ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Vegan is a word coined by Watson in 1944. It is a neologism. As such it is subject to rapid evolution in meaning that is known to be the fate of neologisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism#Evolution_of_neologisms

I suggest that it is a strategic mistake for the abolition movement to use this word as a significant part of its rhetoric because the movement cannot control how the word's meaning will evolve. Because the larger society is the principle influence on the evolution of our language, it is likely that the word "vegan" will become increasingly welfarist in meaning. It is peferable to use rhetoric that is not subject to reinterpretation or distortion, such as "the non-use and non-ownership of animals".

I think, though, that it is extensively used in the movement precisely because it is easily reinterpreted to mean what the user desires it to mean, so it can serve as a shield against more critical scrutiny. For instance, it's easy for me to say at work that I am vegan because it allows me to be vague about exactly what that implies. Whereas it would be much more problematic for me to say at work that I am opposed to the use and ownership of animals.

This defensive posture may be useful to us in mixed social situations, but is counterproductive for the movement to be this vague in its rhetoric. The word "vegan" should not be used at all in statements on abolition and should be replaced with the most explicit and descriptive alternative consisting of words of well-established and unambiguous meaning in every case. It would be a waste of time for the movement to attempt to control the meaning of the word.

sheepdog wrote:Vegan is a word coined by Watson in 1944. It is a neologism. As such it is subject to rapid evolution in meaning that is known to be the fate of neologisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism#Evolution_of_neologisms

I suggest that it is a strategic mistake for the abolition movement to use this word as a significant part of its rhetoric because the movement cannot control how the word's meaning will evolve. Because the larger society is the principle influence on the evolution of our language, it is likely that the word "vegan" will become increasingly welfarist in meaning. It is peferable to use rhetoric that is not subject to reinterpretation or distortion, such as "the non-use and non-ownership of animals".

I think, though, that it is extensively used in the movement precisely because it is easily reinterpreted to mean what the user desires it to mean, so it can serve as a shield against more critical scrutiny. For instance, it's easy for me to say at work that I am vegan because it allows me to be vague about exactly what that implies. Whereas it would be much more problematic for me to say at work that I am opposed to the use and ownership of animals.

This defensive posture may be useful to us in mixed social situations, but is counterproductive for the movement to be this vague in its rhetoric. The word "vegan" should not be used at all in statements on abolition and should be replaced with the most explicit and descriptive alternative consisting of words of well-established and unambiguous meaning in every case. It would be a waste of time for the movement to attempt to control the meaning of the word.

We can have the best of both worlds here. I like "the non-use and non-ownership of animals" as a slogan and I imagine it used thus: "The abolitionist animal rights approach stands for the non-use and non-ownershio of nonhuman animals and, therefore, insists that lifestyle veganism is its moral baseline position on human-nonhuman relations".

We'll never be able to stop the contestation of the meaning of words: "guardian" is presented by pet keepers/controllers as a way of suggesting that their nonhuman "companions" are not property.

RY

I think the abolitionist movement will, among other things, disclose to people the necessity and rightness of abolition through its authority. Its authority will partly come from its having a kind of disciplined purity (which has nothing to do with purism in the pejorative sense. The accusation that abolitionists are "purists" is one of the most wrongheaded criticisms of the abolitionist movement that there is). We invest the idea of veganism with a disciplined purity when we make it a nonnegotiable baseline. As vegans, this is partly where our authority comes from – from making veganism a baseline that we do not compromise.

By contrast, the welfare movement thinks that making veganism a baseline is too “extreme.” Ironically, however, its not making veganism a baseline is partly what accounts for people’s being unresponsive to it, for welfarists' veganism thereby lacks the kind of disciplined purity need to make it authoritative. The welfare movement itself concedes that people are unresponsive to its way of promoting veganism (which is basically to make veganism a mere consumer choice), for it uses unresponsiveness to veganism as a justification for its promoting welfarism.

