Corey Lee Wrenn's Blog, page 3

The Fetishization of “Animal-Friendly” Animal Products

Some years ago, when I learned that The Body Shop had a large vegan range (it is now claiming to transition to fully vegan), I made my first visit. At the time, none of the products were labeled vegan (and this is mostly still the case as of this writing in 2023). To discern which items are vegan, I had to ask the sales clerk for assistance. While he was searching for the store's list of vegan inventory through a cumbersome and bulky folder, he informed me (perhaps to spare us both the hassle) that most of the products were vegan and those that were not vegan were nonetheless produced in ways that “don’t harm the animals.”

I was quick to clarify that all commercial animal use involves harm. The animals used for ingredients in Body Shop products invariably live in some kind of confinement and eventually end up slaughtered. Even bees suffer considerably in the procurement of their wax, jelly, and honey. Annoyed by the misleading sales pitch, I also mentioned cynically: “That’s the same thing LUSH says,” (LUSH also profits from a cruelty-free brand image despite not being fully vegan). I did clarify, however, that The Body Shop was probably a better alternative because of LUSH’s deeply disturbing and wholly problematic misogynistic sales tactics. 

Afterward, I sent a tweet to The Body Shop, expressing my concern that the clerk had so blatantly misinformed me regarding their ingredient sourcing. The company only doubled down on its misinformation:

The Body Shop ‏@thebodyshopusa
@CoreyLeeWrenn Hi Corey, maybe it was a misunderstanding but non [sic] of our products harm the animals

Is there any misunderstanding about the violence that happens to the sheep used to produce the lanolin in their products? Is there any misunderstanding about the veal calves languishing in crates and their mothers suffering a miserable end in slaughterhouses in order to obtain milk derivatives for their products? Is there any misunderstanding about the mass killing of bees required to obtain their products?

The Body Shop, like LUSH, markets itself as a compassionate company while simultaneously profiting from the institutionalized exploitation and killing of Nonhuman Animals. Declaring to customers that non-vegan animal-based products “don’t harm the animals” is false advertising of the worst kind. As is the case with most capitalist enterprises that profit from the oppressed, The Body Shop banks on customers never questioning or thinking critically about their ethical claimsmaking. This false consciousness is buttressed by "cruelty-free" labeling and endorsement from large "animal rights" non-profits such as PETA. These charities have effectively socialized many customers that is okay to use, harm, and kill other animals as long as it is done “nicely."

Pseudo-vegan “natural” companies that cater to socially and environmentally conscious customers are fetishizing “animal-friendliness” to artificially meet the demand for ethical products. Continuing to rely on animal products is likely cheaper (or at least easier) in a cosmetic industry locked in a path of dependency on non-vegan ingredients and processes. In this way, The Body Shop, Aveda, and LUSH are not really much different from Tyson, Smithfield, or whatever else PETA and the HSUS are championing for astounding “progress” for Nonhuman Animals. When the Body Shop clerk insisted to me that their non-vegan products “don’t hurt the animals,” I was reminded of Tyson commercials featuring healthy, free-roaming chickens scampering around a dedicated "farmer" who proclaims how happy these chickens are on their vegetarian, hormone-free diets.

I am skeptical that we can buy our way to social justice. We have to buy our toiletries and cosmetics somewhere, so, obviously, we should aim to purchase from companies that prioritize ethical sourcing in balance with what we can access and afford. But we should not fool ourselves into thinking that savvy vegan shopping will end oppression. These products are important to help us maintain our vegan lifestyle, but it would be a mistake to expect a radical revolution within the capitalist system. The capitalist system is designed to facilitate and feed on exploitation. Capitalism cannot exist without exploitation. Indeed, there is no "ethical consumption under capitalism," as the saying goes. Veganism must therefore entail a wider political resistance to the capitalist economic system.

 

Readers can learn more about the politics of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

[image error]



[image error]



[image error]

Why Vegans Don't Wear "Leather"

Ivan Radic, Wiki Commons

The enormous ethical problems associated with "leather" (a euphemism for preserved skin) illustrate why veganism cannot simply be understood as a diet. Although killing animals for "meat," milk, and eggs constitutes the greatest source of human violence against other animals, the food industry also sustains a much wider array of injustices to marginalized humans and nonhuman animals. It is a highly toxic industry that threatens the health of very vulnerable workers and leaches poisons into the ecosystem, contaminating land and drinking water.  The "leather" industry, for instance, thrives in India, where widescale ethical vegetarianism is somewhat of a misnomer (India is one of the world's largest producers of "beef").

