It is not surprising that Veganism is often dismissed as ‘just a diet’ rather than understood as a political movement. If animal rights activists want the movement to be taken seriously as a liberation struggle, we need to take all liberation struggles seriously. The idea of separating and completely isolating animal justice is an affront to the idea of justice itself. If we want animal liberation to be part of a broader movement for justice, our spaces need to reflect that commitment.
BRENT JOHANNES: The call to keep veganism apolitical is common within animal advocacy spaces. While it is often framed as “just focusing on the animals,” it usually rests on two underlying arguments. The first is a concern about unity. Proponents worry that political disagreement will fracture the movement and reduce its effectiveness. From this perspective, avoiding political topics is seen as a way to maintain cohesion and keep the community intact.
This argument often overlaps with what is known as a Big Tent strategy. The idea is that the movement should appeal not only to progressive or left-leaning audiences, but also to conservatives and others across the political spectrum. Because a significant percentage of the population identifies as right-leaning, the argument goes, explicitly political veganism risks alienating too many people. The solution, therefore, is to remove politics from the conversation altogether and focus only on animals.
The second argument is that animals deserve their own movement. There are already many movements centered on human social justice issues, and animals are so consistently overlooked that they need a space where they are the sole focus. From this view, discussions of immigration, race, gender, or other human issues are seen as distractions that pull attention away from animal suffering.
Some supporters of this argument worry about a slippery slope, that once human justice issues are allowed into animal advocacy spaces, animals will again be pushed to the margins. These concerns are understandable. But understanding them does not mean accepting them as effective or harmless… The idea that animal liberation can be fully separated from politics is not neutral. It is a way of avoiding conflict with dominant power structures.
For people who benefit most from existing social hierarchies, the idea of treating animal rights as a stand-alone issue may seem reasonable, even pragmatic. But for people whose lives have been shaped by inequality, marginalization, or state violence, this separation often makes little sense.
For many, justice is not an abstract concept. It is lived. It is inherited through family history, cultural memory, and personal experience. From this perspective, the idea of separating and completely isolating animal justice is an affront to the idea of justice itself… If animal rights activists want the movement to be taken seriously as a liberation struggle, we need to take all liberation struggles seriously.
Other justice movements do not isolate themselves to the same extent. Indigenous liberation groups do not silence discussions of disability justice. Black liberation groups do not prohibit conversations about immigrant rights. These movements are not without internal disagreement, but they do not enforce silence as a core organizing principle. By contrast, animal advocacy spaces frequently ban or discourage discussion of adjacent justice issues, even when those issues clearly intersect with power, exploitation, and violence.
It is not surprising, then, that veganism is often dismissed as “just a diet” rather than understood as a political movement. When we refuse to treat animal liberation as inherently political, we train others to do the same. Coalition does not dilute a movement. It situates it… If we want animal liberation to be part of a broader movement for justice, our spaces need to reflect that commitment. SOURCE
RELATED VIDEO: