A Tale of Power & (Di)vision

This following is a response to a post called "A Tale of Power & Vision" by Dani at the excellent vegan blog, The Vegan Ideal. In this post, the following video is used as a model of "how our 'pessimism' and 'pragmatism' works to foster apathy and how 'power' and 'vision' can get us where we want to go."



Although, I honestly wish the world we inhabit were as simple and straightforward as the world in the video, there are three nagging faults within it that I'd like to address:

1. The video's over-simplistic and flawed depiction of the "present" and the "future." Not only does this suggest that the "present" is static and discontinuous with the "future," but it also posits a single future. Yet, there are a plethora of competing futures. Almost everyone is oriented toward some future, or past in the future. The issue isn't just leaping to the other side. Most of the "battle" is convincing everyone else that your future is the best one. If everyone else can't be motivated, another future will be selected over yours.The video ignores the very difficult task of convincing others to share your vision/future. In fact, only two actors--not the power of the community--find a solution to transcending the "present."

2. The presumption that if two people reach the other side that others will gleefully embrace their example. Convincing others to share your vision is an enlongated process until a "tipping point" is reached. Such an event requires considerable popular support. If popular support for a future is necessary for change, for the future, then it is critical to nudge the "present" nearer to the future that we seek. The problem is not that "pragmatists" are "pessimistic" and/or lack a vision, but rather that the apathetic and opposition feel no (moral) compulsion to cross the gap to the future or cross the gap at all. "Pragmatic" methods supplement vision and power in getting people to first discuss (on their own terms) whether such a move is desirable. Once the tipping point is reached, pragmatism outlives its usefulness; but until then, it facilitates the (incremental) acceptance of the proposed vision.

3. Mis-representing "pragmatists" as apathetic. In the video, "pragmatism" sides with pessimism and produces apathy. However, in the real world, those who work on reforms and other "pragmatic" measures (that are not vegan outreach) are usually among the least apathetic and the most active. If pragmatists were so pessimistic, there would be no campaigns, discourse, and stunts for criticize some "vegans" to criticize. In real life, the "pragmatist" might not get to the other side-- s/he might keep falling into the hole--, but s/he would at least not stop trying and recruiting others to join him/her from achieving his/her goal. Arguably, those who reject reforms and make a career or campaign out of defeating those efforts are also pessimists. Labeling and stigmatizing allies who care enough to do something as "pessimists" does not advance animal liberation.

While many "abolitionists" believe reforms and any methodology other than vegan outreach is "counterproductive," I believe that such a castigating and monolithic position is at least as much, if not more, counterproductive. Simplistic, strawman depictions of Other activists like these are offensive because they ignore all the passion and action Others have taken. Just as there is a difference between opposing troops and the war and supporting troops and opposing the war, these characterizations mock the people who are often pouring more of their lives into activism for animals than those who oppose their methodologies (however, misguided they are assumed to be).

One might instead call this video "Power & (Di)vision." This (di)vision isn't rooted in the dissent of constructive criticism, but rather the bisection of a continuum of methodologies into categories like "abolition"/"vision" and "welfare"/"pragmatism." Besides distinguishing "right" from "wrong," these dichotomies obstruct one from imagining how each approach may complement the others. As feminists have stressed, one needn't be "either/or" oriented; one can often chose "both/and." As social constructions, dichotomies are created not to elucidate the world so much as to divide and conquer it. Dualisms serve as tools of wor(l)d order: they abject the undesirable so as not to contaminate the divine. How imaginative is a (di)Vision that ignores all nuance and complexity in positions? How creative and transformative can a (di)Vision be if it polices a fixed world of "good"versus "bad"? Dualism serves not transformative dialog, but irreconcilable struggle.

We ought to be humbled by the complexity of the exploitation and oppression of human and animal Others, not arrogantly assuming that we have the one and only right way. Only those in the future will be able to judge which methods were the most effective. In the present, we ought to appreciate the differences others are making in others' lives. Expanding compassion never heeds to a dead end, but rather it is volatile and responsive to new opportunities. If "welfarists" open new doors and shut others, "abolitionists" can open still more. Those who support a monolithic movement are the ones who are often unimaginative and pessimistic of opportunities. If we disagree with their discourse or tactics, we can mount a critique via the attention they have received. Rather than attempting to obstruct and castigate their work, we can build-off of it, improve it, makingits weaknesses visible to the public. Even still, whether we like it or not, people are going to pursue methodologies we disagree with--one cannot sqaush dissent. In the end, the success of this movement will be achieved through cooperation and sensitivity, not in-fighting and arrogance.


* It is also noteworthy that "pessimism"and "pragmatism" are marked as fat while "power" and "vision"and everyone else are thin. The cartoon obviously exploits 21st century popular prejudice against "fat" people, playing with the trope that "fat" people are lazy, inactive, dim, and useless. This, I believe, is yet another reason to be skeptical of the "optimistic," "visionary," and "powerful" message of the cartoon.

** Although I am critical of some of the positions expressed on The Vegan Ideal, as a whole, I think it is among the most invaluable vegan blogs out there. I encourage everyone to explore some of the topics (like neoliberalism and anti-oppression) discussed therein.