"Leather" production is able to thrive because of our speciesist dietary choices, but also from the ideology of human supremacism that nonveganism psychologically maintains. Veganism is a political resistance to the idea that nonhuman animals are physically (or symbolically) consumables or other objects of resource. 

Mark Ahsmann, Wiki Commons

It is also worth noting that not all "leather" comes directly from slaughterhouses. That is, it is not always a byproduct used as a means to prop up the largely economically unviable "meat" industry. Some species are intentionally bred into existence for their skin or hair. Veganism rejects this violence--it rejects the idea that animals exist for our pleasure and convenience.

What about vegans who wear old "leather" or secondhand "leather" on the basis of sustainability? Given the ubiquitousness of pleather in today's world of plastic, fast-fashion, there is an argument to be made that "leather," be it real or fake, has become symbolically abstracted from its animal origin. It is also argued that wearing "leather" is better for the environment than wearing plastic alternatives and is not problematic in that it is not directly purchased from a distributor in support the industry. To that, I suggest that, until we are comfortable wearing shoes and belts from preserved human skin, we are still practicing speciesism in suggesting that some bodies are less worth our respect and that some bodies ultimately remain fair game for commodification. Vegans don't wear "leather."

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Can We “Have Our Cow and Eat Her, Too?”

On November 15, I participated in a debate on how to achieve a vegan world with my good colleague philosopher Josh Milburn. Milburn makes the case that, in order to reduce animal suffering, some concessions should be made to the vegan abolitionist position. This includes the perpetuation of animal-based foodways that include oysters, insects, and other species with less understood degrees of sentience. Some domesticated species, for that matter, should be maintained for human purposes, provided these animals are provided with a good quality of life. According to Milburn, perhaps it is not really necessary to liberate other animals in a vegan world. Sentience matters, but only for some species and only to a certain extent when determining the life outcomes for Nonhuman Animals.

My response can be boiled down to the following:

The weaponization of science and naturalism to rank the worth of marginalized groups, dictate their moral worth, and control their lives (usually in highly exploitative ways) is a classic project of Western, white supremacist patriarchal colonial conquest. The entitlement to other living beings, both in reality and symbolically, should be challenged.

Science
Fish, for instance, are often believed not to be sentient, when more and more research demonstrates that they are. Even for so-called "higher" species, such as cows and pigs, it was not until the European Union's 2009 Lisbon Treaty that they were recognized as sentient. Many people outside of policymaking and academia, for that matter, remain unconvinced that animals other than humans, cats, and dogs have full sentience.

Despite all of the good science has offered society, it maintains a number of limitations that must be considered with regard to morality. The sentience of Nonhuman Animals is still under debate, such that using sentience as a determining factor in Nonhuman Animals' right to life and liberty is problematic. Interpretations of sentience, for that matter, are deeply cultural and not always in line with objective data or even common sense.

For the most vulnerable of species, insects and mollusks, their sentience remains majorly underresearched. Their use in vivisection suggests a degree of shared sentience, however. We also know that many insect species like bees and ants live communally and exhibit prosocial behavior, which indicates a higher level of cognition than is usually attributed to them. With trillions of lives on the line in the burgeoning insect protein industry, extreme caution is needed.

Feminism

Indeed, the sentience and cognitive life of women, people of color, people with disabilities, queer folks, and other marginalized human groups has been (and continues to be) devalued, underappreciated, and used as a rationale for commodification and unequal treatment. Feminism would thus underscore the problem of employing science and able-bodied norms as means for determining who matters.

The notion that bodies of any species could be controlled for the benefit of the privileged is deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian patriarchal tradition. Evidence can be found in the use of rationality as a weapon of destruction and the deployment of Western ideas of difference and categorization to justify violence. The archaic macho idea that animal sacrifice is needed to maintain and protect a society is also evidence of this tradition. Patriarchy manufactures a sense of inevitable conflict; feminism reminds us that we can identify communal, life-affirming means to care for one another irrespective of differences. The highly masculinized and Westernized institution of science is not necessary to determine whose lives are worthy.

Feminism would also take issue with Milburn's desire to perpetuate domestication for human industries. Some animals, he argues, can be treated as workers with some form of labor rights. But can domesticated (or "domesecrated" in the words of sociologist David Nibert) species truly consent? And who designs the contract? Women, let us recall, were offered a similar deal by the patriarchy: stay bound, obedient, and hard-working in the domestic sphere, and men will provide the food, shelter, and security. The deal was hardly a fair one. Domesticity brought with it dependency, lowered status, and heightened vulnerability to male violence. It is a contract generations of feminists have been struggling to break.

