to pay a little more for ‘happy meat’ and ‘happy eggs’. For the rest, they will get their conventional battery eggs shipped in from elsewhere. The author, therefore, is wrong to claim that “should the price of eggs increase then their consumption will decrease”. In fact, animal welfarists tend to claim that industry will increase its profits if it accepts certain animal welfare measures.
The author also claims that, if production costs can be increased in some way, then animal exploiters are forced to diversify into “non-exploitative practices” or experience bankruptcy. Evidence? Let’s look at the case of the Halls and Newchurch Farm. After a 6-year campaign, the Hall family stopped supplying guinea pigs for vivisection. By the time they did, the British media were reporting that alternative sources of guinea pigs had been secured and what did the Halls do? They expanded their dairy business.
It is becoming fashionable in animal advocacy circles to suggest that humans are not rational beings. The author, here, following Martin Balluch, says this. Because of this view of human animals, she claims Francione’s position fails to understand human psychology. Being irrational, we are told, it does no good merely talking to people and trying to get others to accept your point of view. Not being rational, humans are also apparently incapable of understanding abstract ideas like rights. Well, we certainly have no problems finding news about human and nonhuman rights abuses and violations – and animal advocates do love emailing each other the latest story about the teenager who kills a puppy with a hammer or the person who stuffs a cat into a microwave oven. I guess Gary Francione will have to plead guilty to having a rather more optimistic view of humans than the author.
Of course the logic of the author’s position is that irrational people have to be forced to do what’s right. We have to ban this and outlaw that because people will not change voluntarily. One wonders where all the ethical vegans came from.
The author’s position – as it turns out – is rather elitist. Humans are not rational (but presumably the author is), they will not change (but presumably she has), they have to be forced to change (but presumably she did not have to be). Perhaps our author is just special and radically different from most other people? Or, maybe has been forced to change – perhaps there’s some powerful person making her be an animal advocate and, if vegan, perhaps because she cannot afford to eat meat?
Finally, I am interested to learn more about France. I would imagine Francione would be surprised to discover that the French animal movement is directed by his philosophy. I thought Brigitte Bardot and other welfarists were rather more prominent. If French animal activists really do “only care about animals” then they are apparently not adhering to Francione’s ideas since, as a law professor as well as philosopher, he is concerned about human rights, feminism, and environmentalism as well as human-nonhuman relations.
it is indisputable if one looks at the scientific evidence that vegetarianism is unhealthy and that vegetarians are more prone to ill health than those who eat animal meats and products from healthy naturally raised animals and not processed meats or animal products that are the result of factory based farming,
Shawney,
What research do you have in mind?
In the meatime, perhaps you could watch this series: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJa3E_zXrCo&NR=1
Dear Colleagues:
As you might imagine, I am a target of many attacks by reactionary defenders of welfarism. I cannot respond to all of those attacks and I have a policy of not responding to anonymous attacks. I do, however, want to make one thing clear. The author of this diatribe states that "it must be remembered that Gary Francione is neither a strategist nor someone with ANY kind of grassroots campaigning experience!"
That is a factual statement that is false and it was irresponsible for the author to have made it. For many years (approximately 15), I worked as an activist lawyer and strategist with various organizations, including (and particularly) PETA. Indeed, it was largely as a result of my practical experiences that I recognized that the animal welfare approach does not and cannot work.
As a general matter, the author of this essay either intentionally mischaracterizes my position on the rights vs. welfare debate or does not understand the issues. I invite you to visit my website and read some of the materials there and analyze these issues for yourself.
Thank you.
Gary L. Francione
Dear Colleagues:
I typed my website URL incorrectly. It is:
www.AbolitionistApproach.com
I apologize for any inconvenience.
Gary L. Francione
perhaps you should check out www.westonaprice.org
also saturated fat does not cause heart disease. this is a myth put out by the processed food industry and big pharma. it is hydrogenated fats and processed denatured foods which cause heart disease and cancer. cholesterol is found in every cell of your body.
“Francione has an absolute obsession with his idea that no change can ever be progressive”
I take it that by “progressive” the author means that Francione is opposed to incremental change. And I guess the author thinks that Francione is opposed to incremental change because he (Francione) rejects welfarist regulation. It is, of course, true that Francione rejects welfarist regulation. But it is NOT true that Francione is opposed to incremental change. On the contrary, Francione rejects welfarist regulation precisely because it does NOT represent a viable form of incrementalism, for two reasons: first, because it increases the efficiency and therefore the profitability of animal exploitation; and, second, because it makes people feel better about exploiting animals.
Instead of supporting welfarist tactics which have done nothing but further entrench the economic viability of the animal use industries and increase social acceptance of animal use, we should, according to Francione, put all our time and resources into creatively educating the public about all aspects of veganism. Vegan outreach is “incremental” in that it gradual erodes cultural speciesism by shifting attitudes away from the notion that we can exploit animals as long as we do so “humanely” to the notion that animal exploitation is inherently morally wrong, a rights violation.
thanks for the link - I'll look at it.
It is somewhat hard to believe that people are linking to Weston A. Price as an authority on anything, much less veg*nism.