The Evolution of Animal Ethics in Japan by Dr. Koichi Tagami.

Over a number of exchanges with Dr. Koichi Tagami of Rissho University, Toyko, Japan, I have been exploring how the issue and idea of animal rights is evolving in Japan. Dr. Tagami is an expert on Marx's theory of alienation and is the author of "Practical Environmental Ethics" (2006), extracts of which can be found here.

I am grateful to Dr. Tagami for giving me permission to reproduce the following exchange.

Dear Dr. Tagami,

Hello and I hope you are well. As you are aware I am sure, I am interested in the philosophical evolution of the "animal rights movement". I see that in a very short period of time, you have realised and appreciated that one must turn away from Peter Singer's utilitarianism, and turn toward theorists such as Gary Francione and Tom Regan, if one wishes to gain a genuine animal rights understanding of human relations with the nonhuman world.

Given this, you have taken a journey that the "animal rights movement" refuses to take. Therefore, I would be interested to hear of your philosophical journey, so to speak, in your exploration of animal ethics. At the present time, in Europe and North America, there is a struggle going on involving animal advocates who are serious about rights and animal advocates who merely use rights rhetorically, in group names for example. I would very much appreciate your comments on this, should you wish to share them.

With very best wishes and respect,

Dr. Roger Yates.

Dear Dr. Roger Yates.

First of all, I would like to explain how I have come to accept the theory of animal rights.

To begin with, my main research theme is 'the formation of ideas in early Marx’, and since the publication of my first article in 1991 I have been writing on issues surrounding the texts of early Marx, such as Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and the German Ideology. After collecting the results of my research in a book entitled The Theory of Alienation in Early Marx, I obtained a doctorate in 2000.

However, this does not mean that I had no interest in, nor knowledge of, animal ethics. For I have been asked to teach ethics in university since 1994, and as a result, I have come to study issues in modern ethics, and become familiar with Peter Singer’s work. As you well know, Animal Liberation describes in detail the horrific conditions which animals suffer in factory farming, and this strongly impressed on me the strength of Singer’s argument. Yet, at the same time, I felt antagonistic towards his demand for vegetarianism. A ‘meal without meat’ seemed to me at that time unimaginably ‘abnormal’. I loved meat and was under the impression that I could not tolerate vegetarian meals. Besides, the fact that there were no vegetarians around me, and the fact that no one recommended it really worked against me.
In terms of my profession, there are many ‘academics’ who teach ethics, but there are no vegetarians, nor an ‘ethicist’ who supported animal rights (this is still the case).

On the contrary, the common attitude among the ethicists around me was that it was ‘ridiculous’ to put animals in the same category as humans, and that Singer’s argument was ‘extreme’ and did not deserve to be taken seriously. Consequently, although I felt that Singer’s argument was quite persuasive, I pretended to ‘look away’, and decided ‘not to think about it’. Nevertheless, ever since obtaining a doctorate, I have come to research environmental ethics in earnest. While re-reading books relevant to animal rights, I was becoming more convinced than ever of the evil of meat-eating. And Singer’s message that ‘one should become a vegetarian’ had changed from an irritation like ‘something in-between one’s teeth’ to an intolerable discomfort.

Yet the reason I still could not decide to be a vegetarian was that I believed that if I became a vegetarian, my muscles would deteriorate. I like training myself and I thought I couldn’t stand losing the results of all the exercise I had done over the years. That I used to worry about such a small thing is quite laughable now I think about it, but I didn’t know any vegetarians and couldn’t get rid of the stereotype of a ‘pale vegetarian’.

Around that time, I happened to come across an opportunity of going to India. It was December 2002. This trip to India turned out to be the biggest turning point in my life. It was literally a ‘culture shock’. One of the culture shocks I experienced was their diet. Apart from expensive restraints for tourists, diners for the Indian general public Alwasa served a set meal of dahl (a kind of soup) and vegetable curry, and even for snacks it was the rule not to use meat rather than the exception. In India ‘not eating meat’ is neither ‘abnormal’ nor ‘strange’, but rather a ‘natural’ thing to do. To witness the fact that far more people than Japan’s population are vegetarian made me feel certain that it is impossible to damage one’s health by not eating meat. After I came back to Japan, I had gradually reduced the amount of meat and animal product I consumed. And before long I became almost vegan at home, although I still consumed a tiny amount of dairy product. When I went out for a meal, if there was no way I could avoid it, I ate a small amount of animal product. Even in such cases, I chose sea food over meat. This is how my present eating habit became established.