For that matter, domestication itself is a form of psychological and corporal control. It creates a cognitive dependency by eliminating a species' ability to survive outside of human institutions. Dogs will lick the hand of their vivisector as they are sliced open, so extreme is their human-manufactured psychological loyalty. Horses will continue to pull carts or carry riders to the point of collapse. Cows will walk of their own volition through pools of blood straight into the killing shute.

Domestication creates a physical dependency by manipulating their bodies to serve human needs, manipulations that reduce the quality and length of life for nonhumans. Chickens will fall victim to debilitating and lethal reproductive problems, for instance, no matter how "kind" their living arrangements. Pigs, turkeys, and other animals have been so genetically altered that, if allowed to live beyond the age at which the "meat" industry usually kills them, they will begin to collapse under their own weight, hooves splitting, bones fracturing, etc.

Domestication is the worst kind of violence.

Common Sense

Although "common sense" can often reflect the interests of those in power, I do think that there is a core, intuitive understanding that other living beings have an interest in what happens to them and desire to experience pleasure, well-being, and freedom. I really don't need science or feminism to tell me that. They have a basic desire to avoid suffering and death as well. Domestication, insect farming, and lab-grown meat kill. These systems rely on violence and are shaped by a logic of oppression. Although capitalist enterprises and masculine norms may argue otherwise, killing other animals or symbolically oppressing them to satiate human wants is not necessary.

There is already in existence a wide variety of plant-based foods, many of which successfully mimic the flavor and texture of flesh. Unlike lab-grown meat, no one is intentionally killed to create vegan alternatives. It is also worth remembering that plant-based eating is the diet of the global majority...or at least it was. The large-scale switch to animal agriculture is a direct consequence of Western colonialism. This act of global violence was not only responsible for spreading speciesism, but also in destroying ecosystems, subjugating peoples of the world, disrupting traditional foodways, and introducing Western disease-promoting diets. Animal proteins derived from laboratories or insect farms will not circumvent this bodily violence on peoples living in the wake of colonial terrorism. Neither will the perpetuation of domestication, which is nothing more than the perpetuation of the idea that bodies can be controlled for their own good by a more powerful group (which inevitably stands to benefit from that control).

Food culture and taste are malleable. Foodways have shifted dramatically with colonization, modernization, globalization, and Westernization. Only in recent years has animal protein become a major part of the human diet (even in Western cultures, animal protein only started to be heavily consumed in the late 20th century). Eating animals is only a recent cultural turn; it can be reversed. Why not focus on popularizing low-violence foods instead of aggravating a new modern trend that causes so much suffering for Nonhuman Animals?

I suspect that these high-tech solutions popularized by Milburn and other welfare advocates pander to capitalism and the powers that be. Capitalism may dazzle academics, activists, and charities with the funding it can provide for compromised anti-vegan positions, but it will never be at the heart of a vegan revolution. Only when the anti-speciesism movement begins to challenge the ubiquitousness of capitalism in our movement strategies and seriously invest in promoting veganism as an ethic and practice will progress be made.

 

Readers can learn more about abolitionist veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Grill Power: Feminism in Men’s Meat Market

A number of vegan feminists have noted the ways in which sexism and speciesism intersect. Few, however, acknowledge the role of capitalism in exaggerating this entangled oppression.

Capitalism often exaggerates the gendering process to maximize consumption. Instead of buying one family razor for everyone to share, for instance, households are encouraged to purchase a razor for him and a razor for her. Each razor will be packaged and designed to cater to imagined differences in how women and men shave (with a pink tax often applied for the women's version).

For masculinized types of consumption, a case must be made as to why women should partake for this strategy to work. Shaving was once a primarily male domain in the West. Razor companies, hoping to expand their market, began appealing to ideations of gender differences in the early 20th century and exaggerated them to convince women to start purchasing razors to remove body hair that, at one time, was not seen as antithetical to femininity. This is a campaign that is currently being waged by Western corporations in Asia where women's body hair has not been as problematized.

In Critical Animal Studies, similar patterns can be identified. Many forms of speciesist consumption that involve directly working with the bodies of exploited and/or dead animals are masculinized. To increase sales, capitalists will sometimes advertise directly to women, reworking gender norms to align masculinized practices with women's consumerism. By way of example, the "hunting" industry has lost much of its consumer base as killing other animals continues to lose its appeal. With almost all "hunters" being male, the industry has attempted to compensate for falling sales by directing ad campaigns at women.

