Pragmatic vegan activism means you’re going to do things that work. You’re going to do things that are possible. You’re not going to do things according to a set of rules that tells you how to do something. So it’s not a matter of orthodoxy or belief or of ideology, it’s a matter of what works. There are several ways to be pragmatic. The first one is in our ask - We don’t necessarily always need to ask people to go vegan; we can also ask them to reduce. That’s one thing. The second thing is we don’t always have to talk about the animals; we can talk about whatever works in terms of motivations or arguments. So it can be health, it can be environment, whatever works. The third is in terms of the environment in which we live. So you can try to motivate a person to change, but you can also help change their environment so that the environment facilitates change. And the last, and the most controversial point maybe, is in the definition of veganism - let’s not make it too hard.
DAVID RAMMS: In a thought-provoking interview, David Ramms sat down with Tobias Leenaert, co-founder of ProVeg and author of ‘How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach’. Tobias believes that progress, not purity, is the most effective way to save animals, sparking fierce debate within the animal advocacy community. Some applaud his pragmatism, while others accuse him of watering down the vegan movement. Is Tobias a vegan realist or a vegan sellout?…
David: Your book, How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach, I mean it’s in the title, it’s promoting a pragmatic approach to vegan activism, animal rights advocacy, animal advocacy. What does pragmatic vegan advocacy actually mean in practice?
Tobias: Pragmatic means you’re going to do things that work. You’re going to do things that are possible. You’re not going to do things according to a set of rules that tells you how to do something. So it’s not a matter of orthodoxy or belief or of ideology, it’s a matter of what works. I distinguish in this book a couple of ways to be pragmatic.
The first one is in our ask – I say we don’t necessarily always need to ask people to go vegan; we can also ask them to reduce. That’s one thing.
The second thing is we don’t always have to talk about the animals; we can talk about whatever works in terms of motivations or arguments. So it can be health, it can be environment, whatever works.
The third is in terms of the environment in which we live. So you can try to motivate a person to change, but you can also help change their environment so that the environment facilitates change.
And the last, and the most controversial point maybe, is in the definition of veganism, where I say let’s not make it too hard, please.
David: You say the last one you find to be the most controversial. The one I’ve seen most people find to be controversial is about reduction. And in the book, you do emphasise encouraging reduction as opposed to insisting on full veganism. You mention how it can be more effective for change if we tell people that just reducing is enough. Aren’t we basically saying that factory farming and animal suffering is acceptable in moderation? What are we saying if we’re not saying that?
Tobias: I think that the concern for what am I saying is kind of an egocentric concern— you’re concern is about is this the right thing, am I doing the right thing here. But what I want to look at is what is the effect with people. That’s the only thing I’m interested in. I’m not interested in, like, am I following the rules, am I saying something wrong. No, I’m interested in what will people do with this message. We know from research that more people seem to be following up on small asks than on bigger asks.
That’s not just true for diet change, but that’s true in general. So if you ask a person to stop flying, then you might be less successful than if you tell them stop flying short distances, for instance. So that is one reason why you could use this message of reduction.
I’m not saying you always have to use that message, but I think the principle that I have that trumps all the other principles is to be flexible in your approach and to adapt yourself and to see who you have in front of you and to understand that this person might require a different message and a different argument than another person. And that is pragmatism. And I oppose that to a certain idealism or dogmatism where you think, no, it always has to be about the animals, it always has to be about go vegan—those are rules, that’s an orthodoxy, that’s something that we tell ourselves that’s right, but that’s not necessarily, or not always, effective. So flexibility over rigidity.
David: So you’re less concerned about the kind of external ideas of this—and you’re more concerned about the outcome of it. So, for example, the ideas that may come with telling people to reduce, it might end up making people think, well, I guess animal farming is okay in moderation. You’re okay with that as long as they actually reduce, because the outcome is less animals are going to be bred into existence and killed?
Tobias: I do care about the outcome most of all. If the result would be that people are going to eat less meat and think that’s okay, that’s not ideal. But my theory of change is that if a lot of people do that, everything will change because there will be more acceptance of animal rights arguments because they know there’s nothing to sacrifice anymore, they know they have good food. The whole conversation around it will change, maybe policy will change.
I’m not afraid that they will stop there, I’m more afraid that they will never start. I’m more afraid that if we ask them to go vegan in all circumstances and at every moment, that many people will not do anything because they think it’s a bridge too far—or it’s seven bridges too far. But by all means, if you think you have a person in front of you, or you have an audience in front of you, that’s open to that message to go vegan for the animals, by all means, use that. I’m just saying don’t assume that it’s going to be the best and the only way in every circumstance…
David: Well, one major criticism of that that I’ve seen a lot of times—this is probably the most common critique I’ve heard from people who disagree with promoting reducing eating animal products—they’ll say, “Would you ever tell a racist or a slave owner to reduce by what they’re doing, and then why would you tell people to reduce in this case then?” How do you respond to that?
Tobias: I think that we are comparing very different things — different in terms of social acceptance. Some people say, for instance, you would never have a child-abuse-free Monday like you have a meat-free Monday, because that would show that this child abuse is allowed all the other days. I think that’s a very bad comparison because you are comparing something that 99% of people disapprove of and is illegal—namely, child abuse or slavery or whatever you compare it with—with something that 95% of people celebrate, which is eating meat…
David: Another hot topic that comes up a lot with you is your stance on, and this is the biggest one, even for me, this was a tough one actually to get my head around, social flexibility. You’ve suggested in the book, that sometimes it could be better for a vegan to participate in eating a non-vegan meal in a social setting to avoid reinforcing the idea that veganism is difficult or exclusionary. Isn’t that just proving what people thought already—that animals are, in fact, food, the complete opposite of what we’re trying to say? Or is it something else? And where’s the line between strategy and hypocrisy?
Tobias: The example I always give is: there’s a person, and they’ve cooked a meal, and they’re not vegan. They cooked a meal for you especially, they looked up a recipe, they bought the ingredients, and they made a lasagna. But the lasagna sheets — the pasta dough itself — contains eggs. You’re sitting there, that’s the only thing you can eat, they have put all this work in it — are you going to eat it, or are you going to refuse it? I think in those circumstances, you do more damage by refusing it than by eating it. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: