List Price: $11.99 Add to Cart | Small Book With a Big Idea5 Minute Training to Empower You and Transform Our WorldAuthored by Sara TingThought-provoking, engaging, poignant and witty. 5 minute training to empower you and help transform the world.
|
Friday, July 23, 2010
Small Book With a Big Idea (by
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Do Celebrity Endorsements Influence YOUR Behavior?
Do Celebrity Endorsements Influence Your Behavior?
By HOLLY EPSTEIN OJALVOIs there an animal rights MOVEMENT as such? What social science evidence is there?
I'm interested in your assessment, from your professional and academic study, of whether the (so-called?) 'animal rights movement' has the capacity to effectively foster and help implement fundamental change in the social and legal status of animals in North America?
A political scientist from Harvard and the University of Michigan, Dr. Carl Phillips (presenting himself consistently as an ethical vegan, we all saw), argued at the beginning of this century that the (idea of the) 'animal rights movement' is a myth because, though there may be growing understanding and support for 'it's' values and outlooks and scientific research is deepening and broadening the evidence base for such outlooks and values, the collage of constituencies present NONE of the characteristics of a social movement:
� no cohesion
� no lore or repertoire
� no campaigns (well, there's the Great American Meatout, but that's about kicking the meat habit for one day of the year, on March 20th, and it's a rag tag annually-collected group of volunteers who voluntarily report to FARM on their 'doings' - including 'steak-outs')
While Charles Tilly (2004) defines big social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people made collective claims on others, most of those who claim to be 'animal rights advocates' are sheepish about making any general and broadly defensible claims UPON others (that have any impact) because they prefer an outlook and value system of individual (and I'd argue arbitrary) self-justification (the 'choice' movement).
Distinguishing social movements from political parties and advocacy groups, Sidney Tarrow (1994) defines a social movement as collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups, or cultural codes] by persons with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents, and authorities. Most often, those who are most outspoken in national organizations that claim to be animal rights' organizations (and really are welfarist organizations) have chosen VERY LOUDLY a political party where the overwhelming majority are neither vegetarian (let alone vegan) and have no concept of rights pertaining to anyone other than to members of their own species.
It all seems pretty humble, I'd say, and while humility is a virtue with its own charm, this set of human stirrings seems more of the 'humbleness' variety that lacks any socially organic sense of itself (that's definable and self-defined, evidence-based, and consequentially effective.
Now I suspect that Carl Phillips had been thinking of writing a book on the topic because he was very thorough in his efforts to disabuse us all of the notion that we comprised a movement. Then, after 'flashing on the scene' (in the rhetoric of the 1960s) and 'dissing' everyone who looked prominent in (what many of us had THOUGHT to be 'the AR movement'), he disappeared (from 'the scene') to be hardly discoverable without significant efforts. To this extent, some could have thought he was 'a plant' from elsewhere, but he seemed very genuine throughout his graduate careers at U Mich and Harvard, and he spoke well and genuinely about the scientific reasons for being vegetarian and for replacing animal models in the various life sciences. If Dr. Phillips had been a plant, he surely seemed to be 'a vegan plant' and not the sort that could have sown any destruction EXCEPT the doubt that we could be termed 'a social movement' or 'a political movement' in the systematic analysis of ANY of the social or political theorists who write about such historical processes.
Though bureaucratization seems to be common in 'the national AR organizations (e.g. PETA, Fund for Animals, AAVS, NAVS, PCRM, et al. - perhaps characteristic of the phenomenon's middle class roots in America and Europe), we (ARAs = animal rights advocates) may have failed to 'coalesce', in the terms of Blumer, Mause, and Tilly, and that failure could be the process disruption that kept or keeps us from emerging as a viable social movement - a failure to coalesce (despite the emergence of a plurality of 'voices' that seem too often polarized or alienated from one another.
Any thoughts on that?