Co-opting feminist values to promote consumerism is a common tactic. Shaving and "hunting" can be "empowering." Participating in men's consumerism is "equality." Capitalist appeals to women's political interests easily subvert the real meaning of feminism. Feminism is not just about choice in the marketplace, it is about restructuring society in such a way as to eliminate unequal life chances and access to resources based on socially constructed differences.

Vegan feminism would argue that tweaking speciesist masculinized consumption to include women subverts anti-speciesism as well. It does nothing to challenge the fetishization of commodified bodies. The "pork" industry attempted to boost the sales of dead pigs, for instance, by launching a campaign to encourage women to get grilling. "Ladies everywhere" are encouraged to "step out of the kitchen" and rub pigs' flesh according to their "mood" and desire for "intensity." Although Mother Jones was quick to highlight the blatant sexism of the advertising materials in which women are belittled as "grill girls," "ladies," "hot mamas, "spicy girls," and "gal pals," nothing was said about the extreme violence experienced by the pigs who are objectified as "pork."

Capitalism's creation or aggravation of tropes about men, women, people of color, animals, and other groups facilitates particular identities that, in turn, facilitate consumption as consumers work to fulfill those identity expectations. Expanding gender identities to challenge the divide between masculinized and feminized consumption may seem to advance feminist ends, but, as these examples show, they often fall flat. Furthermore, they are ultimately interested in profit, not liberation. So long as the objectification of vulnerable groups remains unchallenged as is almost always the case with Nonhuman Animals, capitalism and its exploitative nature will continue to divide and dominate for the benefit of society's most privileged.

 

Readers can learn more about the intersections of capitalism, veganism, and feminism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Britain’s Rental Pet Policy and What It Means for Nonhuman Animals

When I learned that I would be moving to the United Kingdom to start a new position at the University of Kent, the first thing I needed to do was locate a home to rent. As a single woman in her early 30s, my choices were not many to begin with, but I would find myself seriously encumbered by my one caveat: I have two feline family members.

It turns out that tenancies in the UK are not very friendly to nonhuman tenants. Having no luck whatsoever with online listings, I finally resorted to Skyping each and every realtor that operated in the city of Canterbury to especially inquire about any listings in my price range that allowed animals. I was on the phone all day. I only found one after a landlord graciously decided to make an exception for me. Having no other choice, this would become my home.

I happen to be a committed lifelong vegan and Nonhuman Animal rights activist. I research, write, and speak about anti-speciesism for a living. But I'm also just a human being with basic decency and compassion. Relinquishing Keeley and Trudy so I could start a new career, no matter how amazing an opportunity that would turn out to be, was absolutely not a possibility. Not everyone is as committed to their nonhuman companions or to combatting speciesism, however. More importantly, regardless of how decent or compassionate others might be, not everyone has the same access to resources I had available to me.

As of 2022, between 4-8% of British rental properties accommodate pets. With 1 in 5 Brits (4.4 million) renting, this means that there are not nearly enough "pet-friendly" rentals to go around. This creates a precariousness for those who refuse to relinquish their nonhuman family and friends in order to meet regulations; it creates fatalities for the nonhumans affected. Animals seized, dumped, or responsibly surrendered by humans in service of the "no pet policy" more often than not end up in "shelters" where life chances are poor. Sometimes animals are left behind during moves in hopes they can will be able to survive on their own. This is not to dismiss the horrific emotional suffering of human caretakers who genuinely do care and genuinely have to choose between a "no pets" home or no home at all. No pet policies are literal death sentences.

This speciesist and classist practice, however, is due to change. One of the largest sets of changes to British rental policy is due to transpire in 2022. In addition to offering more humane protection for vulnerable humans (such as those on benefits and increased renter rights with regard to maintenance, housing standards, and unfair evictions), landlords will no longer be able to outright ban "pets" from the property. Unlike in the United States where pet policies are a bit easier to locate because extortionate per-pet/per-month rents and non-refundable pet deposits can be charged, the UK government prohibits additional pet-related charges.

That so many people today live in rented properties is a legacy of land enclosures and colonialism. Through these processes, the dominant class forcibly removed people from common lands. This proved to be an important means of creating disempowerment and dependency. The inability of people to keep companion animals in their rentals is inherently a class issue. "Pets" are prohibited because they supposedly create a financial risk for landlords should they do damage through clawing, urination, etc. This prohibition may protect landlord wealth, but it essentially prohibits entire families from living together.

This policy could save millions of nonhuman lives and enhance the quality of life for their human companions. Attention to oppressive capitalist structures is important, however. The rental system itself is based on inequality. Furthermore, the commodification of "pets" as renters' "property" seems to be perpetuated in policy language. What is needed alongside this plan is a move to ban "breeding" operations so as not to replace one capitalist oppression (extorting those without property) with another (commodifying dogs and cats in the "pet" industry).

