I’ve been lately dipping into one of my all-time favorite books, Simple Food For The Good Life by Helen Nearing. She and her husband Scott were back-to-the landers, pacifists, and simple lifestyle pioneers in the 1930s through 1970s. They were vegetarian—almost vegan.
I love this cookbook not so much (or really at all) for its recipes, but for the amusing snippets throughout, as well as some delightfully radical ideas (for 1980) about animal rights. But be forewarned: Helen’s thoughts were not in sync with some of the absolutist positions that some activists take today. She was a straight talker and pulled no punches when it came to her disdain for inflexible perspectives.
In her chapter on vegetarianism she says:
“We knew one self-righteous vegetarian who, entertaining us for dinner, ignominiously relegated his wife and daughter, still flesh-eaters, to the kitchen to eat while we were served with our host in the dining room. This hardhearted purist had much to learn about right living, although he was on the track to right diet.”
I saw a couple of items this week that made me wonder what Helen would think about some current animal rights controversies. The first was the new billboard funded by Mercy For Animals. It stands on a highway in Michigan where it is seen daily by more than 50,000 commuters. With a picture of an adorable puppy and even more adorable piglet it asks “Why love one and eat the other?” and offers the punch line: “Go Vegetarian.”
To me, it’s a brilliant piece of activism. But some complained that it was vegetarian education as opposed to vegan education. Well, maybe so. But what do you do when people are zooming down the highway, and you’d like to talk to them about factory farming? If you’re smart, you craft a message that makes a quick point followed by a strong and instantly logical statement.
The Mercy for Animals billboard did just that. They are a pro-vegan group, but they know that you can’t easily capture the argument for veganism in a simple graphic and a few words. So instead of doing nothing, they did something that is actually bound to cause people—lots of people—to think about where their food comes from.
Early this week I also heard objections to an excerpt from the Animal Activist’s Handbook that appeared on the website of United Poultry Concerns. Authors Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich talked about the myth of humane meat production, saying:
“If we insist that we must consume actual animal flesh instead of a vegetarian option, it’s naïve, at best, to believe any system will really take good care of the animals we pay them to slaughter.”
This provoked some criticisms, again, about the use of the word vegetarian. I think that misses the point entirely. If people have made a commitment to eat only “humanely-produced” meat, it makes sense to talk to them about why humane meat is a myth and why they should think about giving up all meat. That message has immediate relevance to the specific situation at hand and opens the door to further conversation.
Some would say we should talk only about veganism and animal rights philosophy. My own experience, based on years of providing dietary and lifestyle education, tells me that this type of approach is dead wrong. But I emailed a friend to get a little reality check about it. She’s an educational psychologist with both academic and real life experience in her field; she’s also a vegan and animal rights proponent. Her long reply to my questions explained the futility of narrow and inflexible positions, and ended with this:
“It’s simply idiocy to think that you can more effectively address this issue with absolutism. Trying to get to the end point by flat refusal to consider anything but your own absolutist position (however morally right) is simply not going to open the necessary “mind doors” to begin to alter values.”
By no means is any of this saying that we should never talk about veganism. And it is certainly not about promoting vegetarianism as a “gateway” to veganism. More often than not, we can indeed find a way to talk about vegan lifestyle or at least plant a little seed. I always seek out those opportunities. But I also know that sometimes, it is more appropriate and more meaningful and more effective to use the word “vegetarian” in order to get people’s attention. If we miss those opportunities—either by ignoring them or choosing the wrong language—we are missing a chance to make a difference for animals.
I don't know, Ginny… I have trouble when I see the word "vegetarian" being used to promote the idea of veganism and animal rights. Vegetarianism (a diet that still includes dairy and eggs) is certainly not animal rights because it takes the position that there is some sort of difference between animal flesh and other animal products.
In the Mercy for Animals ad, why wouldn't they just say "Go Vegan?" People would still get the same message and they would understand that it's not just about flesh, but about animal products all together. I think it would have a stronger and more morally consistent nature to it if it told people to go vegan instead of vegetarian.
Most people I talk to think that "vegetarian" means still eating dairy and eggs. So, if they think this big animal advocacy group is merely calling for them to go vegetarian, why would they do more than that?
