Why Veganism Must Be Abolished: an Interview with Vegan Represent Founder Dave D Dave D went vegan in 1999 for ethical reasons, and was a good obedient vegan for about a decade. He volunteered for EarthSave and several animal interest organizations, founded one of the first and consequently biggest vegan group on Meetup, and created one of the original vegan message boards — Vegan Represent. I would have included a hyperlink to Vegan Represent, except it no longer exists. Thats because Dave D started to question veganism last year; after announcing this to the disappointment and confusion of his forum members, he started the vegan heretic blog Pythagorean Crank, and then took down Vegan Represent to make room for a new pro-animal message board, Plant-Based People. Dave D still doesnt eat animal products and continues to fight for animal liberation. Just dont call him vegan. What led to your break with veganism last year? The break was instigated by my discovery of critical thinking. As a vegan activist I was a cohort of a lot of pseudoscientific propagation. Once I realized that, I had to resolve the cognitive dissonance of being associated with a movement that was mired in so much nonsense. At first I had a sense that I could fix things and re-own the word but that seemed too fundamentalist and caused too much strife. I decided to leave and find my own path. Something that influenced you was comparing the Vegan Societys more recent definition of veganism to its original definition. Why did that have such an impact? Well, as I was struggling with the definition of what vegan meant, I got all prescriptivist and went back to the original source of the term. It was some nutty British dude named Donald Watson and with it he founded the Vegan Society. This it how he defined it: A way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals. 35 years later they updated the definition like so: Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practical – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals, and the environment. Basically they watered down the animal justice aspects with anthropocentric appeals. I originally signed on for the aspects of peace and reverence like Watson originally describes but I never could wrap my head around the other two pillars. For a while I was bashing away at these arguments, claiming the righteousness of my own interpretation. When I stopped and looked at the originating point of contention, I realized it was codified in the revamped definition all along. Before that, I felt betrayed and exploited by leaders in the movement or gurus co-opting the term. It turned into embarrassment though when I had to accept that, no, this is what veganism is. I was the one who was wrong. Do you no longer believe in veganism? Im not sure what there is to believe in veganism exactly. I dont believe it will make me skinny, solve global climate change, or even instill an idea of animal rights. My whole activist career I used veganism as my softball cause but there really is no -ism there. I was denying the scary implications that this might be something deeper than I was ready to confront. Now that Ive exhausted my search for meaning in veganism and come up empty-handed, Im ready to explore the depths of these implications. You still don’t consume animal products. How do you explain to people that despite this, you’re not a vegan? Its a lot harder to get into the vegan club than it is to get out. All I have to do is admit to drinking any beer (regardless of the blessing from Barnivore) with reckless abandon or not-checking the SKU of the bag of Skittles Ive been eating that indicates the factorys use of bone char sugar, etc. Recently, for example, I was just at a conference in Vegas and ate my fill of a vegetable stir-fry buffet made on the same grill with animal flesh. What vegan would do that? I think its silly for people to judge me according to the animal molecules I do or do not ingest instead of the thoughts I posses. This focus on consumption quickly reaches absurd levels of obsessive compulsiveness and becomes this dogmatic thing. The tagline of Pythagorean Crank is By vegan abolition we mean abolishing veganism. Great line — one I wish I thought of! Since you still have vegan habits, there must be something else about veganism that you dont like. Why does veganism, or at least certain aspects of it, need to be abolished? Oh thanks! BTW thats just one of my taglines for Pythagorean Crank, they rotate. So, my not-using-animals is part of how I put my beliefs into action. If there is a situation where using animal products becomes more of a hassle than an infraction of my ideology, Ill bend and use that product. Peter Singer said something to this effect and was ruthlessly chastised, so I feel Im in good company. I can still have my ideology intact. Bending the praxis doesnt change that. Veganism is a boycott without a campaign, relegated to a lifestyle. The word vegan is helpful for eating lunch, but as one of my other rotating taglines goes: Animal liberation is not found on a menu. You still want animal liberation. Why isn’t veganism the way to achieve it? Yes I do believe in animal