 

 

Readers can learn more about the vegan intersectionality in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

PETA, Dahmer, and Intersectional Failure

In 2014, the home of infamous serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer went on the market. This sale was understandably a contentious one. Seventeen boys and men, many of whom were children, gay, prostituted, and/or persons of color were raped, tortured, killed, and sometimes eaten by Dahmer at the site. Twenty-five years later, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) made a bid to purchase it. PETA planned to transform this site of serial killings into a vegan restaurant, making "good out of evil" and turning the building into "the site of a celebration of culinary compassion."

PETA's "any attention is good attention" strategy, however unfounded, is at play here. There are, of course, any number of sites of violence that might be transformed. PETA clearly chose the Dahmer home due to its notoriety. It was also likely chosen due to the minoritized sexuality of the victims: exploiting the notoriety of violence against the LGBTQ+ community is likely to meet less resistance. The public's voyeuristic fascination with the murders is rooted in heterosexism, as is PETA's crass exploitation of it.

Dahmer's home is not just a site of incredible violence; it is a site of incredible violence against marginalized groups. Heterosexism, racism, and classism allowed for Dahmer's prolific killing. Local authorities have been criticized for not acting sooner. Missing person reports made by the victims' family and friends went unheeded, as the victims were deemed "low priority" minorities.

PETA has a history of offending vulnerable groups and undermining potential alliances across social justice movements with similarly offensive tactics. These include protesters dressing as Ku Klux Klan members to protest dog shows as well as media campaigns making crude comparisons with the Holocaust, mocking fat women, and sexually objectifying women.

By exploiting the systemic violence enacted by the dominant class on the most marginalized human groups, activists only reinforce veganism as a practice of that dominant class. Intersectionally-failed tactics obscure veganism's potential to serve as a radical politic for the liberation of all.

An earlier version of this essay was published on April 15, 2014.

Readers can learn more about the social movement politics of Nonhuman Animal rights and veganism in my 2019 publication, Piecemeal Protest: Animal Rights in the Age of Nonprofits. The beautiful cover art for this text was created by vegan artist Lynda Bell and prints are available on her website, artbylyndabell.com.

 

Readers can learn more about intersectional politics in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Frivolous Femininity and Plant-based Eating

 

In my research on the phenomenon of sexualized veganism, I have noted that veganism poses a threat to anthroparchal power in a speciesist society and is thus vulnerable to sexist repressive efforts. Despite decades of stigmatization and discrimination, veganism has nevertheless persisted. Some of this persistence is a result of capitalism's co-optation of veganism. Capitalism has effectively transformed a social justice movement into lifestyle consumerism. Emphasizing the gender politics of plant-based products helps ease a radical resistance movement into the marketplace. Sexualized vegan advertising, in particular, effectively pulls on gender stereotypes, sex, and careless consumption to sell a disempowered, consumer-friendly "veganism."

Consider the American chain restaurant Red Robin. In an advertisement for its large variety of burgers, it makes special mention of its newly available Garden Burger. Speciesist industries will often greenwash their branding in order to avoid critique of other, less sustainable products on offer. Adding a token vegan item, however, is also important for ensuring that one dissenting consumer will not prevent a larger group of speciesist consumers (i.e. their family or friends) from choosing that brand. Companies are thus in the tricky position of needing to accommodate vegans without repelling speciesists. 

Sex depoliticizes. Red Robin's ad, for instance, specifically draws attention to its veggie burger as appropriate for teenage girls in the family who may be "going through a phase." Sexualizing vegan food in this way--by 1) noting the presumed gender of the consumer, 2) disparaging her activism as "a phase," and 3) phrasing this disparagement as "just a phase" to align it with the similarly disparaged LGBTQ+ community--helps to promote it as an option while protecting the anthroparchal status quo. 

By way of another example, American fast-food chain Subway promoted its largely "meat"-based mix-and-match lunch deal as an offer that has "something for everyone." The 'Veggie Delite' sandwich is paired with a white woman stereotyped as a hippie love child. Like the Red Robin commercial, Subway reinforces the sexist notion that healthy and ethical consumption is associated with the feminine gender role. More than this, the trope of the silly, free-spirited, "meat"-free white woman that Subway applies reinforces the idea that veganism is a lifestyle choice frivolously based on one's current mood or appetite; as changing and unserious as women are presumed to be. Veganism presented as a care-free, fun lifestyle choice disassociates it from the serious (and more masculized) realm of politics where veganism threatens the very status quo that enriches Red Robin, Subway, and other violent companies.