So I think it is less clear that veganism is problematic when people are unresponsive to, and I would say never will be responsive to (because they do not invest veganism with the kind of disciplined purity (which comes from making it a nonnegotiable baseline) that is needed in order for us to speak and act with authority), the welfarists’ way of promoting it. (I often hear people in the welfare movement say that it does not matter what they do or how they it as long as it works. The profound mistake here is that how we do things -- the form -- is as important as the content, for the import of what we say and do is not always extractable from the manner of its disclosure. I know that that is philosophically controversial but I think it is true. For example, Vegan Outreach say that veganism is not just a list of banned ingredients. Of course that is true-- and I don't think any animal rightist ever suggested that veganism is just about reading labels. But that does not mean that the disciplined application of veganism to our own lives which is partly expressed in the attention we pay to not consuming any animal derived products is not internal to the authority that moves others to become vegans themselves.)

I fully agree that we have to grow and mature as a movement, which entails responding to problems and challenges; but I do not think that we have to disavow everything that the welfare movement tries to appropriate. We cannot persistently “start life over again” in response to what the welfare movement is doing. If the abolitionist movement persistently flees from its past because of what others are doing, then it will almost have a refugee status -- completely deracinated. It will lack the kind of rootedness and unity that it needs in order to speak and act with authority. Integrity and authority require a kind of fidelity to what is past. Only then will we have a centre out of which we can speak and act with authority.

I do not think that we have to disavow everything that the welfare movement tries to appropriate. We cannot persistently “start life over again” in response to what the welfare movement is doing.

These statements suggest that it is the welfare movement that is the driving force and it is the abolitionists who are reacting to the driving force. You, of all people, I would expect to know that once abolition has been internalized, then it is abolition that is the driving force. Welfarism becomes irrelevant. Thus one who has realized what abolition means will never again "respond to what the welfare movement is doing". Whenever this is not true it can only be not true because the mind responding to what the welfare movement is doing is still operating within the constraints of welfare thinking and thereby subject to being influenced by welfarism. If you know that animals are not to be used and not to be owned, that alone, and nothing else, determines your every action. Certainly not the welfare movement. You must know this.

Orthogonal to this, though, it is common sense that if one desires to be understood, then one should use the clearest, most unambiguous language available. I find "vegan" to be a word used not for its communication but instead as a "red badge of courage" and a symbol of camaraderie. That's fine for internal communication for bonding purposes. But that purpose certainly makes no sense in external communications with a general audience. If you think that wearing that "red badge of courage" is a symbol of authority that will be understood and respected by the uninitiated, well, I believe there is a long history of human communications that supports the idea that using the clearest language is more likely to be effective than waving around some symbol of indeterminate meaning.

I completely agree that we should use precise language. My concern is that language’s being subject to appropriation by welfarist interests is a general problem. For example, rags mentioned that some people try to subvert the abolitionist message about non-ownership by saying that, rather than owning animals, we can be their “guardians.” Now if the problem is a general one, and if we should give up veganism because it is imprecise, something which makes it vulnerable to appropriation by welfarist interests, then it seems as though we will merely be reacting to the welfare movement. This is what I disagee with. The abolitionist movement will begin to lack the unity and rootedness which is, I think, a condition of the paradigm shift, for it is a condition of the its having the kind of authority that moves people. (This type of unity and rootedness is exactly what the new welfarist movement lacks. Peter Singer sums this up when he says that advocates should support everyone and eveything, rights and welfare, organic meat and vegetarianism. But the idea that we should support everyone and everything undermines the unity and rootedness we need to have in order to act with authority.)

True, even though the mainstream public doesn't know/has misconceptions about the word "vegan," it is useful for cohesion within the abolitionist movement. We know what it means & I really don't see any substantial evidence that it is being co-opted by welfarists who tend to stick to the more benign word "vegetarian." Who knows what the word will evolve to decades from now, but currently, its "official" definition is pretty standard & unwavering: no consumption/use of animal products. Yes, you can call yourself vegan and not be an abolitionist, but that dichotomy does not negate the fact that to call yourself an abolitionist, you must be vegan.