I'm willing to bet not too many people "go vegetarian" after seeing that sign, but they probably make incremental steps towards it after that. That being said, if it said "go vegan" they'd probably do the same thing. So, why compromise our ethics and confuse people?
Not trying to be argumentive ;), but I just don't really get the "vegetarian" argument….
I also selectively use vegetarian vs vegan depending on the situation, the relationship, the history etc as Ginny has described and I think it's appropriate for Mercy for Animals to do so also.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that Donald Watson coined the word vegan b/c he was disappointed & annoyed that vegetarian NO LONGER meant a purely plant based diet as had been true among the historical Pythagoreans etc.
Some progressives want to take back the word "patriot" to a less narrow minded, jingoistic definition and some religious progressives want to take back the word "Christian" and redefine it to align it with the values exhibited by Jesus' life.
Likewise, I think it's okay to use vegetarian as originally defined to mean plant based/vegan diets as an opening for dialogue in certain situations. Whereas the word vegan may be more likely to scare & intimidate some omnivores.
The MFA billboard clearly has their logo on it and so the word "mercy" is planted somewhere in the viewer's brains along with the images of the puppy and piglet and the word vegetarian.
Those that are "ripe" or just super curious or bored are likely to google MFA and will quickly find out exactly what they mean by "mercy".
Others that are not as far along in their evolution/education or have lingering "militant vegan" wounds will still have the images and the words burned into their memories to be jiggled loose the next time they see a puppy, a piglet or "vegetarian" or "mercy".
Thanks, Ed and Danita; I really appreciate hearing your thoughts.
I agree, Ed, that a “Go Vegan” message is stronger and more consistent with our moral position on both animal suffering and animal rights. What I am saying here is that sometimes, a refusal to be a little bit flexible in our language can reduce our effectiveness. Not all of the time or even most of the time, just sometimes.
I absolutely disagree that using the word vegan on the MFA billboard would cause people to “understand that it's not just about flesh, but about animal products altogether.” That is a much more complex message that requires an entirely different educational/message format. In most settings we can explain why people should go vegan, and we should. But how are people supposed to make the jump from cute piglet to milk without some type of explanation?
So many people don’t have a clue that non-meat animals suffer on farms. Many have only the fuzziest concept of what vegan means. We want to change that, of course, but the first step is to get their attention. We need to produce that “aha” moment when they “get it” about animals and food.
And as Danita noted, and we all know very well, the word vegan can indeed be intimidating to some omnivores. So in a broad outreach setting like this—where there is no chance to make a personal impression—it might fail to get people’s attention.
I’m not abandoning the word vegan or trying to diminish its importance. I’m not promoting lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. I’m just suggesting that we choose our words carefully in order to make the most progress toward animal rights, rather than adhere to ideals that may feel best and right to us, but are really wrong for the situation.
"…but they know that you can’t easily capture the argument for veganism in a simple graphic and a few words…"
Excuse me? "Go Vegetarian" VS "Go Vegan". It even costs less for the signwriters for goodness sake!
The ease of which the words are written on a billboard are equal, the difference in the message is enormous. Let's stop stigmatizing the word vegan, there's a good place to start. As long as we continue, especially as animal advocates, to stigmatize it so tragically and unnecessarily, in public and private, we will NEVER EVER have a chance to change anything. Please help us to end the stigmatization of the word vegan. Please! We can do it if we want to. Easily!
How is "vegetarianism" instantly logical? Vegetarianism is an entirely inappropriate message because it helps people to conceive what is a false distinction between two arbitrary kinds of animal products.
I have posted a complete argument on this matter as it seems to be coming up a lot.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4198-Vegan-Examiner~y2009m8d14-The-veg-divide-vegans-dont-help-peers-to-fail
Out of curiosity, why not tell people to go pescatarian or anything else that calls for less than veganism but more than omnivorism?
I have to agree with Elizabeth that we need to quit stigmatizing the word "vegan." Going vegan is easy these days yet some advocates treat it like it is some huge ordeal that only a few hardcore people could even fathom.
