This interaction can also tell us a great deal about how we operate in groups.  Specifically, this article will examine a social phenomenon of groups called pluralistic ignorance. This phenomenon describes a situation where members of a group each reject an idea individually, yet collectively accept the norm respectively believing they are alone in their rejection.

I will further allude to situations where animal advocates subconsciously embrace pluralistic ignorance, thereby snowballing detrimental ideas and practices in animal movements.  This is not to say, however, that pluralistic ignorance is a sole cause of the popularity of detrimental movement ideals.

Groupthink

Pluralistic ignorance is a product of what some social psychologists call "groupthink," a natural instinct of conformational thinking.  Specifically, we "groupthink" when we wish to avoid conflict and disagreement.  By coming to a consensus on ideas based on nonverbal and symbolic cues from a group, we develop a position with which all or most members of a group agree or at least appear to agree.

Pluralistic ignorance is a result of misreading these cues.  Binge drinking is a textbook example of pluralistic ignorance.  At parties, crowds of inexperienced, young drinkers look to the people around them for cues on how much alcohol is outside of the injunctive norm.

Another example of pluralistic ignorance would the classic tale of The Emperor's New Coat.  In this tale, an emperor is fooled by thieves who convince him they have made him a special cloak only visible by the noble.  The emperor, wanting to appear to the theives and the public he is indeed noble, claims he can see the coat and "wears" it in public--who is told the same lie.  It takes the outburst from a little boy in the crowd to finally break the false consensus to declare the emperor is walking around in the nude.

The trouble with exemplifying pluralistic ignorance is that it is largely speculative.  A thorough, yet subjective examination is needed of the minds of all involved to accurately asses whether or not members of a group are playing this game of socialization.  Nevertheless, there are obvious clues to these sorts of behaviors.

Vegan "enough"

Relating back to veganism, I was inspired to write an article on the vegan acceptance of non-vegan ingredients after reading a recent blog post on the My Face is on Fire blog.  Author Mylène Ouellet discusses PETA's "Caring Consumer" site which openly lists some non-vegan ingredients as being acceptable for vegans (Yet another reason why serious vegans should use and contribute to "Is it Vegan" on Vegan.FM instead.)  This had me wanting to discuss the defense of PETA's actions in terms of making veganism more attractive to others.  For instance, one comment on this post reads

"I like PETA's stance. If you can stay .1% more vegan, you can save a few animals in your lifetime. If you can attract those around you to an almost vegan lifestyle, you can save thousands of animals"

The comment refers to PETA's arbitrary measurement of bone-char processing of sugar as "%99.9" vegan.  There is a troubling aspect to non-vegan acceptance when we think of vegan education in terms of "buying" vegans with just a teency weency bit of exploitation.  With different interpretations of veganism flying everwhere, we often look to our peers for acceptance of our positions.  Many of us are the people in the emperor's crowd, looking to each other to determine consensual agreement while appearing to individual come to our conclusions naturally.  Unfortunately, large and corrupt groups like PETA often make up these crowds.  Support for vegetarian education and protests of suppliers reigns from these pluralistic forces (among other factors.)

"Ricochet" activism.

Ricochet activism is a phenomenon of vegan advocacy where advocates will reject vegan education altogether, instead putting faith into "meatless mondays" or vegetarian education in the hopes the individual will go vegan later.  Again, these campaigns, despite being very speciesist and making false distinctions between flesh and secondary animal products are very popular. 

The reaction pays attention to individuals who are the least likely to go vegan insisting that (1) advocacy should focus primarily on this group, and (2) vegan education will scare this group away.  The term "ricochet" comes from the idea that despite telling people to do the wrong thing (continue to consume animal products as long as they aren't orally ingested as flesh) in good faith their actions will ricochet into doing the right thing outside the realm of observation.  These are thick rose-colored glasses and are fashionable among circles of pluralistic ignorance.

If those who actually practice vegan education do not experience their peers running away in fright, why are groups so insistent on vegetarianism?  Among many factors, it is likely the appeal of popularity has driven people to accept vegetarianism as the default.  Talking to former welfarists, you get the sense of pluralistic ignorance being very likely among welfare groups.  These individuals often express negative feelings about their groups' expenditures, use of sexism, and unusual or pointless tactics in campaigns.

Vegetarianism

I've written exhaustively on why I do not believe vegetarianism should be advocated in animal rights campaigns.  The groupthink of vegetarian acceptance is very odd.  If I suggested to an animal welfare forum that we educate people on adopting meat and vegetable diets (no eggs, milk, or other secondary animal products,) I'd assume I'd get shot down pretty quickly.  On the other hand, the same forums lovingly embrace vegetarianism--to boot, they often refer to veganism as "fanatical," "purist," or "absolutist."

Yet what really is the difference here?  Animal products like milk and eggs are no better than meat or fish in terms of suffering or exploitation.  The distinction between flesh and secondary animal products is artificial.  They are products of exploitation which simply go by a different name.  So why is it that "meat" is the target of animal rights campaigns while my hypothetical (strictly) suggestion to avoid eggs, milk, and honey is absurd?