His lectures were passionate, robust, genuine, engaging and interesting to the point of being fascinating, and 'bursting at the seams' in the sense that (as I recall them) they often went past the stopping time.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Carnism or Speciesism
Friday, June 18, 2010
George Eisman, Founder of VEGEDINE, and profession changer
Freeing nonhumans from legal property status
I want to jump to WHY we need to support deontological thinking with consequentialist thinking?
Unless there's evidence to SUPPORT the shadow belief that other humans CAN readily (and thus will) see the logic inherent in abolitionism, going vegan, and legal rights for nonhumans, the consequentialist side or aspect of our understanding(s) must (or should) serve as a backup to any advocacy for animals because, if 'the others' think that they are paying TOO dearly for any of these ideas, their 'disconnects' with thinking them through will occur at various (and often unidentified points) along 'the way' in their process of being 'educated'. We (self-styled) 'advocates' are not the best arbiters of whether or not 'the public' is being 'educated'; 'the public' calls the shots in their own learning because they are 'existentially free' - in a 'posture of freedom' with regard to what occurs to them, including presentations. They can merely 'turn off' their cellphones or landline phones as they wish; they can merely turn off advocacy, too, if it's going to cost them too much, and that's what we call 'anxiety'.
The anxiety about any change needs to be lower than the anxiety of staying the same, with keeping the status quo in a matter or an area.
To ourselves, the consequentialist side may not be decisive in OUR remaining vegan, but the general 'others' (all 6.828 billion OTHER humans on this planet) are not we; they are individually 'the they' - 'das Man' (the other) in Heidegger's terms, 'the public', and they are not behaviorally or phenomenologically who we are, even when they function structurally as we do.
The similarities are ways we talk with others; the differences are points of discussion IF we honor the inherent freedom and potential authenticity of others.
Those who claim that you 'don't understand' just need to try a little harder to understand the communications interfaces and challenges we confront. They are many; simple sound bites among ourselves do not teach or educate our own numbers; how could we POSSIBLY EVER educate others?
Points to be made are just that: points to be made, and they are good. But effective communication is yet another chore, a distinct chore. Various groups do something LIKE communications, based on their internal assumptions. Success is nearly impossible to measure, as nearly all marketing companies will confess about their own advertising and marketing campaigns. Budgets (money allocated for the costs of accomplishing their ends) are the primary concern; measuring effectiveness is another, and suitable leadership - thought leadership - is way up there with primary concerns.
Clarifying abolitionism is one task; Clarifying abolitionism is not coextensive with communicating effectively with the unsympathetic (or partially unsympathetic but woo-able) general public.
Don't turn me off here, since I'm really with you all (us). PETA's claim is that their budgets justify the success of their techniques. You and are a deeply suspicious of 'PETA loyalist' claims that because THEY went vegan under PETA's influences 'then' (sometime in the past), PETA's strange (and objectionable) tactics today justify our 'lumping it' and going with the (PETA-driven) 'flow' - why? ' 'for the animals'. But 'leadership' can be negative or bad, and perhaps the logic here isn't good.
Doing something ostensibly for a purpose isn't identical with doing something for the reality of that purpose; it may describe the inner thinking (the phenomenology) of the willing actors, but without measuring outcomes, these 'campaigns' fail even the consequentialist test.
I've merely been pointing out that, in line with Peter Singer, many, many folks who go veggie (at various levels) have learned to think as consequentialists, as pragmatists, as results-oriented expectants, even if they FAIL to do what consequentialism logically requires: testing the results.
Jean-Paul Sartre said that the meaning of history is the outcomes of our actions, and Scandinavian theologian Nels F. S. Ferre taught that the meaning of living in history is the coming to fruition of THE CHOICES OF OTHERS (for our choices do not override the choices of others). Categories of sociality, love, compassion, other-orientedness, ethics, altruism, etc. are all - look carefully - real, legitimate, defensible, and useful existential categories with which to live our lives.