I agree that we need to be flexible in how we educate people but we need to be flexible with the delivery, not the message. Veganism is where it's at 🙂
i agree that it's a bit odd that they didn't just say "go vegan". for many people the choice to be a vegetarian wasn't even the expression of an ethical philosphy or mind shift, it had to do with human health so the use of animals on the billboard makes even less sense.
It is depressing but at the same time instructive that when welfarists try to attack abolitionism they invariably resort to vacuous stock-phrases ("veganism is self-righteous") and witless sobriquets ("absolutists"). It is also depressing but at the same time instructive that welfarists seem to think that false dichotomies (either promote vegetarianism and welfarism or be self-righteous and offensive) and arbitrary distinctions (between flesh and eggs and dairy) are instantly logical
More specifically, the claim, made of course not only by Ginny but also by many other welfarists, that the vegan message is offensive and self-righteous is based on the absurd assumption that we cannot promote veganism in a respectful, non-offensive way. At the very least that is indicative of a complete failure of imagination. Or perhaps the claim is that veganism is inherently offensive. But this is self-contradictory and unintelligible given that veganism in fact represents respect for the inherent value of all sentient life, as well as peace and nonviolence.
Finally, like a self-help book, welfarists foster the problem and then proffer themselves as the solution. They demonize the abolitonist position as self-righteous, offensive, fanatical, extreme, etc. etc. etc. They then claim that we must promote welfarism and vegetarianism because the public takes abolitionism to be self-righteous, offensive, fanatical, extreme, etc. etc. etc. Perhaps if the animal movement stopped stigmatizing veganism (as Elizabeth put it) the public might be more receptive to hearing a vegan message.
Let's forget about welfarist activism as though it were a bad dream. Instead, let's be clear, unequivocal, and creative in our promotion of abolition and veganism.
I’m just suggesting that we choose our words carefully in order to make the most progress toward animal rights, rather than adhere to ideals that may feel best and right to us, but are really wrong for the situation.
There is word for the idea that we should change our message depending on who are are talking to/the situation we are in, euphemistically referred to as a pluralist and contextualist approach: opportunism.
Moreover, I do not see how, as a
practical matter, it helps in certain situations to eviscerate our message by promoting vegetarianism. Well, I can see how it helps welfarist groups which don't want to alienate their nonvegan donors. What I cannot understand however is how this lack of clarity, coherence and consistency in our message helps nonhuman animals.
I "absolutely" disagree that the word vegan is a turn-off or "absolutist". This past Wednesday a non-vegan, "flesh-eater", co-worker asked me what I thought about carnivores (i.e. lions, tigers, et al) killing and eating other beings. It was an excellent opportunity for vegan (not vegetarian) education. She was very receptive to what I had to say, which included an 'absolutist' *vegan* message.
I never referred to flesh or meat itself, but to "animal products". I never mentioned the word vegetarian, only vegan. Why? Because it was logically consistent with my message. And guess what? She got it! Not polluted by welfarist and lacto-ovo contradictions, she completely understood why I was a vegan.
I will talk to her next this week. I know I made her think. She told me at the end of the discussion that what I said made sense. Whether or how soon she'll go vegan, I don't know yet; but I do know that she doesn't think I'm an "absolutist" or an "extremist". She merely thinks I'm consistent with my beliefs. She doesn't see it through the welfarist lens (because I explained the difference), and if she hears the lacto-ovo welfarist side, she will recognize the inconsistency.
Okay, thanks for your comments everyone. A few responses:
First of all, I want to make sure you understand that this is not about whether we promote vegetarianism or veganism. Mercy for Animals promotes veganism. So do I. This is about finding the best tactics for getting people’s attention and getting them to think about farm animals.
James, I am wondering what it was you saw in my post that struck you as “welfarist.”
Dan, I am also wondering what you saw in my post and my comment that makes you think I would disagree with your approach to educating your co-worker. I had the exact same experience this week with an acquaintance who is currently eating fish, organic dairy and free-range eggs. I explained to her all the reasons why veganism was the far better choice and gave her some materials to read. These circumstances are far different from a billboard that needs to get a message out in a fraction of a second.
