RSS
Home
The problem with single issue campaigns
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Even if unintended, promotions like this ad from PETA imply skinning
fur animals is the height of immorality even though there is no difference
in doing the same to a non-fur animal for his/her hide.
If you dig up an organization's animal rights campaigns, say from a Google search, you'll most likely see campaigns to ban fur, veal, gestation crates, and likely little to no campaigns concerning vegan education.
Campaigns like these are called single-campaign issues. I'll tell you why such campaigns are actually a bad idea for animal rights and why vegan education is a more appropriate option.
'Baby steps in the right direction'
Let me first acknowledge why vegans are drawn to support these campaigns. We all know of the suffering involved in the production of fur or foie gras; the banning of which being two popular single-campaigns. If a cruel practice exists, why wouldn't anyone just support a measure to have it banned?
Indeed, the skinning of animals is nothing we should support. This practice and the creation of animals for this purpose should be abolished. This being said, let's ask the important question: Does it make sense for animal rights advocates to target retail stores that sell leather, wool, and fur to demand they remove the fur?
This is how many of these campaigns are run. When the campaign is a "success," these organizations declare victory and ask their supporters to send "thank you" letters to retail stores who continue to sell leather and other animal products.
Before trying to justify this fact, we must acknowledge this is logically inconsistent with animal rights.
A matter of efficiency?
After acknowledging this inconsistency, we might be tempted to defend such a campaign because even though it doesn't take out all animal products from a retail store, it does take out one particular kind. From this reasoning, we may be tempted to say this is a "step in the right direction." The idea that our fractional campaigns are part of a greater process which will end up at the abolition of animal use can be very comforting, but this is simply not true.
Miseducation
Let's also acknowledge leather is no more ethical of an animal product than fur, nor is a glass of milk better than a pound of veal. There's also no guarantee a store will sell fewer animal derived coats, for example.
The store may simply cover for the sales of fur products with the sale of leather. It is very likely a store would have no drop in their selling of animal products. I want to make that point clear, but it's not the most compelling reason for me to reject single campaign issues.
Often single-campaigns are reasoned to send a message to the public to think about animals and have nice fuzzy thoughts about them. However, what will the average consumer think when visiting a store whose logo is plastered withe the word "victory" on an animal rights organization's website?
They won't start thinking about the plight of animals or why they should go vegan. Instead, they will be ensured they are making a moral, ethical choice by visiting and patronizing this store. They are being told this store is "responsible" when they are financially engaged in a practice of massively exploiting animals. Whether or not they do this to some smaller degree than other stores does not change this fact.
Single campaigns strengthen the already existent mindset that there is some moral difference between leather and fur or beef and foie gras. Those still sympathetic to single campaigns may want to find "the good they do" which leads to a cherry picking of supposed benefits while ignoring the very serious negative effects and logical inconsistencies of such a program.
Slippery slope
If a campaign moves a retailer to end their selling of fur, the store has now started a campaign of their own to attract consumers wishing to purchase from a store a large animal welfare organization deems as "responsible."
The animal welfare organization has sold out. In return for a appeasement of ditching fur in a store full of various animal products, the store has bought itself an endorsement.
The storefront also now has a sort of social movement immunity. Because their business is distinguished from other businesses who have not made this change, they become the least likely to have their sales of other animal products challenged. The beliefs of single-issue activists is they should receive thanks and blessings from animal advocates.
'Single issues are much easier'
Single campaign activists have argued in favor of campaigns like these because choosing only one product to ban is more attainable, easier for a company to stop selling. I should note right away this logic disregards the harmful and logically inconsistent factors of a campaign in replacement for attainability. Why would it matter if a result is more attainable if it miseducates the public and protects the business?
Instead, I'd like to appeal, not to individual bans, but transforming the very mindset of society which drives us to view fur or leather as clothing in the first place.
In other words, why go after the supplier for giving us what we ask for? I suggest our asking--our demand should be the target for our campaigns. The first step in being an animal rights advocate is to go vegan. If you already are, talk to your peers about going vegan themselves.
Twitter .png){kind=small}
FacebookRelated Articles:
Comments