 

 

Dr. Wrenn is Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Kent. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology with Colorado State University in 2016. She was awarded Exemplary Diversity Scholar, 2016 by the University of Michigan’s National Center for Institutional Diversity. She served as council member with the American Sociological Association’s Animals & Society section (2013-2016) and was elected Chair in 2018. She is the co-founder of the International Association of Vegan Sociologists. She serves as Book Review Editor to Society & Animals and is a member of the Research Advisory Council of The Vegan Society. She has contributed to the Human-Animal Studies Images and Cinema blogs for the Animals and Society Institute and has been published in several peer-reviewed academic journals including the Journal of Gender Studies, Environmental Values, Feminist Media Studies, Disability & Society, Food, Culture & Society, and Society & Animals. In July 2013, she founded the Vegan Feminist Network, an academic-activist project engaging intersectional social justice praxis.

She is the author of A Rational Approach to Animal Rights: Extensions in Abolitionist Theory (Palgrave MacMillan 2016), Piecemeal Protest: Animal Rights in the Age of Nonprofits (University of Michigan Press 2019), and Animals in Irish Society: Interspecies Oppression and Vegan Liberation in Britain's First Colony (State University of New York Press 2021).

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

How Do I Positively Engage My Non-Vegan Family?

A supportive network is one of the most important factors for sustaining veganism (Cherry 2006). Unfortunately, some individuals find themselves at odds with their non-vegan families. There are a number of reasons why this happens. For instance, most people do not recognize (consciously or not) that Nonhuman Animals categorized as food have the capacity to suffer (Bratanova, Loughnan, and Bastian 2011). Vegans may also be alienated from their families as they are often perceived by non-vegans as “thinking they’re better than everyone else.” This chastising of morally-motivated individuals is something social psychologists have termed do-gooder derogation (Minson and Monin 2011).

Yet, this research also indicates that individuals who feel threatened by veganism will be more open if they are given the opportunity to combat the perceived moral threat. The isolated vegan might therefore benefit from discussing their veganism with family members, even if that discussion becomes uncomfortable.

Unfamiliarity with new foods may also be a barrier to eating vegan with family members. A 2013 study found that non-vegans who were repeatedly exposed to vegan alternatives to “meat” began to view them more favorably. However, participants also reported boredom with the same three products included in the study, indicating the importance of variety (Hoek et al. 2013). Indeed, the human brain is programmed to respond to novelty (Gallagher 2011). This could also be good news for veganism. The large variety of foods associated with vegan cuisine could easily pique the interest of family members. Perhaps even the provocativeness of Nonhuman Animal rights issues may appeal to their novelty-seeking minds.

Active involvement in preparing the food can also be advantageous. Most parents know that having their children help in meal preparation can combat picky eating. This works because effort increases liking. Known as the IKEA effect, the creation of something leads to pride and a positive association with that creation (Norton, Mochon, and Ariely 2011). Family members who are encouraged to prepare a vegan meal may find themselves more favorable to that dish if they have prepared it themselves. 

Lastly, the presence of food itself can win people over. Research has demonstrated that individuals who are given snacks to munch on when presented with new information were more likely to be persuaded (Janis, Kaye, and Kirschner 1965). The positive associations we have with food seem to spill over onto the message. Sharing vegan food with family members will not only increase their familiarity with that food but will also create positive associations with veganism. 

Just be sure that the food is tasty. As Nathan Winograd argues in All American Vegan, nobody is going to be won over by bland, flavorless, or overly healthy offerings. If non-vegan family members are not tempted to taste vegan food, they will not be able to build any familiarity or positive associations!

 

Summary

-Give family members a chance to express their discomfort with your moral choices; an open dialogue may reduce negative attitudes
-When possible, expose family members to vegan foods to increase familiarity and liking
-Try to include a variety of vegan foods to peak interest and avoid boredom
-Encourage family members to create vegan meals themselves, as preparation increases liking
-Provide delicious vegan food for family members when discussing veganism; snacks positively influence persuasion
-Opt for tastier foods over blander health-focused food when sharing with non-vegans

 
Further Reading

Adams, C. 2001. Living Among Meat Eaters: The Vegetarian’s Survival Handbook. Three Rivers Press.

Askew, C. 2011. Generation V: The Complete Guide to Going, Being, and Staying Vegan as a Teenager. Tofu Hound Press.

Torres, B. and J. Torres. 2009. Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World, 2nd ed. Tofu Hound Press.