I am guessing from the comments here that some of you have not looked very much at the research on how people learn, how they adopt new belief systems and about what educators can learn from marketers.
The reason the word “vegetarian” is the logical punch line (as opposed to pescatarian or vegan) is because there is a direct connection between the little piglet and meat. There is no direct connection between the piglet and non-flesh animal products. That is a connection that requires the person to learn something and think about it.
Yes, you and I know that veganism is the logical response to animal suffering and animal enslavement. Other people don’t get that logic until we show them. There are plenty of opportunities to do that; this billboard is not one of them. I am kind of floored by the fact that you all can’t see that.
This does not stigmatize the word “vegan” for goodness sakes. I did not say anywhere in my post that “veganism” is absolutist. I said that an insistence on using the word vegan in every single circumstance, even when another word might actually have a better chance of getting people to think, is absolutist.
Every knowledgeable educator, advertiser, and PR person knows that you fit your message to your audience. The goal might be the same but you get there with different types of messages. To refuse to accept that is to miss opportunities to advocate for animals.
I agree with that perpective on the MFA billboard, introducing "vegetarian" often, as in my case, leads to further research and then becoming vegan. My only suggestion would be instead of saying "go" vegetarian, I would phrase it more as a kind suggestion and less as a demand by saying "please consider" vegetarian.
Ginny,
I see nothing wrong with using the word vegan in a billboard.
I do see something wrong with using the word vegetarian, because most people know it means eggs and dairy (and fish) are fine (even though lacto-ovos deny that fish is fine). I see eggs and dairy as worse than flesh. I'd rather see someone arbitrarily pick eggs and dairy to stop consuming than flesh, at least from a suffering standpoint. However, any line one draws like that is just silly.
Also, where you see the obvious connection between flesh and slaughter (and a less obvious connection between eggs/dairy and slaughter) to be a reason for putting vegetarian on a billboard, I see it as even much more reason to put vegan on the billboard!
The bottom line is that vegetarianism is arbitrary, and therefore nonsensical (from any standpoint) and should always be criticized and never promoted. It is literally like saying milk from brown cows is fine, but not from white cows. We should give people more credit for at least being able to ask why we have a problem with vegetarianism by promoting only veganism.
Would the "self righteous" vegan be less selfrighteous if the flesh had been human, dog/cat. other cute furry being?Is a Human rights activist inflexible because they boycott Walmart?People need to be accountable for their actions. Non human rights is inherent rights for all non humans, not just some. When we as vegans include the convenient and illusory compassion of those that still hold on to a carnist point of view as valid, we are being complicit in the suffering of non humans through justifying and entrenching that speciesist viewpoint.
Did your psychologist friend forget that concepts repeated assume the patina of truth whether it is justified or not.
This idea of repetition taken as knowledge has been studied by some of the worlds leading philosophers and psychologists studies have shown that human beings have a predisposition to believe proclamations, not based on factual evidence but rather on mere repetition of the statements.
Mainstream "AR" groups act as if the word vegan is a profanity. They hide behind the word vegetarian or even veg*an. This blurring of the lines is detrimental to non humans and is not working. Flesh/cowsmilk consumption are at an all time high. We are the only rights movement to not want to offend, or (gasp)seem angry to the abusers-And they are abusing animals no matter what double speak people use to distance themselves from that fact.
What a perfect waste of a billboard, Mercy for Animals should change their name to Mercy for Some Animals.
But how are people supposed to make the jump from cute piglet to milk without some type of explanation?
picture of piglet, calf suckling, milk bottle. be compassionate. Go Vegan.
or Peaceful Prairie's successful bllboard: closeup of cow with tag in ear. Milk comes from a grieveing mother.
I think the problem here is that we are talking about two different definitions of "vegetarian": a)the traditional one: "no meat" and b)after the most common form of vegetarianism: "ovo-lacto vegetarian"
According to version a) a vegan is a type of vegetarian.
I completely see that the argument for "why no meat?" is much easier to make than for "why vegan?".
I also see two different "animal reasons" for being vegan, a) suffering/not wanting to kill and b) animal rights. I'm blatantly assuming that most vegans came to b) (animal rights) via a) (not wanting to kill animals) and that the gap between a completely speciesist mindstate of a meat eater and a vegan antispeciesist mindstate is too big for most to cross in one go.
