{"id":771982,"date":"2023-03-23T08:55:56","date_gmt":"2023-03-23T12:55:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=771982"},"modified":"2023-03-23T09:22:40","modified_gmt":"2023-03-23T13:22:40","slug":"case-study-learning-from-shacs-landmark-animal-rights-campaign","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=771982","title":{"rendered":"CASE STUDY: Learning from the landmark SHAC animal rights campaign"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Some of SHAC's tactics involved overwhelming the HLS company\u2019s phone lines, posting graphic information about its animal welfare violations in public locations, hosting public meetings and demonstrations, campaigning against its employees and shareholders, as well as companies and individuals that did business with it.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

TRENT DAVIDSON:<\/strong> While social movements are often grounded in activism, no two campaigns are alike. Furthermore, most campaigns go through a number of successes and setbacks. Regardless of a movement\u2019s outcome, there are always learnings for future advocates to grow from.<\/em><\/p>\n

A recent case study of the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign is one example. The goal of SHAC was to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), an animal testing company that drew controversy for documented abuse against beagle puppies, monkeys, and other species. Today HLS is part of a company called Envigo, which continues to sell non-human animals to researchers along with offering various \u201cservices\u201d (e.g., surgical alteration and gene editing)…<\/em><\/p>\n

SHAC was founded in the U.K. in 1999 in response to a media expos\u00e9 about animal cruelty taking place at HLS. Some of its early tactics involved overwhelming the company\u2019s phone lines and fax machines, \u201cflyposting\u201d graphic information about its animal welfare violations in public locations, and hosting public meetings and demonstrations. Other early actions included campaigning against HLS employees and shareholders as well as companies and individuals that did business with HLS. While SHAC released a regular newsletter, it was a \u201cleaderless resistance\u201d movement, meaning that it was largely made up of independent activists who were encouraged to take action on their own.<\/em><\/p>\n

The report<\/a>, produced by the Social Change Lab, tries to answer a handful of questions about SHAC\u2019s campaign against HLS. These include which of its tactics were particularly successful (and unsuccessful), why it attracted negative attention from the public, media, and government, and what today\u2019s advocates can learn from it to inform their own social movements…<\/em><\/p>\n

What lessons, then, can be drawn from the SHAC campaign? The author argues that organizations with a \u201cleaderless resistance\u201d structure (i.e., not having an obvious leader or core) must be strategic in how they carry out their campaign tactics. It\u2019s important to take a clear position on what an organization supports and doesn\u2019t support. Furthermore, organizations should make it as obvious as possible that they condemn violent and dangerous methods of protest.<\/em><\/p>\n

SHAC\u2019s successes can also be a learning for animal advocates. Specifically, their singular focus on HLS gave them a clear mission. By focusing on one company in particular, instead of the larger industry of non-human animal testing, they were able to keep their activists and goals on track. Next, having a diverse array of tactics to pull from allowed SHAC to experiment and choose what was most effective. Diversifying tactics can make a movement more palatable to people who might prefer one type of advocacy over another. Last, achieving small wins along the way to a broader goal can help to keep members motivated and involved in the campaign. SOURCE…<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

RELATED VIDEOS:<\/strong><\/p>\n