kamaleon, I am simply stating my position. On the other hand, you seem to be constantly on the offensive. I'm not interested in a long drawn out debate. I'm frankly not interested in a debate at all. But since you are making allegations I feel compelled to defend myself. In truth, I'd rather be talking about veganism than defending my position on freeganism.
There is nothing wrong with criticism and judgments. That's all part of a healthy dialog. But "disdain" and "patronizing" are different. These are
ad hominems that attack my motives and character and distract from the discussion. The terms I used all address the positions of freeganism, not the character of freegans.
Dropout: "a person who has rejected conventional society to pursue an alternative lifestyle." This is the heart of the freegan lifestyle, to reject conventional society to pursue a freegan lifestyle. I think veganism is considerably different because it's working to transform conventional society. I think the changes and innovations that vegans are making in our society are a positive example what can be done if you work for change.
Narrowly focused: "limited in extent, amount, or scope; restricted." You have agreed that freeganism is only dealing with symptoms. You have agreed that freegans are focused on one problem - that of waste. So I don't see the harm in pointing out that that is a narrow focus. I think veganism, as Donald Watson pointed out in the 1947 speech, is revolutionary and has broad applications. The following is from a 2002 interview with Donald Watson:
Q: Do you have any message for the millions of people who are now vegan?
A: Take the broad view of what veganism stands for - something beyond finding a new alternative to scrambled eggs on toast or a new recipe for Christmas cake. Realise that you're on to something really big, something that hadn't been tried until sixty years ago, and something which is meeting every reasonable criticism that anyone can level against it. And this doesn't involve weeks or months of studying diet charts or reading books by socalled experts - it means grasping a few simple facts and applying them.
It's that broad view of veganism I'm trying to get across. Veganism is radical, in the sense that it goes to the root of the problems. This is why veganism is different than other movements that deal only with symptoms. It's what makes veganism revolutionary.
Sure these are judgments: "the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions." It would be hard to talk about why I disagree with freeganism if I wasn't allowed to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
Again, I said I am "
at least no more [disdainful] than you and other pro-freegan advocates seem to have for veganism." The fact is, you have been rather dismissive of veganism as a broad, radical movement for revolutionary change. You said it is "highly unpractical." If you consider it "disdainful" for me to say freeganism is "narrowly focused," then the same should go for when you refer to the sort of veganism advocated by Watson as "highly unpractical."
Here is a quote from the first page on Freegan.info, the most comprehensive source on freeganism:
The word freegan is compounded from "free" and "vegan". Vegans are people who avoid products from animal sources or products tested on animals in an effort to avoid harming animals. Freegans take this a step further by recognizing that in a complex, industrial, mass-production economy driven by profit, abuses of humans, animals, and the earth abound at all levels of production (from acquisition to raw materials to production to transportation) and in just about every product we buy.
This is a very superficial definition of veganism that is not reflective of Watson's speech or the "Veganism Defined" letter by Leslie Cross. Regardless, it claims that freegans take things a step farther. The problem is, veganism has always recognized these things. It's this idea that freegans have discovered something new that reflects a colonialist mindset. Like Columbus "discovering" the Americas as if hundreds of millions of people weren't already living there. When I say freegans you a tone of disdain I am talking about this ignorance and disregard for veganism and it's history.
Similarly, "Why Freegan?" considered "the oldest amd most widely circulated essay ... on the subject of freeganism" states:
The vegan theory is essentially a boycott of any products that injure animals in their production. The vegan consumers are flexing their monetary muscle and "voting with their dollars" for the products that don't injure animals. These dollars are voting for coca-cola, big corporate grocery stores, greasy-fast food (we all know Taco Bell vegans), and worse. Shouldn't truly conscientious folks seek something more? I don't vote because no matter who I vote for, the government always wins and when you "vote with your dollars", consumerism always wins, capitalism always wins. So.... make a list of all the unethical practices that really piss you off and make a list of all the corporations and products you want to boycott. Veganism is a good first step, but is your only concern animals? I made this list and when I was done, I couldn't really justify buying anything, I couldn't get behind any aspect of the corporate death consumer machine so I decided to boycott everything. I still spend money sometimes (I love going out for Thai food) but I try to be very conscientious about my consumption. Besides the concern that veganism as an ethic for eating stops short, it is also still a very high impact lifestyle. The packaging from vegan food doesn't take up less space in the landfill or consume less resources just because the food is vegan. The whole produce and consume dynamic is still played out, but the setting is a fancy health food store instead of a supermarket. veganism is not a threat, or a challenge to the wasteful practices of our capitalist society.