People also have to face two different changes a) the way they see animals and b) being able to imagine that veganism is practically doable.
I don't know MFA very well but "mercy" doesn't sound like "rights" to me. They probably have a very different way of promoting veganism that I have and that is great because they will reach very different people from the ones that I will reach.
Thanks for the great post 🙂
"..There are plenty of opportunities to do that; this billboard is not one of them. I am kind of floored by the fact that you all can’t see that…"
"This billboard is not one of them". ??? So so sad. Stop stigmatizing the word vegan. Use it! If we all use it all the time, every single time, it would cease to be so "extreme" seeming to people, and would become equally as common as the word 'vegetarian/ism'. It is terribly frustrating and sad that this discussion even has to take place.
You are vegan. I am vegan. But a very very small percentage of people are vegan. We need more vegans. Let's make it "NORMAL" to be vegan. Let's make that word the default word.
Why on earth would we see that it is not better to make Vegan the default word here? If every single person who promotes animal rights used that word like it was nothing, instead of stigmatizing it to such a degree, it would cease to be such a rarely used word, or a word only used in special circumstances, or only said to people to be judged far enough along in certain stages of realization or whatever crazy elitist mindset is held towards the general public and their ability to see the logic and truth behind why we promote VEGANISM as animal rights advocates, and not vegetarianism.
This resistance to using the word vegan in every single circumstance when talking about non-human animals and any exploitation of them, no matter whether it be rodeos, milk, flesh, clothing, whatever, this resistance to using that word is not helping us, and therefore is not helping them.
Please help us make the word vegan the default word. That is what needs to happen, and I think the reasons for that are obvious! It is not a competition about who is right, it is about making the word vegan mainstream. That is what needs to happen, and we can make that happen by using it 100% of the time! It is morally consistent and will resonate more. It takes away ALL the confusion. We have to start now. This is a way of 'uniting'. This is a call to unite in a message, and is no way being divisive or attacking (I don't know if that was said this time, that we are being "divisive" or "attacking" but usually it is so I am addressing that just in case). I am asking for people to help us make the word vegan the default word and the concept of veganism as widely understood and heard about as is currently the concept of vegetarianism. Is that so difficult? Is that so much to ask? I think not.
Nope, I haven’t used the word divisive, here and I’m very happy to hear differing opinions on this issue. What does make me a little crazy is hearing a particular meaning attached to my post that was not part of what I was saying at all.
I am not stigmatizing the word vegan. (This blog is called The Vegan Dietitian.) And I’d like to point out to our anonymous commentator that I did not use the words “self-righteous vegans” anywhere in my post and I hope I haven’t used them in anything I’ve written.
I am talking about something so entirely different and it’s kind of interesting that people see this as a welfarist approach (?) or an attack on veganism or a condemnation of vegans or a failure to appreciate that vegetarian diet is completely different from vegan lifestyle/philosophy.
What I was talking about here is how people learn or hear messages. How do we choose language to take advantage of that to get people thinking about farm animals in a way that will make them open to a vegan message? While I understand—and respect—that others disagree, I really do feel very strongly that, as an instantaneous message, MFA’s billboard was most likely more effective with the word vegetarian. I wish we could do some kind of study on that, though, because there is no way of ever knowing for certain.
I also think that Elizabeth makes an excellent point about the need to make the word vegan mainstream. It hasn’t convinced me that I’m wrong about the use of the word vegetarian in these two very specific cases, but I do agree that it’s an issue that has to be given some weight when we make decisions about how to formulate messages.
And finally, I think Christian is absolutely right that different approaches reach different people. That’s why I argue against an inflexible position that says there is only one way to do things. So even if you disagree with me on the use of the word vegetarian, I hope you would at least agree that it’s good to explore different approaches to educating people about veganism and animal rights.
It is my understanding of the most recent VRG data that it is very likely that the majority of true vegetarians in the US are vegan – that is, all those that 100% abstain from all flesh eating (therefore includes vegans and ovo/lactos but not those that rarely or occasionally have chicken, fish etc).
