Welfarism, New Welfarism and Abolitionism

international | animal rights | opinion/analysis Tuesday October 28, 2008 18:38 by An Experienced Activist/Strategist

Considering the implications of effective action

Ok, as a "foreign" activist who has had the pleasure of meeting NARA I feel that I should clarify a few things for the readers here and the NARA actvists themselves relating to this thread here:

https://indymedia.ie/article/89205

Much is made of this "New Welfarism" concept, first introduced by the philosopher Gary Francione, (who in my opinion has since been widely discredited), with his ideas of "Abolitionism", "New Welfarism" and "Welfarism" which were first published in 1996(?)....as if somehow there wasn't a commited movement of animal rights/liberation activists who already had a clear idea of how we would end animal exploitation, (although thankfully Francione appears on the scene to tell us what we already know, and of course to skew some of the issues that we should already know).

Singer had long since been discredited, by his own mouth, long before Francione decided to add his "revolutionary" ideas about how to achieve the abolition of animal exploitation....however, what we must remember at this stage is that both Singer and Francione are philosophers. They are neither experienced activists, nor do they have much grasp of human psychology (although Singer certainly leads in the understanding of human behaviour stakes).

For example, Francione has an absolute obsession with his idea that no change can ever be progressive....and any such change is somehow detrimental to the vegan revolution which he believes we can enact by sensitising people to animals using skewed ideas of personhood etc etc. However, any intelligent person can tell you that human psychology is not "rational", but is instead "progressive", (people don't like changes, they prefer things to remain in the status quo, and they need changes to happen slowly so they can adjust to them).

This most basic tennet of human psychology is directly contrary to the ideas and strategies that Francione proposes, and central to the failings of Francione's philosophies when they are actually enacted in any practical sense. What Francione believes, (in my opinion wrongly), is that the most effective strategy to introduce animal "rights" is to communicate abstract concepts to every individual so that they will then change their lifestyle....and thus the animal exploitation industries will change direction in order to satisfy the new desires of the converted masses.

Francione clearly states that the animal exploitation industries are not the problem, it is the culture within which we live that is the problem and we must therefore convince people to change their outlook in order to change the nature and behaviour of the animal exploitation industries....however this flawed understanding of the entire problem doesn't take into account the nature of the animal exploitation industries, their influence on society and the lifestyles we lead or the basic human psychology that we need to address in order to make the changes we want to see in the world.

However, anyone with any idea of the strategic nature of campaigning knows that it IS the animal exploitation industries who are the problem! They peddle their influence and use their substantial means in order to ensure that the consumer lifestyle continues in an exploitative manner from which they can profit. They are more afraid of "welfare" reforms than they are of hardline, no compromise, activists that perpetuate the very myths that Francione has created.

So what is "New Welfare"?

New welfarism, is simply welfarism....there's nothing "new" about it, it's just a buzzword that Francione created that has quickly spread and led to vast amounts of confusion about what actually constitutes abolition, welfarism and the demise of the animal exploitation industries. Welfarism is welfarism, but when applied intelligently it can actually lead to abolition...much as Francione tries to deny it, he never offers ANY empirical evidence which shows that his theories are even relevant, let alone effective!

So, let's now consider how we could target an industry and consider the implications of the two approaches.

We will take one of the crudest froms of animal exploitation, one which most people can agree is neither necessary nor acceptable in the 21st century....The Fur Industry!

Ok, so we have a target and we have our two conflicting strategies....Francione's "abolitionism" and "welfarist" reform. Let's ditch the idea of "new welfarism" because it's a misenoma used to confuse and obsficate rational campaigning strategies. It's simply a dirty word, which means something different depending on who you ask, so we'll just focus on (Francione's) "abolitionism" and basic "welfarism" to consider how the two approaches might impact the fur industry .

Francione would suggest that to abolish the fur industry, instead of targeting the industry itself (or supporting any (new)"welfarist" agenda which might destabilise or weaken the industry) we should target the consumer....in order to make them understand that all forms of animal exploitation are wrong and that they shouldn't wear fur. This strategy would involve mass-leafletting, whilst telling anyone who suggested that bigger cages or providing acces to water for mink (which are aquatic animals) is wrong because that in some way justifies the industry and the exploitation of the animals.