We don't change others merely by the overriding forces of OUR will, nor merely by 'wooing' them to veganism seductively, as many teen vegan women seem to think will 'work' with their hunky nonvegetarian boyfriends. We enable their growth and development in social contexts, and we do much more, for social existence is very complex.
Group social relationships (structured and unstructured) can be studied 'up the wazoo' (not the scholarly term used by social scientists), but somehow, finding ourselves (as individual and variable as we are) is crucial to our living authentically among those numerous social groupings through which we pass throughout our days, weeks, months, years, decades, etc.
If Jean-Paul Sartre is correct in his analysis, the 'meaning' of all this vegan social living and thinking will be determined by whether or not we accept, unfolding in front of us, the authentic decisionmaking of manifold others who 'get it' about going vegan.
Clear philosophy has a place, and perhaps some public stunts will, also (I'd rather have singable pro-vegan pro-animal music, but that's not on the agenda, apparently, among vegan groups, even if they write songs). However, measurement is what successful corporations do, and though Ralph Nader 'wishes' to the contrary, this IS a world where corporations' success can be seen. Why? Perhaps because they do 'reality testing' frequently, periodically, carefully, intensively, and expectantly. Resources are devoted to measuring what comes of what they do, and perhaps we ought to do some of the same sort of thing - with a set of vegan think tanks that have resources to actually measure.
We used to look to VRG - the Vegetarian Resource Group - to tell us how many vegetarians and vegans there are. To get that socially-desired data, they paid marketing firms to interview the general public (so that required putting sets of questions in various survey instruments that were ALSO used for other purposes. We trusted that data, but we also learned that our percentages are not growing (significantly).
We can speculate why that is our historical lot. I think that the influx of nonvegetarian populations who COULD quite easily be swayed towards more nearly plant-based diets (the same groups that work in slaughterhouses, to our dismay) bends the numbers, and our social traits as vegans freely but not efficiently networking prevent us from making communications and outreach ('evangelism') a low priority (to nonexistent concern).
So,
(a) we've not scoped out the challenges and possibilities.
(b) we shy away from the distasteful challenges we've already discovered
(c) we imagine from within, without the necessary evidence bases for effective actions
(d) we content ourselves with many new books and media which, in effect, communicate TO us about clarifying our vegan values (in other words, the authors tapped their markets).
(e) we fail to learn about advocacy from the vegetarian businesses, who guarded their ideas and marketing acumen as if it were private IP (intellectual property) and ceded their potential roles as 'thought leaders' in the vegetarian movement in favor of running (or managing) their business (when they could have collaborated with one another - thinking together about how to grow the market by increasing the number of vegetarians and vegans who would naturally WANT their products, leaving that responsibility to the nonprofits and advocacy groups, like you and I know 'on the ground').
(f) it's a pity that animals are dying because of our inefficiencies; it's a pity we haven't done better; it's a pity we haven't learned to [bracket] our inner energies (personalities, Buddhist meditation, Alan Beck's Mindfulness Based Therapy, sporadic energies that emerge in our bodies and minds, etc.) and have lead the sheep (democratically?) run the movement where we need vision and (collective or shared) leadership.
Now, to return to the question (which I merely THINK that I've clarified somewhat), will a threshold percentage of vegans make possible, predictable, likely, foreseeable a recognition of their personhood through a change in their legal status?
That's a yes or no, but that COULD be a yes or no in certain jurisdictions, just as we have regional jurisdictions (states, provinces, cities) that decide some elements of social life locally or regionally, without a national or international consensus.
What might that threshold percentage be? Do we have any evidence base for approximating such a threshold percentage?