The umbrella meaning of vegetarian as those not eating flesh & flesh products is more accurate than assuming all vegetarians are ovo/lacto. If you are a vegetarian you belong to one of the many subsets that do not consume any flesh, vegan being one of them and probably the largest subset.
Ovo/Lacto's need to be called Ovo/Lacto Vegetarians and NOT just "vegetarians" so that the ovo and lacto is emphasized and not forgotten. Especially since many ovo/lactos eat a hell of a lot of dairy and eggs. If the label needs to be shortened it should be "ovo/lacto's" not "vegetarians".
Why should the veg folk that still eat animal products get to claim the umbrella term for themselves and ALSO get to leave off the terms for the animal products from their identity. To me it's like assuming all humans are men unless told otherwise or all people are white unless identified as not or using the term animal for all creatures except humans.
The word vegan works best most of the time but from my experience the word vegetarian is a better choice in certain circumstances.
I also agree that if there are any arbitrary cruelty lines to be drawn it would be better to educate the masses about dairy and egg consumption first.
Perhaps a solution is that drive by education efforts that require "sound bite" messages and limited opportunity for further discussion/clarification should emphasize dairy/egg issues instead of meat i.e. pictures of chicks & baby robins or nursing calves & nursing kittens/puppies so that "Go Vegan" makes more sense to the masses.
Virginia said: ''I am guessing from the comments here that some of you have not looked very much at the research on how people learn, how they adopt new belief systems and about what educators can learn from marketers. ''
The notion that animal educators can learn anything from marketers marks the core of the welfarist mindset. That's why welfarist campaigns are in fact designed as marketing campaigns, and in these terms, catching attention is indeed a crucially important factor that decides whether the campaign is a success or a failure. Marketing in animal advocacy plays the same role that it does in animal industry: it keeps a business running safely, efficiently, and profitably.
Animal welfarism, any activism, that is, which promotes or approves of anything else than veganism and the abolition of animal exploitation, is a business, represented by , ''compassion companies,'' as Gary Francione writes in his blog essay, ''A Revolution of the Heart,'' which '' compete for shares in the market for compassion,'' ''sellers of indulgences,'' like the medieval church, which people buy and are willing to spend a lot of money on because it makes them feel better about the continued consumption and use of animal products.
The relationship between organizations which claim to speak and act on behalf of animals but promote some form of animal exploitation – ''happy'' meat / ''cage-free'' eggs or vegetarianism – and animal industry is a mutually beneficial partnership in which both sides help sustain each other. It is obvious that those animal advocates involved in this have learned a great deal from industry in terms of marketing and public relations. Working hand in hand, the marketers on both allegedly opposite sides of the fence address the public as people who need to be manipulated into whatever is deemed desirable, who are irrational and incapable of critical thinking. Educators, in contrast, address people as being capable of critical rational thinking. There is nothing that educators, that is, those who are not selling anything but who are working to bring about social change, can learn from marketers because social change cannot be achieved through marketing, because people cannot be manipulated – or, as activists in favour of ''direct action'' delude themselves, harassed or intimidated, into it.
Abolition can be achieved only through educating people about veganism in a creative, non-violent way.
Please read up on "social marketing" and then decide if there is anything that animal educators could learn from it. These days not all "marketing" is manipulative or for financial gain.
It amazes me that people think that using the word "vegan" with meat-eaters is going to create more change than "vegetarian." Having been an activist for 2 decades now, I have seen over and over that people have a block against the word "vegan" — too hard, too fanatic, etc.
Seriously, did everyone here go vegan overnight? About 95% of the vegans I've met evolved into that diet.
Of course, I understand the personal desire to be "consistent" and to celebrate / praise / promote my own personal veganism. But for me at least, creating change is far more important than my personal gratification (or some abstract argument, etc.). Reality should dictate our lessons, not our personal desires, IMO.
Some thoughts:
– The word "vegetarian" may be more readily accepted by people because it has a softer sound and is related to things that are familiar to them: "vegetation" and "vegetables." Not that people will go through this analysis when they hear the word; it's subliminal.