I do find when I am among people that I know to be ignorant & unreceptive, it is useless to use the word as it is too vague for them to comprehend. It's almost as pointless as using the word "vegetarian," which people like them assume means you still eat fish & chicken It's much more effective to be straight forward & just state you don't consume/use any animal products. Such a direct statement has a better potential to lead to discussion about abolitionism.

James wrote: Now if the problem is a general one, and if we should give up veganism because it is imprecise, something which makes it vulnerable to appropriation by welfarist interests, then it seems as though we will merely be reacting to the welfare movement. This is what I disagee with. The abolitionist movement will begin to lack the unity and rootedness which is, I think, a condition of the paradigm shift, for it is a condition of the its having the kind of authority that moves people.

I agree that the word "vegan" is appropriately used for the purpose of rooting and unifying the abolitionist movement. However, if the word becomes part of welfarism, by being appropriated by the welfarist society, under those circumstances it will then no longer root and unify the abolitionist movement. It will then have the counter effect of actually contributing to the assimilation of the aboilitionist movement itself into welfarism. This is the risk and the general problem.

The ultimate question in the long run is whether or not the abolitionist movement will either give rise to a general paradigm shift or will it merely be absorbed by the existing status quo? Those are the two possibilities. One of the principle means the status quo will use to absorb the movement is to appropriate its language. It is in the interest of the movement to, not only be rooted and unified, but to also do everything possible to avoid and resist merely being absorbed. Language is an essential component in the battle being waged there. Use it as powerfully as possible.

The example of "ownership" being converted to "guardian" is an excellent one. But notice that in order for welfarism to appropriate the word "ownership" they were forced to use a different word. Why? Because "ownership" has a very well understood meaning and they found that it was therefore not subject to the reinterpretation they desired. We should seize upon cases like these and take advantage of them ourselves. How do we do that? Well clearly welfarism is saying here, "'Ownership' is a word dangerous to our welfarism. We must find a less dangerous term." Therefore, to counter welfarism it advances abolition to actually increase the use of the term "ownership". Welfarism has pointed us to one of its weaknesses. It is up to us to recognize it and exploit it. Using language effectively is an essential part of this struggle.

BTW axid, while I agree with most everything you have said, and appreciate your saying it, your language provides an example what I am saying in your use of the word "vegan", and is why I say I am not vegan. I am not vegan. You say that vegan means: "No consumption of animal products." Not good enough. I, on the other hand say, "Opposed to all use and ownership of animals for any reason." Your language implies that the ownership of animals is acceptable as long as you do not "consume" products from animals. Mine makes it clear that ownership is also unacceptable. By your definition I reemphasize, I am not vegan.

Reading threads like this makes me want to go full-on buddhist and give up attachments to all things.

AnimalFriendly wrote:Reading threads like this makes me want to go full-on buddhist and give up attachments to all things.

Right on! The Abolitionist is essentially one who gives up attachments to all things. Like the Buddhist who has given up attachment to all things, she thereby, as an immediate result, becomes attached to Life, as opposed to the welfarist, who must hold onto his attachments -- to things, to animals -- and as a result destroys Life, as we obviously see by the wholesale destruction of our natural environment. The Abolitionist is so attached to Life that she can even give up her need to use or own animals, because the use and ownership of animals leads to the destruction of Life and the Abolitionist is attached only and completely to Life alone.

Abolition means to leave them alone. Completely. To take no part in the lives of animals. There is no "doing good" for them. Whatever we do to them, is done to them, and it is not for us to decide what is to be done to them, just as it is not for me to decide what is to be done to you. That is the release of all attachments.

I don't know how many people here realize the deep and far-reaching implications of Abolition, both spiritually and practically. It is a radical change of consciousness. You should recognize the significant evolution that you have accomplished.

I just wanted to say that my computer died a few days and so I don't have regular access to the internet, but I intend to respond to the new contributions in this thread when I get my computer back.

James