A welfarist agenda would demand bigger cages, better housing and access to water for the mink....thus improving their short lives before their eventual butchery for the sake of the skin on their backs. A welfarist would say, "well at least they had a 'nice' life before they were brutally killed (and might even promote the use of "welfare friendly" fur).

What are the implications and impacts of these two massively differing approaches?

The welfarist agenda, (if successful), would impact on the fur farmers by raising their production costs, (and thus raise the price of the fur products), however it is conceivable that they would be able to charge a premium for the product because it is "welfare friendly".

The "Francione" abolitionist agenda, (relying on the distribution of leaflets), would seek to reduce the consumption of fur by sensitising people to the suffering of the animals. However, (and here's where the crunch comes), people are resistant to change....and, even when they know it's bad, they still tend to buy products based on price and convenience rather than from any ethical concerns (think about the consumption of Fairtrade products for example). So, ironically, those who are actually affected by the leaflets, (around 10% is the upper end estimate), they receive will look for a "middle-way", where they can consume the products they want without feeling so guilty (so they'd most likely end up buying the "welfare friendly" products instead.

This actually leaves us in the bizarre position where the message, (as Francione would portray it), is at best inneffective and at worst supporting the welfarist agenda....so how can this be?

At this point it's necessary to return to the power and influence of the industry, which they generally choose to masquerade as "consumer choice"....whereas a "true abolitionist" would seek to remove the choice entirely, after all people can't "choose" to consume a product which has been (truly) abolished!

The point that Francione so eloquently avoids is the fact that every scenario and situation is different, there are no fixed rules in order to achieve a goal...other than every progressive step towards that goal is both an acceptable and necessary step towards achieving the desired outcome.

Despite Francione's claims, the animal exploitation industries are the "problem". For example, fur farmers simply aren't going to diversify into developing realistic fake-fur products....instead they are going to continue exploiting animals in the most intensive, cost effective, manner possible in order to make the most profit they can. And the only way in which we are going to stop fur farmers from breeding animals to murder for their fur is to use basic economic principles to remove the incentive.

Francione also (wrongly) suggests that we have used these methods for over 100 years without result, however the methods we have employed for the last 100 years (and longer) are the very same flawed arguments he proposes of sensitising people to animals....rather than attacking and destablising the exploitation industries, (a tactic which has been employed extensively, and extremely effectively, in the UK for the last 30 years).

A classic example of Francione's flawed logic is in his calls to Californians to vote "No" to Proposition 2, (a wide ranging animal "welfare" bill that would outlaw the use of battery cages for hens, amongst other things, in California). Francione wrongly states that this will lead to an increase in the consumption of eggs because they are now "guilt-free"....however Francione fails to understand that people care so little about where their eggs come from, that they will eat them whether they are from caged hens or hens that have come from cage-free, (barn), production systems.

In fact, the only thing that motivates consumers is the price....and should the price of eggs increase then their consumption will decrease, (especially when used needlessly in processed food products)!

Therefore anything which increases the cost of animal exploitation will, in turn, reduce the consumption of those products and reduce the viability of the economic model....thus forcing exploiters to diversify into non-exploitative practices or simply drive those who are unable to diversify, (such as fur farmers), into bankruptcy.

If it was no longer economically viable to produce fur due to the price of increased (and enforced) welfare considerations, such that it effectively bankrupted the industry....this would be abolitionism in action!

The idea that animal welfare and animal rights, (personally I avoid the use of the words "animal rights" in favour of the words "animal liberation"), are somehow at odds is actually a myth perpetrated by a certain few individuals who are either SERIOUSLY deluded or who have a different agenda to the one they portray.

Those of us who have been campaigning since before Gary Francione became a household name have long understood the most effective strategies in order to achieve abolition, generally through tried and tested methods which have been refined over the years....such as raising costs through the support of "welfarist" agendas and the use of direct action in order to force the exploiters to employ more security and raise the costs of insurance etc etc.

Gary Francione is a philosopher, his ideas about animal exploitation are useful and all animal rights activists should be aware of his philosophies because they can be useful in an argument with people trying to justify animal exploitation....however it must be remembered that Gary Francione is neither a strategist nor someone with ANY kind of grassroots campaigning experience! He is an author, he writes books and his speciality is self-publicisation....but when it comes to effective campaigning, (or even a basic understanding of human psychology), he falls flat on his face!