– I don't think it's fair to criticize someone who is trying to consider various aproaches to getting people to go vegan – such as seeing if selectively using the word "vegetarian" will get more people's attention – as "welfarist," where "welfarist" is used as a derogatory insult, and furthermore doesn't even describe the intentions or philosophy of the person.
I took a graduate-level class that was intended to teach public-sector and non-profit managers about marketing. Prior to the class, I thought "marketing" was defined as "convincing people to buy a product," but in class I learned that the science and psychology of marketing is actually all about influencing others to CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR. Using marketing to influence people to buy more Coca-Cola or Pepsi is just a subset of what marketing can do. Public agencies need marketing campaigns to convince people to conserve water, to get AIDS testing, to get yearly breast exams, to avoid credit card debt, to take the bus instead of driving to work, etc. If they have a good marketing campaign, lots of people will change to the desired behavior; if they don't, they won't. It's not about manipulation, but it is about persuasion.
Anyone who wants to enact change within society, an organization, or even a small family unit, would do well to learn effective marketing techniques. I highly recommend books such as "Marketing for the Public Sector" for activists who want to be successful in promoting social change.
I agree, I don't like that the word vegan gets stigmatized. I proudly wear T-shirts that say GO VEGAN to help destigmatize the word and help people see that regular happy smiling people are vegan.
However, based on my experience, I believe that most non-veg people automatically attach words like militant, strict, self-righteous, and extreme to the front of the word vegan. Sadly, a lot of this has to do with anti-vegan marketing from science, medicine, the government, and industry, and a lot of it has to do with real experiences with real vegans (I've been an angry vegan myself).
If we want to effectively convey our message, we need to be careful about word choice. We should not blindly use the word Vegan in all cases, just because we WISH the word "VEGAN" didn't have the negative connotations that it does. For a billboard like the one with the pig and the dog, from Mercy for Animals, I agree with the Vegan Dietician; I think it was wise NOT to use the word Vegan. As an improvement, I think "Go Veg!" would have been fine.
Even better, if there was space, would be: "Why love one and eat the other? (above the picture, and then:) Why not try a meat-free meal tonight? (below the picture)"
Clearly lots of people posting here will disagree, thinking I'm making it too easy or diluting the message. Well, like Anonymous who posted here, I agree that lots of people go vegan gradually. Rather than telling everybody they MUST GO VEGAN RIGHT NOW, we can show them how they can choose veg instead of meat/dairy/egg once in awhile, and we can all feel good about that. As long as we are getting people to reduce suffering by demanding and consuming lesser amounts of animal products, we are on the right track. Messages like this can help people see that they can make small changes and start moving in the direction they want to go.
Honestly, I am so excited that groups such as Mercy for Animals are raising funds to create billboards and marketing campaigns to counteract the negative images put out by the anti-veg industries!
I wanted to respond to Dan Cudahy: "I see eggs and dairy as worse than flesh. I'd rather see someone arbitrarily pick eggs and dairy to stop consuming than flesh, at least from a suffering standpoint. However, any line one draws like that is just silly."
Like Dan, I am especially opposed to the consumption of dairy products; I see ZERO justification for adult mammals (humans) to act as parasites, consuming the breast milk from other mammals. Since breast milk is only intended for infants, we clearly have no health/nutritional basis for consuming it as adults. Meanwhile, unlike (I'm sure) many of those posting here, I believe we are omnivores, and I don't have a problem with ancient hunter-gatherers (or people in impoverished conditions and/or less developed countries today) eating meat. I'm vegan because in the wealthy modern society I live in, raising animals for meat is unnecessary; we have so many other fantastic (and much more healthful) vegetarian foods to eat instead. In my situation, consuming meat and other animal products is unnecessary cruelty.
The above is background for a point I want to make, which is: just because I think dairy is the most unnecessary of all animal products, doesn't mean that it's more important to avoid dairy than it is to avoid meat. Allow me to explain.
