The slogan in the title of this blog post has been prominently displayed on this site for about five months now. I read criticism of it when it was initially posted, and yesterday, brand new criticism of it was written on a “veg*n” forum, so I thought I would finally reply to the criticism today by explaining my interpretation of the slogan. An average of the criticism is approximately set forth in the following paragraph, complete with the typical air of hostility I have encountered.
THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you mean that all I need to do is want something, and magically, it will be the state of affairs in the world? What kind of naïve idiot are you? Were you born yesterday? Not only is the world not vegan; the world will never be vegan. The world is nasty; it always has been, and it always will be. Get used to it instead of sounding like some kind of delusional religious kook.”
The criticism, by taking the slogan as literally as possible, obviously misses the point. In fact, it misses the whole side of the barn. I cannot speak for Professor Gary Francione and other abolitionists who have the slogan prominently displayed, but for me, the slogan is meant to capture a vision and to provoke thought and discussion of a kind much different from any vision or paradigm the so-called animal “rights” movement has put forth to date.
In fact, the vision and paradigm the slogan sets forth is so different from the new welfarists’ [1] lack of vision that the criticism we hear of it should not surprise us at all. The basic (yet drastic) difference is this: Abolitionists see the path of vegan education and the congruent destination of widespread veganism as the only practically plausible activity and morally acceptable goal, respectively, of the animal advocacy movement. New welfarists, by contrast, take animal product consumption and the related exploitation it entails as a practically permanent “given” that cannot be seriously challenged today or possibly even during our lifetime. In this failure to recognize that animal product consumption and exploitation can be seriously challenged today and during our lifetime, they join with traditional welfarists in reinforcing the paradigm of the status quo. It is from this lack of vision and lack of paradigm shifting that all of the folly and details of the industry-welfarist partnership flow.
The slogan is saying that if all new welfarists (who currently outnumber abolitionists several-to-one), instead of joining traditional welfarists, would go vegan and join abolitionists in a serious vision of the end of socially sanctioned animal exploitation, including the effective action of vegan education born of such vision, we could eventually, over several years or decades, make progress in mainstream society toward such a vision. But without such a vision in the first place, we are certain to remain stuck in the welfarist status quo indefinitely, until such time when the vision of a “vegan world” (i.e. a world where animal exploitation is not socially sanctioned) is actually taken seriously.
We can work together toward a vegan world via vegan education, but only if you want to. As Gandhi said, “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Make your world vegan by being a vegan and encouraging others to go vegan.
Why don’t we use a more practical and literal slogan like “The world will be vegan if we work together to achieve it.”? Because that slogan, while true enough, does not provoke thought and discussion, nor does it stick in the mind and beg for non-literal interpretation of vision.
“THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it.” This slogan, on the other hand, while offering itself up to be slaughtered and ridiculed for its lack of current and literal truth, provokes thought and discussion, sticks in the mind, and begs for non-literal interpretation of vision.
I’ve provided my non-literal interpretation of the slogan's meaning and vision. What is your non-literal interpretation?
___________________
Note:
[1] New welfarists are distinguished from traditional welfarists in that new welfarists would like to end socially sanctioned animal exploitation some day, but see welfare reforms and single-issue campaigns as part of the path to eventually end socially sanctioned animal exploitation. Traditional welfarists, on the other hand, have no interest in ending socially sanctioned animal exploitation, but merely want to reduce the cruelty inherent in it. Abolitionists, in contrast to welfarists (new or traditional), reject all welfare reforms, believing them to be an inherent and essential part of the institution of animal exploitation itself; reject single-issue campaigns as merely fund raising devices for large corporate welfarist organizations that reinforce speciesism; and engage in only vegan education (including criticism of welfarism generally) as a means to end socially sanctioned animal exploitation.