References

Bratanova, B., S. Loughnan, and B. Bastian. 2011. “The Effect of Categorization as Food on the Perceived Moral Standing of Animals.” Appetite 57: 193-196.

Cherry, E. 2006. “Veganism as a Cultural Movement: A Relational Approach.” Social Movement Studies 5 (2): 155-170.

Gallagher, W. 2011. New: Understanding Our Need for Novelty and Change. Penguin Press.

Hoek, A. et al. 2013. “Are Meat Substitutes Liked Better Over Time? A Repeated In-home Use Test with Meat Substitutes or Meat in Meals.” Food Quality and Preference 28 (1): 253-263.

Janis, I., D. Kaye, and P. Kirschner. 1965. “Facilitating Effects of Eating While Reading on Responsiveness to Persuasive Communications.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1: 181-186.

Minson, J. and B. Monin. 2011. “Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally-Motivated Minorities To Defuse Anticipated Reproach.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3 (2): 200-207.

Norton, M., D. Mochon, and D. Ariely. 2011. “The ‘IKEA Effect’: When Labor Leads to Love.” Harvard Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper No. 11-091.

 

A version of this essay was originally published by VegFund on May 7, 2013.

Readers can learn more about the social psychology of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

Appropriating Anti-Slavery Abolitionism in Anti-Speciesism Claimsmaking

Anti-Slavery, Abolition, and Analogies

In my analysis of four decades of Nonhuman Animal rights claimsmaking, I noticed that all variety of campaigners and charities draw on the language, tactics, and symbolism of anti-slavery efforts to legitimize that of anti-speciesism. Not all of these appropriations are particularly accurate.

Slavery films in a "post-racial" America, Colorlines, notes, are a culturally potent means of negotiating with current social justice politics:

In each instance, Hollywood alters the past to fit the present, feeding our myths and expectations back to us. Slavery becomes both tool and metaphor, revised and rewritten to fit contemporary perceptions of our national past. If “Birth of a Nation” tells us more about 1915 than Reconstruction, “Lincoln” and “Django Unchained” are mirrors for our times, rather than reflections of the slave experience.

For the white-dominated Western Nonhuman Animal rights movement, anti-slavery is too easily appropriated to legitimize structural and tactical decisions. These decisions, I argue, often have more to do with nonprofit politics than actual liberatory efficacy.

For instance, having watched Steven Spielberg's 2012 Lincoln, a film that has been criticized for distorting and whitewashing history, Vegan Outreach co-founder Matt Ball points to the efforts of abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens as evidence of the importance in promoting the reform of speciesism over its outright abolition:

Instead of being "true to himself" – justified and righteous, and on the losing side – he chose possible progress over personal purity, incremental advance over impotent anger.

By "impotent anger," Ball is referring to the "demand full abolition of any and all discrimination." Vegan abolitionists, he suggests, wrongly "insist on nothing less than full and total rights immediately."

There are two problems with this appropriative Hollywood analogy. First, the two movements are, in many ways, not contextually comparable. Second, the claim that vegan abolitionism expects "total rights immediately" is a strawperson argument.

Comparing Anti-Slavery and Anti-Speciesism

While there are certainly some tactical similarities between the two movements, it is a stretch to liken Thaddeus Stevens' position to that of Vegan Outreach. Thaddeus Stevens did not argue for the reform of slavery, but Vegan Outreach has historically favored the reform of speciesism.  Stevens did not suggest a reduced dependence on slavery, as Vegan Outreach suggests reduced flesh consumption.

Human and nonhuman abolitionist movements, despite their similarities, remain two distinct movements, each with unique social, political, economic, and historical circumstances.

First, Britain had already abolished slavery, meaning that abolition in the United States was understood as much more achievable.  Second, the rise of wage-based labor in the capitalist system was demonstrating that the wage-based system was a more efficient and economical means of exploiting laborers and extracting profit. This economic shift was partially responsible for the elimination of slavery in the North prior to the Civil War. Finally, support for the abolition of slavery had grown considerably in the United States. All of these conditions meant that calls for immediate abolition made sense. The human abolitionist movement enjoyed political opportunities that the nonhuman abolitionist movement currently lacks.

Abolition Immediately?

Thanks in no small part to large organizations such as Vegan Outreach that collaborate with exploitative industries in pursuit of reforms, the anti-speciesist movement is not on the verge of abolishing nonhuman slavery and there is no large-scale public support to make demands for "immediate" abolition probable. Vegan Outreach repeatedly misrepresents nonhuman abolitionism by describing it as a futile expectation that speciesism could be ended "overnight."  No anti-speciesist campaigner that I am aware of believes in that possibility.  