If you want to look at Francione's "abolitionism" in action, look at the French movement and their, (ahem), achievements. The French population believes that animal rights activists ONLY care about animals, (something perpetuated by the activists themselves as per Francione's teachings), and are unwilling to consider any kind of positive or progressive measures towards better treatment of animals.

This manifests itself in the fact that France is THE worst place in Europe for animal exploitation. They are number 1 for vivisection, (with the laxest rules in Europe), think foie gras, think bullfighting (which unlike in Spain is for the locals not the tourists), think fur, think meat consumption, think about pet shops full of puppies....you name it, if it involves the exploitation of animals France is terrible for it....and the French are probably THE least sensitised to the idea of animal "rights" despite the main focus of the French "movement" being the ineffective public-outreach which Francione champions.

If we were to compare the state of the French exploitation industries with those in Switzerland, (who have just implemented wide reaching "welfare" reforms), we would see that not only are the Swiss industries substantially weakened in comparison...but that those Swiss who were able to have actually shifted their operations across the border into France! For example, the pharmaceutical giant Novartis is based in Basel, Switzerland, (which is on the German/French/Swiss border), however the worst of their animal research is conducted in a laboratory 2 miles from the main Novartis site...in France!!!

Understanding the implications of our actions is central to taking effective action towards abolition, however we are obliged to do this in the most effective manner possible in order to expediate the liberation of the innocent animals that suffer now. Instead of relying on abstract terms and vague philosophies, we are obliged (for the sake of the animals) to assess our actions in terms of empirical data and the evidence available to us.

It is not enough to claim to be "abolitionist" because we follow the teachings and philosophies of an author who has coined the word, if we are to be truly abolitionist then we are oblged to have a coherent strategy which will actually achieve abolition....that is of course if we actually care about the abolition of animal exploitation, and aren't simply acting as part of a clique and following the leader so to speak.

To sumarise, "New Welfarism" doesn't exist. It is normal, everyday welfarism and nothing more.

The underlying idea behind so called "New Welfarism" is the use of welfarist tactics and strategies to weaken and undermine the animal exploitation industries....such that it will lead to abolition, and that is an effective campaign strategy that has been used countless times over the years and proves to be as effective then as it is now. Why someone would wish to denegrate and sully such effective tactics is quite incomprehensible, unless of course their agenda were different to those seeking to abolish the exploitation industries.

Of course not all welfarism is effective, and we should ALWAYS carefully consider the impact and affect of our actions in the greater scheme....however Francione has yet to show, (with any conclusive proof), that the support of welfarism actually undermines the goal of "rights", except with his own abstract ideas and suggestions, (but remember these are not hard facts and figures!).

Welfarism and Abolitionism are merely mindsets with differing goals, however as I have tried to illustrate above the differences aren't just in the approaches and the ideas, but often also in the outcomes due to the strategies employed. Often "abolitionists" actually end up reinforcing the very things they are trying to dismantle through a mix of intransigence and a failure to clearly define what they are trying to achieve and how they are going to achieve it.

True abolitionism is achieved by whatever means necessary, be that welfarism, illegal activity, political lobbying, community development or whatever works in a given strategy....but we must remember that their is only one goal of abolitionism and that is total animal liberation, therefore our actions must be guided by that overriding principle and not abstract philosophies or unsubstantiated ideas!

Think, act and then think again....but ALWAYS demand empirical proof that what you are doing is effective and remember to ask yourself what the animals who are suffering now would want!!!

Further reading:

A well considered essay on the idea of rights, welfarism and abolition which strongly considers the viewpoint of the animals and their wishes:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/AWperpl...d.pdf

The infamous exchange between Martin Balluch, (of the Austrian 10), and Gary Francione which provides an interesting insight into Francione's mindset...and of course blows holes in his arguments, (read all 3 essays!)

Essay 1; (Balluch's proposal):
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/20080325A...n.php

Essay 2; (Francione's reply to Balluch's proposal)
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=140#more-140%20

Essay 3; (Balluch's comment on Francione's reply)
http://www.vgt.at/publikationen/texte/artikel/20080325A...n.php