{"id":777668,"date":"2025-02-25T08:19:56","date_gmt":"2025-02-25T13:19:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=777668"},"modified":"2025-02-25T09:59:29","modified_gmt":"2025-02-25T14:59:29","slug":"pragmatic-activism-should-vegans-compromise-in-their-approach-to-activism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/animalrightswatch.us\/?p=777668","title":{"rendered":"A BRIDGE TOO FAR?: ProVeg co-founder says vegans should compromise in their approach to activism"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Pragmatic vegan activism means you\u2019re going to do things that work. You\u2019re going to do things that are possible. You\u2019re not going to do things according to a set of rules that tells you how to do something. So it\u2019s not a matter of orthodoxy or belief or of ideology, it\u2019s a matter of what works. There are several ways to be pragmatic. The first one is in our ask - We don\u2019t necessarily always need to ask people to go vegan; we can also ask them to reduce. That\u2019s one thing. The second thing is we don\u2019t 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\u2019s not make it too hard.<\/p>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/blockquote>\n\n

DAVID RAMMS:<\/strong> 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?…<\/em><\/p>\n

David: Your book, How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach, I mean it\u2019s in the title, it\u2019s promoting a pragmatic approach to vegan activism, animal rights advocacy, animal advocacy. What does pragmatic vegan advocacy actually mean in practice?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tobias:<\/strong> Pragmatic means you\u2019re going to do things that work. You\u2019re going to do things that are possible. You\u2019re not going to do things according to a set of rules that tells you how to do something. So it\u2019s not a matter of orthodoxy or belief or of ideology, it\u2019s a matter of what works. I distinguish in this book a couple of ways to be pragmatic.<\/em><\/p>\n

The first one is in our ask – I say we don\u2019t necessarily always need to ask people to go vegan; we can also ask them to reduce. That\u2019s one thing.<\/em><\/p>\n

The second thing is we don\u2019t 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n

And the last, and the most controversial point maybe, is in the definition of veganism, where I say let\u2019s not make it too hard, please.<\/em><\/p>\n

David: You say the last one you find to be the most controversial. The one I\u2019ve 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\u2019t we basically saying that factory farming and animal suffering is acceptable in moderation? What are we saying if we\u2019re not saying that?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tobias:<\/strong> I think that the concern for what am I saying is kind of an egocentric concern\u2014 you\u2019re 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\u2019s the only thing I\u2019m interested in. I\u2019m not interested in, like, am I following the rules, am I saying something wrong. No, I\u2019m 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

That\u2019s not just true for diet change, but that\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

I\u2019m 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\u2014those are rules, that\u2019s an orthodoxy, that\u2019s something that we tell ourselves that\u2019s right, but that\u2019s not necessarily, or not always, effective. So flexibility over rigidity.<\/em><\/p>\n

David: So you\u2019re less concerned about the kind of external ideas of this\u2014and you\u2019re 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\u2019re okay with that as long as they actually reduce, because the outcome is less animals are going to be bred into existence and killed?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tobias:<\/strong> 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\u2019s okay, that\u2019s 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\u2019s nothing to sacrifice anymore, they know they have good food. The whole conversation around it will change, maybe policy will change.<\/em><\/p>\n

I\u2019m not afraid that they will stop there, I\u2019m more afraid that they will never start. I\u2019m 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\u2019s a bridge too far\u2014or it\u2019s 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\u2019s open to that message to go vegan for the animals, by all means, use that. I\u2019m just saying don\u2019t assume that it\u2019s going to be the best and the only way in every circumstance…<\/em><\/p>\n

David: Well, one major criticism of that that I\u2019ve seen a lot of times\u2014this is probably the most common critique I\u2019ve heard from people who disagree with promoting reducing eating animal products\u2014they\u2019ll say, “Would you ever tell a racist or a slave owner to reduce by what they\u2019re doing, and then why would you tell people to reduce in this case then?” How do you respond to that?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tobias:<\/strong> I think that we are comparing very different things \u2014 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\u2019s a very bad comparison because you are comparing something that 99% of people disapprove of and is illegal\u2014namely, child abuse or slavery or whatever you compare it with\u2014with something that 95% of people celebrate, which is eating meat…<\/em><\/p>\n

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\u2019ve 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\u2019t that just proving what people thought already\u2014that animals are, in fact, food, the complete opposite of what we\u2019re trying to say? Or is it something else? And where\u2019s the line between strategy and hypocrisy?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tobias:<\/strong> The example I always give is: there\u2019s a person, and they\u2019ve cooked a meal, and they\u2019re 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 \u2014 the pasta dough itself \u2014 contains eggs. You\u2019re sitting there, that\u2019s the only thing you can eat, they have put all this work in it \u2014 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. <\/em>SOURCE…<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

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