Rather, abolitionist anti-speciesists recognize that a vegan-positive culture must be nurtured and that the capitalist system with its exploitative tendencies must be challenged. These are long-term goals. Professionalized charities such as Vegan Outreach, however, impede this process by regularly disparaging veganism and collaborating with capitalist industries to improve their public image and the efficiency of their production. It is not the "fury" or "righteous anger" of anti-speciesists that is impeding abolition. Nay, it is the nonprofit industrial complex and its deradicalizing affect on the Nonhuman Animal rights movement.

A version of this essay was originally published on December 11, 2013.

Readers can learn more about the social movement politics of Nonhuman Animal rights and veganism in my 2019 publication, Piecemeal Protest: Animal Rights in the Age of Nonprofits. The beautiful cover art for this text was created by vegan artist Lynda Bell and prints are available on her website, artbylyndabell.com.

Readers can learn more about the racial politics of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.

https://www.coreyleewrenn.com/what-ad...

Photos from Pete Thorne

Intersections of Vulnerable Identities

Through primary socialization, humans are taught to understand, engage with, and fill various social roles as necessary for participation in society. Nonhuman Animals living in or around human societies are often folded into this socialization process. Socially constructed identities may be projected onto other animals and this can lead to considerable stigma for humans and other animals alike. The politics of "pet" adoption illustrate this.

Color

Consider first how racial constructions reach beyond human groups to shape larger cultural ideas about color meanings. Black dogs and cats are killed in "shelters" in much larger numbers because of their color, for instance. A variety of explanations are offered to explain this, including the notion that black hair makes their facial expressions harder to detect or photograph for public outreach efforts. Complicating this, however, are the underlying stereotypes about blackness. Black dogs are associated with danger or meanness; black cats with evil.

Contemporary conceptualizations of blackness must be contextualized within a long history of racialization and colonization. White supremacy has left a symbolic legacy that pairs blackness with a variety of negative associations. It is important to note here that most humans are not literally white or black-skinned. What this means is that the dominant class has constructed "white" and "black" as symbolic categories (what it means to be "white" or "black"). The disfavoring of black dogs and cats is evidence of the cultural, racialized understanding of blackness as something bad that should be avoided.

Age

Elderly Nonhuman Animals also face significant challenges in shelters. Adoptions tend to favor cuter and moldable puppies and kittens. When companion animals age, they are seen to decline in "value," with many "owners" relinquishing them because they have expensive health problems or are otherwise considered a burden.

In many Western and capitalist societies, the self-worth of humans is also linked to their ability to "contribute" to society and to be "productive."  Older persons experience profound discrimination and are disproportionately subject to physical, psychological, or financial abuse.  As with humans, dogs and cats who are believed unable to perform their "productive" role in the family (as "pets") or the economy (as "working animals") are highly vulnerable to violence.

Disability

As with elderly companion animals, disabled animals are significantly less likely to be adopted and are at high risk of being "euthanized."  The possession of physical disabilities, mental disabilities, "aggression," "skiddishness," or any other human-determined problematic trait will significantly lower the life chances of Nonhuman Animals. In a society where identity as a domesticated animal is bound inextricably to one's ability to perform a given role for humans, disability is especially dangerous.  Because Nonhuman Animals are not considered persons, but rather property, "defective" property is considered useless and can be discarded or destroyed accordingly.

Ableism, too, emerges from a capitalist work ethic that equates value with productivity.  Disabled humans are often depicted as burdensome in an able-bodied society. They are heavily stigmatized as a result. This stigmatization has resulted in widespread institutionalization in the past. Although institutionalization has been largely replaced by community-based care today, underfunded healthcare has rendered many disabled people without adequate support. Isolation from society persists for many disabled persons, as does disproportionate exposure to abuse and sexual assault.

A Case for Intersectionality

Nonhuman Animals play an important symbolic role in human society by representing the values of a given culture and exposing the mechanics of identity-based social systems. The legacy of capitalism in determining values (and value) is also brought to the forefront when intersections of human and nonhuman experiences are considered. It is clear that combatting speciesism alone will not be sufficient for the liberation of other animals. This is because speciesism is qualified by cultural ideas about race, age, ability, and so on. Intersectionality is not just a matter of multispecies justice; it is a matter of theoretical consistency and clarity.

A version of this essay was originally published on January 18, 2014.

Readers can learn more about the intersectional politics of veganism in my 2016 publication, A Rational Approach to Animal Rights.

Receive research updates straight to your inbox by subscribing to my newsletter.