Eating a small amount of animal product when I go out is a compromise I have to adopt in order to survive in Japan, which is an extremely backward country when it comes to vegetarianism. Of course I don’t want to consume animal product at all, but otherwise I wouldn’t be able to go out at all. Japan really is a difficult place for the vegetarian to live in. Once I became a vegetarian, I discovered that my worry that ‘I would lose muscles’ was totally unfounded. On the contrary, my muscles came to develop more easily through training. Being able to lead a much healthier life when I am vegetarian than when I was a meat-eater has allowed me to feel that it is right to be a vegetarian. And as I lived a vegetarian life, before I knew it, the desire for meat had disappeared. By becoming a vegetarian, I felt as though the thorn with which Singer had pricked my heart had been pulled out, and this gave me a stirring feeling that I was finally released from hypocrisy. I no longer have to adopt an attitude that is unworthy of an ethicist – that is to say, an attitude of pretence that animals are excluded as the objects of moral consideration.

However, once I became a vegetarian and seriously committed to animal issues as my own problems rather than somebody else’s, I started to look at Singer’s argument differently from the way I used to.

Although I used to think that Singer’s argument was a radical extremist one which forced people to become vegetarian, I began to think that in fact his argument is full of holes; a ‘loose’ argument. For although Singer emphasises that we should not inflict suffering on animals, he does not criticise the use of animals by humans in itself. Therefore, if animals are kept in comfortable environments and slaughtered painlessly, he will have no right to criticise factory faming. And as for animal experiment, if the ‘benefit’ humans gain outweighs the loss inflicted on animals, then, in Singer’s argument, animal experimentation is acceptable as an ‘exception’.

Soon after I became a vegetarian and started to engage with animal issues seriously, I discovered that Singer’s argument cannot be a true rationale for the protection of animals. For, because Singer’s theory is not a ‘rights theory’ that regards animals as ‘rights-bearers’, I cannot help but think that his theory is one that accumulates ‘deferral’ which allows the use of animals, and ends up rolling down the ‘slippery slope’, and that such a theory would make the animal rights movement spineless. Thus, although Singer made me aware that we should protect animals by becoming vegetarians, once I actually became one, I began to think that in order truly to protect animals, we should not stop at Singer’s position, but proceed to genuine animal rights theories such as Tom Regan’s or Gary Francione’s.

This is how I have become an animal rightist. Compared to the study on Marx, I have but begun to research animal rights. As a beginning I have submitted an essay [now published] entitled the Reality of Animal Rights Theories to a human rights organisation journal. The aim is to cause a stir in the present situation where Peter Singer is mistaken to be a representative of animal rights theories. Although you may find it unbelievable, in Japan there are few ethicists who subsequently declare themselves to be vegetarians and then support vegetarianism or animal rights theories. There is a gap between theory and practice. Against this tendency, I intend to deepen my research as a vegetarian animal rightist and to present my own position.


Yours truly,

Dr. Koichi Tagami.


We can only hope that, as Dr. Tagami continues his journey toward veganism, that it becomes as easy as it is elsewhere. It is a noteworthy and welcome development that there is someone in Japan able to explain what is - and what is not - animal rights.

A Cow At My Table: an event in Animal Rights July.

The third event of ‘Animal Rights July’ in Dublin takes place at Theatre ‘N’, Newman Building, UCD campus, on Wednesday 15th July, 2009, at 7.00 pm.

A Cow At My Table has never been presented at a public event such as Animal Rights July before in Ireland. It is a powerful documentary about our relations with other animals, filmed over five years, by journalist, media artist and teacher, Jennifer Abbot.

What makes A Cow At My Table compelling is that it features voices from both sides of ‘the animal issue,’ and particularly about the issue of using nonhuman animals for food.

With archive and contemporary footage, the film explores issues such as the transition from ‘family farms’ to large-scale ‘factory-farming,’ the role of animal welfare organisations, animal welfare experts, and the critique of animal use by more radical animal protectionists and animal rightists.

Commenting on A Cow At My Table as part of his Animal Rights July agenda, event organiser Dr. Roger Yates said: “Abbot’s documentary raises important issues which are central to my own research in sociology but also addresses everyone’s concerns about how ~and indeed whether~ we should use other animals for our benefit. For example, it looks at the socialisation process, which gives us our first attitudes to our relations with animals; the relationship between social movements and their countermovements; and, most of all, examines the role of the ideology and practice of animal welfarism in society in general and in the animal protection movement.”