liberation and its still a priority of my current activist work. Its why Im leaving veganism behind in the first place, really. When the practice of being vegan is the goal, it becomes a slippery slope where vegan activists are tempted to employ spurious arguments. While we may see a short-term growth in vegans via questionable means, all it really does is create a bubble. Vegans who are duped by bad arguments will eventually figure that out and leave, making it that much harder to reach back out to them. For the vegans who still hang in there, they are left scrambling on their own to find some validity. All they know is go vegan. They dont have the tools themselves to make informed decisions or constructive forays into animal liberation. So what they do is improve upon what theyve been given. They try to be more vegan. This shoves them into the arms of new age cults like raw food. Veganism becomes a rung on the ladder to climb upon a higher horse. If veganism can’t achieve animal liberation, what can? Animal liberation will achieve animal liberation. That is, we need compelling arguments to explain why animals deserve consideration. We should allow people to figure out what that means in their own lives. There are people working for animal liberation who eat animal products! This may seem irrational and counterintuitive, but thats a fancy monkey for you. Should their efforts be dismissed because they havent personally reached a certain level of veganositude? Veganism has its part to play in the right context but its significance is being exaggerated. You had an argument with Vegan Outreach co-founder and VeganHealth.org founder Jack Norris in the comments of your blog. Where do you disagree with Vegan Outreachs mission? Vegan Outreachs mission is just that of their namesake, getting people to go vegan. Their mantra is: veganism is a tool to reduce suffering… but its a really dumb tool. Veganism used that way is cargo cult activism. The only way veganism will achieve animal liberation is in spite of itself. I argued we should talk more about animal rights but he balked at the idea, saying the general public wasnt ready for that. Thats a pretty patronizing and pessimistic attitude to apply to a method of advocacy. Hey, but more power to them if thats what they wanna do. That doesnt mean I cant dissent. It took me years to absorb a critique of veganism I read on Vegan Represent that played a part in my new direction. Similarly I hope others are inspired to think critically about their own veganism and blaze new paths of change. We need a better foundation upon which to build a movement. You once wrote to me that you thought I was helping with veganism with my blog Let Them Eat Meat. How so? You are helping because you are spotlighting the weaknesses of veganism. You are putting real names and faces to apostates and exploring the nooks and crannies of this thing thats interpreted in so many different ways. It needs to be weeded and as an ex-vegan yourself you are familiar with your part of the story that you can leverage to dig up the dirt. You may be trying to justify your paleo diet or looking at the pieces for what went wrong with your veganism but ultimately I think youre helping to evolve veganism by pointing out the weak arguments. Im just sick of hearing the same tired fallacious arguments on both sides. We need more insiders like you to speak out and say veganism failed me and heres why. I do something similar with Pythagorean Crank. When vegans deride me for the critique, I wonder if they really believe their own arguments. I mean, if I were to be proved wrong about something, then shouldnt I accept and adopt it? Shouldnt vegans want to hone their arguments? Wouldnt it be dishonest otherwise? When I criticize vegans, many rebuke me by saying were all not like that or STFU meanie!!!. Instead of arguing with me about that, though, how about speaking out, with me? How about recognizing that weakness of our supposed movement, and strive to change it? When I criticize non-vegans, though, in the same voice, all-a-sudden Im one righteous dude. Im not going to accept the tone argument. They can dish it, but they cant take it. So yeah, I think your criticisms of veganism are constructive. Your writing isnt mean-spirited or malicious but you dont pull punches either. I may still be in catharsis mode on PCrank but Im looking for my voice. Let Them Eat Meat is an inspiration for me… I hope you dont take that the wrong way. Heh. How is your new message board, “Plant-Based People,” different than your previous one, “Vegan Represent”? Plant-Based People ditched the word vegan because it was too restrictive and meaningless at the same time. Vegan Represent had a strict policy about being vegan. We even made you declare your Vegan Story at the door! PBP would be for everybody to talk in a constructive manner without the vague dogmatic qualifiers. Its an attempt to bypassthe preconceptions and seek, explore and share ideas, solutions and experiences. Isnt that how rational people should commune?
Posted on: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 20:37:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015