Here is where vegans are referred to as drinking Coca-Cola, eating Taco Bell, "and worse." If we are talking about disdain, where would you place this assessment of veganism? This freegan primer takes a view of veganism similar to your earlier criticism asking: "So what's the way forward, advocating conventional economy (aka capitalism) and maximal (or at least anything other than minimal) consumption of resources to produce vegan goods?" Look back at what Watson said and you can see how veganism isn't limited to a concern for nonhuman animals.
Given the two above quotes, and the majority of what I've read about how veganism is referred to in freegan literature, it suggests that freegans do see themselves as a step above veganism. I do think that is unfortunate, because it is a belittlement of veganism's broad ideals by folks who demonstrate a lack of understanding about what veganism is really all about.
The following is from "Should Freegans Be Vegan?":
Because many freegans reject the distinction between vegan and non-vegan goods, recognizing the violence inherent in ALL consumer products produced under industrial capitalism they do not view eating exclusively vegan goods as a "pure" position. Freegans are more interested in our economic relationship with the goods we eat, with the degree to which we actively contribute to the financial well being of these oppressive industries, than they are in drawing imaginary lines between certain goods whose production harm the planet and human and non-human animals called "animal products" and other goods whose production by current methods also harm the planet and human and non-human animals, called "vegan."
Again, freegans are equating vegan with consumer products. This robs veganism of it's philosophy and is a complete misuse of the term. Veganism is the principle of non-exploitation. Nevertheless, the insistence that distinguishing between products that come directly from exploitation and those that do not is "imaginary" is as disdainful as it gets. That is, this freegan article says that veganism is worthless distinction. This as problematic as it is disrespectful. As if whether something was purchased or not is the only thing that matters in the world, it's being argued that there is no difference between whether a person is a slave or not, nor a difference if a being is bred to be exploited and killed or not. If something has a package or released carbon into the air it is equally corrupt. To me, that freeganism don't see a difference between a worker-owned cooperative and a sweatshop exploiting children, nor a difference between breeding nonhumans to be exploited for food and cultivating vegan organic crops for food, is very disturbing. I find this claim that such differences are "imaginary" to lack moral, social and political validity.
I don't see the dilemma you're talking about. From Cross's letter, "Veganism Defined": "Membership [in] the Society is available to all who wish to see the object achieved and who undertake to live as closely to the ideal as personal circumstances permit. An Associate makes no promise as to behaviour but declares himself in agreement with the object."
What Cross is saying is that veganism is no less valid because one person goes to the corporate supermarket and the other goes to a veganic farm. It's not the behavior of any particular vegan. Veganism is a philosophy for social change. The ideal is not limited by what you claim is "reality" or "the current state of affairs." The revolutionary change Watson mentioned requires challenging the
status quo, not adapting to it. I think the example you gave of a veganic workers cooperative is exactly the sort of thing that best represents the vegan ideal.
Alfie Kohn, in a short piece titled "How to Prevent Social Change," offers an apt description of how "idealistic" is used as an
ad hominem:
Occasionally a critic will refuse to resign himself to the way things are or to believe that we are helpless to make change. Such an individual should immediately be labeled "idealistic." Do not be concerned about the vaguely complimentary connotations of having ideals. It will be understood that an idealist is someone who does not understand "the world as it is" ("world" = "our society"; "as it is" = "as it will always be"). This label efficiently calls attention to the critic's faulty understanding of reality or "human nature" and insures that he is not taken seriously. Those who are "pragmatic," by contrast, know that we must work within the confines of what we are given. After all, if alternative models really were workable, we would already be using them.
Not only do I take a broad view of veganism, but I also recognize it as being a revolutionary movement. Veganism is about changing the world for the benefit of the planet and all animals, human and nonhuman alike. I think Kohn is right on with the view that phrases like "the current state of affairs" are used to discourage change.
Your right, I can't comment on what every freegan is doing. I'm only commenting on freeganism. I'm not saying that freegans are pretending to be revolutionary or broadly focused, and I'm not saying that freegans don't work on other projects beyond freeganism. I'm merely comparing and contrasting freeganism with veganism. This seems fair since it's the freegans themselves who are claiming to be literally a step beyond veganism.
If something you get from the skip is "freegan," and that is how freeganism works, then that is a important difference between freeganism and veganism. It also explains how freegans come to equate vegan with consumer products. As I said, veganism is a not the products we by, it is the principle that guides us. I personally don't like to refer to consumer products as "vegan" - although this is a colloquialism I fall into - I think "animal-free" is more appropriate.
It seems like as long as I'm unconverted to the freegan cause whatever I say will be taken as disdainful. So, if that is what you call disdainful, fine but at least admit you are no less harsh or judgmental.