Maynard
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Google search/feed for 'vegan' for May 29, 2010
veg*an
Vegan Drinks XXV, the Recap: We Got OlderThey represent all of the cities in the US that host a Vegan Drinks event! We turned TWO on May 27th! Thanks for supporting Vegan Drinks for the past two ... Successful Utah restaurant owner opens organic marketOwner Ian Brandt has used the wholesale business to supply fresh organic fruits and vegetables for his vegetarian-vegan restaurants, Sage's Cafe and ... Lea Michele On Dove's Intense Repair, Vegan Cupcakes & Reckless Hair CutsLea Michele: Dark chocolate and vegan cupcakes! My guilty pleasure used to be cheese but since I've become a vegan I've found that vegandesserts taste ... Lea Michele proud of not getting nose job Digital Spy Your morning fashion and beauty report: Gaultier out at Hermes. Alexander... Los Angeles Times (blog) No meat or dairy? Vegan-friendly options aboundPress Herald - May 27, 2010 phone, e-mail, Twitter and Facebook, the question is always the same: Where's the best place to get a vegan meal in Portland? Sweetpea Baking Company Ad Attracts National Anti-Vegan IreEater.com (blog) Oregon City teen is finalist in peta2's Cutest Vegetarian Alive contestOregonLive.com - May 28, 2010 Nesser's favorite foods now: faux chicken nuggets and vegan chocolate-chip pancakes. To view photos and bios of all the finalists and to vote in the contest ... University of Cincinnati Freshman Among Finalists in peta2's 'Cutest ...PETA (press release) Verbatim: Bluffton native finalist for 'Cutest Vegetarian' Fort Wayne Journal Gazette (blog) Eggplants have enjoyed a long and illustrious history in the kitchens of Greece: fried, stewed, baked, ... Cooking Out in the City, No Backyard NecessaryTHOUGH I have been a vegan for a decade, I've always been fascinated by barbecuing (teriyaki-marinated tofu is delicious if you can ... Grilling out, vegan style, for Memorial DayTry grilled tofu instead of the usual grilled fare for Memorial Day.Here's a great recipe for those of you looking for an ... Going vegan: What's the Next Big Thing? Lots of big names say fruits and ...While the Obama family isn't vegan, the first lady's message resonates with people who are. "What I've learned from being a mom, in trying to feed my girls, ... 'Glee' Star Lea Michele Is Proud She's Never Had A Nose JobAnd although they're very close, don't assume that her family has always been supportive of her vegan diet. “Coming from an Italian family, you can imagine ... Lea Michele Is Healthy! PerezHilton.com (blog) Lea Michele's Body Worries Contactmusic.com Leona Lewis pays 175000 for ethical tour outfitsLewis, a strict vegan, has worked with Antonio Berardi on the collection, who has previously worked with Madonna and Kylie Minogue. Leona's an ethics girl The Sun Leona's Eco-Chic Wardrobe Sky Showbiz Viva Vegan! by Terry Hope RomeroWhile flipping through cookbooks at the bookstore, I ran across Terry Hope Romero's latest cookbook, Viva Vegan! With a subtitle of “200 Authentic and ... Does the 'Amityville' House Have a New Tenant?... hosting PETA's exhibit attract more potential buyers to the house, it would also let visitors know that every vegan saves more than 100 animals a year. Why Does PETA Want to Rent the "Amityville Horror" House? Opposing Views PETA wants 'Amityville Horror' house to scare meat eaters New York Daily News wines had to be bought from specialist outlets such as ... Canada.com - May 28, 2010 Over six years and 27 restaurants later the monthly vegan dine outs continue to be a popular monthly event. Omnivores, vegetarians and vegans alike gather ... Vegan Doughnut Smackdown: Pepple's vs. Whole Foods' PoshThat Whole Foods carries six flavors of its "Posh Vegan Donuts" (chocolate, chocolate peanut, maple, maple coconut, sugar crumb, and plain cake), ... LOVE for the EnvironmentHowever, the most important personal thing we can each do for the environment is to fall in LOVE: Local, Organic, Vegetarian/Vegan Eating. 30-second spots: Kraft dinner, PETA, and secret stitchingGlobe and Mail - May 28, 2010 The ad promoting a vegan diet depicts an airport security X-ray scan of a fit woman in a bra and frilly underwear and the words: “Be Proud of Your Body ... More results for veg*an » |