All we have is means
09 June 2008

I love Ursula LeGuin’s science fiction. The work of hers that I’ve read almost always contemplates some aspect of the human character, and of our nature as social creatures. Most recently, I’ve begun working my way through The Lathe of Heaven, which has an enticing premise. George Orr is your average guy, except that he has what he calls “effective dreams:” dreams that change reality. Caught by the government for using prescriptions illegally, Orr is put in the care of a doctor who specializes in sleep disorders. Realizing that Orr has the ability to change reality, the doctor induces in Orr particular kinds of dream states which he uses to change the world. Set in the not-so-distant future, the world is rife with war and hunger following a global collapse of the human population. Wishing for a better world, and with wholly honest intentions, Orr’s doctor uses the “effective” dreams to change the world, willing into existence new circumstances that he feels are for the better.

The problem, of course, is that it becomes more and more difficult for the doctor to account for all of the potential issues that spin off of his relatively simple prescriptions for the way the world should be. When the doctor urges Orr to dream of the earth at peace with itself, Orr dreams into reality a humanity forced into a peaceful unity by its need to fight off an alien race.

Orr realizes that he’s being used to change the world, and in this realization, he comes to the point that, for me, is interesting in the context of social movements, including the animal rights movement. Each time Orr’s doctor uses him, he creates unintended results, even with completely beneficent intentions. As Orr says:

The end justifies the means. But what if there never is an end? All we have is means.

And this is the essential point: all we have is means. In other words, we can dream of alternate realities, and plan for them, and even work towards them, but if we’re going to work towards them, the way that we work towards them must be consistent with our principles. As I wrote in Making A Killing, we cannot sacrifice what we think is right in a principled trade-off for a better world in some distant tomorrow that may never come.

In the animal rights movement, we’ve largely lost sight of the importance of this kind of thinking. The bulk of the movement is preoccupied with negotiating with the industry for better treatment of exploited animals, keeping in place the essential relations of property and commodification that condemn animals to be mere instruments to human want and profit (and indeed, many of the arguments made for welfare reforms highlight the cost-effictiveness of the reforms for producers). As long as the agricultural industry can hold animals as property, it can exploit them effectively for profit. Welfare regulations may modify the way that property owners treat their animal property, but ultimately, as long as animals can be treated as property, they will never gain equal consideration.

The problem is this: fighting for welfare reform doesn’t significantly reduce the desire for animal foods, nor does it significantly impact the productive relation at the heart of animal exploitation. It is thinking in which the presumed end justifies the means. Yet, as Orr points out, all we have is means. Every day that we live, we remake the world. The question is, are we remaking the world in the way that we really want it to be? Would we prefer that animals be nicely treated commodities, still exploited, albeit more gently, or would we prefer that the world be vegan, and recognize the inherent worth of animals as beings with their own subjective experience of the world?

If we want a vegan world, we have to work to produce one, and the only way to produce one is by living one uncompromisingly on a daily basis. Vegan education works to effectively remodel social relations, and to hit at the heart of the problem with animal exploitation. For this reason, our work should focus on the inglorious, quotidian work that’s required for creating a broad-based movement of people who live abolition in their daily life, who work to change the conditions that condemn animals to being mere instruments and property, and who work to educate others about the importance of veganism as a lived form of protest. No amount of negotiating with KFC or McDonald’s or whatever fast food restaurant will have such an impact; no amount of banning gestation crates, or producing cage free eggs will get us there. Only veganism can bring the kind of world we’re after, and only veganism can be the means if we are truly serious about respecting the inherent needs of animals to live free of exploitation and suffering. 

  Posted by Bob Torres    Permalink    Filed under: OpinionStupid Welfarists
Potentially Related Articles:
My piece for OpposingViews
16 November 2008

Should animals have the same rights?

Read more of My piece for OpposingViews »

The Failure of the Single Issue Campaign
22 October 2008

The online retailer Zappo’s sells fur, and everyone is outraged. But what about their leather?

Read more of The Failure of the Single Issue Campaign »

I’m with Stupid
13 August 2008
3 things that make me wonder about the sanity of AR activists
Read more of I’m with Stupid »