I came upon this philosophy in the "The Animal Activists Handbook" by Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich. In this book, the authors state that a serving of fish or chicken causes more suffering than a serving of beef, pork, dairy, or eggs. I think they said the usual American milk-drinker consumes only 1/30 of the production of one cow in one year. So … if you convince 30 people to drink soy/hemp/almond/rice/etc milk instead of cows' milk for one year, you save one cow from suffering for one year. But if you convince someone to eat a vegan meat substitute instead of chicken for an entire year (even while they are still eating their usual servings of other animal products), you are saving dozens of chickens from months of misery (their entire short lives) and slaughter.
This concept from Matt and Bruce's book was new to me, so I wanted to share it with the group.
If you've got any questions, just read the book!
"And I’d like to point out to our anonymous commentator that I did not use the words “self-righteous vegans”"
Helen’s thoughts were not in sync with some of the absolutist positions that some activists take today. She was a straight talker and pulled no punches when it came to her disdain for inflexible perspectives.
In her chapter on vegetarianism she says:
“We knew one self-righteous vegetarian who, entertaining us for dinner, ignominiously relegated his wife and daughter, still flesh-eaters, to the kitchen to eat while we were served with our host in. . .
So confusion reigns. The above points to a vegan in the guise of a vegetarian being self righteous. Why include this specific passage then? Certainly the above comment is not about an ovo lacto vegetarian.
There's no way that dairy products can possibly be humane, but eggs can, if you raise your own chickens and take care of them even after they are too old to lay.
If you want to avoid buying chicks from a hatchery – where the male chicks are tortured to death – then your first bunch will probably have to be from a hatchery, but thereafter you can get chicks by allowing your hens to go broody if they are so inclined. Old heirloom varieties of hens are more likely to want to sit on eggs to produce chicks.
Also, keep in mind that whatever chicks you hatch at home may turn out to be males. So, if you want to be supermoral about your diet, you have to let them live till they get old & die.
None of this, by the way, is hard to do. I have done it.
Its time to start being honest and authentic. If someone asks for directions to Utah, you don't tell them how to get to New York, because its easier.
If we, as vegans can't even have the courage to openly state our intentions about wanting to live in a vegan world, then how can carnivorous people trust us to be honest about anything else. Why do we need to be underhanded and dishonest?
If people don't understand what vegan means, they can look it up, or we can explain it to them. The sooner we stop confusing the issue, the sooner people will start understanding veganism means the sincere intention to live compassionately and not feel that they are being manipulated into something other than what we are saying.
Straight talking is being honest about where we are at, not being judgemental about where they are at. We do not need to be ashamed of being vegan. We can joyfully shout it from the rooftops! If it makes people feel uncomfortable, that is their own issue and we can excercise patience and compassion while they work at dissolving their own prejudices.
I would like to know how many people here actually come in contact with non-vegetarians (or even non-vegans) during their daily life. The majority of people simply do not think like we do. How many here went vegetarian before they went vegan? I know I'm one of them, and all my vegan friends bar ONE went the same path. I personally agree with the approach on the MFA billboard.
To those who criticize what was written, how many people have you actually gotten to stop eating animal products? Please, do share!
I am guessing from the comments here that some of you have not looked very much at the research on how people learn, how they adopt new belief systems and about what educators can learn from marketers.
As someone holding a degree in psychology, I have studied how people learn and I agree with your psychologist friend entirely. I have nine "converts" under my belt thus far, none of whom would have given up eating animals had I approached them about being vegan from the onset. Of these, two took the next step to veganism within a year of going vegetarian. A couple of the others are showing interest and the rest will be tackled over time as they become more comfortable in their new skins.
I keep hearing that vegetarianism is not a gateway to veganism, yet, every vegan I've ever met, online and in person, with the exception of two people, have gone from omni, to vegetarian, to vegan. Why? Because as omnis, people are less open to scrutinizing themselves and their way of life. As vegetarians, they can look at the hard questions more easily, as they no longer find themselves in a position wherein the defence of animal slaughter is necessary and clouds/colors their views.
Some of the more outspoken vegans who have gone through this transition themselves, seem to forget this simple fact. I know someone who blogs about this quite passionately. She does not tolerate the transitional period of vegetarianism, yet, that is exactly how she got to where she is today (she is an animal rights activist). I clearly remember her "falling off the wagon" and going back to dairy for a while after going vegan, but I dare not remind her, seeing how strongly she feels about this now.