“Animal welfarism is the institutionalised means by which we regulate the use of animals. Essentially, it promises ‘non-cruel use’ and suggests that existing problems can be solved with increased regulation and legislation. However, there are several problems with this. For example, in relation to so-called farm animals, animal welfare organisations seem to be forever forced into a ‘never-win’ situation. This can be demonstrated by current events that affect Ireland. At the moment a European ‘farm animal’ welfare group with a branch in Ireland simultaneously lists as its achievements and ‘welcome improvements’ the bringing about of reforms in EU law while publishing exposes of the violations of those same laws and regulations.[1] A three-stage process seems to be in play. Not only do the welfare groups spend years campaigning for change, this is followed by a long period of implementation [much EU legislation on ‘farm animals’ does not take effect until 2013, see HERE] and then these same groups spend years monitoring the reforms they supported, exposing violations of regulatory laws they were instrumental in creating.”

Speaking about present day animal advocacy, Dr. Yates also said: “A Cow At My Table can be seen as a plea for a new approach to animal advocacy, a call which has been answered in the last few years by a new abolitionist movement in animal rights which sets veganism as its moral baseline and concentrates its attack on animal use rather than animal treatment while being used.”


Praise for A Cow At My Table…

"...an extraordinarily compelling, powerful and visually stunning documentary."
—Vancouver International Film Festival

"...idiosyncratic and refreshingly unpredictable... may become one of the most persuasive videos of the coming decade."
— Animal People

"... a brilliant documentary."
—Toronto Star

"You should watch and love Abbott’s film ... This work has a sense of vision, reason and direction that make Abbott an admirable documentarian."
— Victoria Independent Film & Video Festival

"...an important film!"
— J. Hunter Todd, Chairman & Founding Director, WorldFest Houston

"[a] startling, even-handed and extremely accomplished documentary."
— Jim Sinclair, Pacific Cinematheque

"Gently pits animal activists against the meat industry in a probing reflection on flesh foods... Like all the best documentaries, this film offers more questions than answers."
— Cameron Baily, NOW Magazine, Toronto

"Stylistically inventive and able to find a visual beauty within this ugly subject, A Cow at My Table uncovers balance and truth in a very complex subject with numerous sides."
— Alex MacKenzie, Blinding Light!! Cinema

"...at once a rigorous exploration of the meat industry and a visually elegant and stylistically compelling work of art."
— Heather Frise, Director, Bones of the Forest

"...expertly reported."
— Willimette Week

"...a compelling and highly acclaimed documentary ... presenting a powerful and thorough inquiry into the institution of meat."
— Animals’ Agenda


[1] The Irish branch of an animal welfare organisation says (currently on its web site – visited 10th July 2009) that it “has been campaigning for better conditions for pigs in Ireland since 1992. Since then, EU law has brought about welcome improvements: tethering of pregnant sows is now illegal; the keeping of pregnant sows in narrow stalls after the first 4 weeks of pregnancy will be illegal from 2013; routine tail-docking is now prohibited under EU law; and EU law requires that fattening pigs must be provided with manipulable enrichment material (such as straw or mushroom compost) that they can root in; from 2013, breeding pigs will also have to be given manipulable enrichment material.” [emphasis added.]

Using material from 2007 and 2008, the British branch of the same organisation writes on Pig welfare and EU legislation: “Tail docking and environmental enrichment: Tail docking: (cutting off the piglets’ tails) is carried out to prevent pigs biting each other’s tails. Routine tail docking is prohibited by EU legislation yet the investigation found the practice to be widespread – up to 100 per cent in some countries. A 2007 European Food Safety Authority report also found that over 90 per cent of EU piglets are tail docked. Tail biting occurs because the pigs are bored and frustrated in their bare, sometimes slatted floored pens and chew and bite each other’s tails.
“Environmental enrichment such as straw would drastically reduce or prevent tail biting and so stop the practice of routine tail docking. Under EU law this must be provided yet the investigation found enrichment materials to be lacking in the vast majority of farms visited. Under EU law the enrichment should consist of straw or some other natural material that enables pigs to engage in their natural behaviours of rooting, foraging and exploring.” [emphasis added.]

Time to Save Our Home?

Saving our HOME.
A movie event as part of “Animal Rights July.”

Where: Theatre N, Newman Building, UCD campus;

When: Wednesday evening 8th July;

Time: 7.00-9-45. FREE ADMISSION.


Week 2, July 8th:
Showing of the new 90-minute environmental film “HOME”
followed by discussion.


In 1972, the United Nations General Assembly established World Environment Day (5th June) to further “worldwide awareness of the environment and enhance political attention and action.” The theme of the 2009 World Environment Day (WED) was ‘Your Planet Needs You: Unite to Combat Climate Change’ and included the global launch of “THE HOME PROJECT.”

The release of “HOME” was a landmark event. For the first time ever, a film was released on the same day in over 50 countries and on every format: movie theatres, TV, DVD and the Internet. Directed by Yann Arthus-Bertrand and produced by Luc Besson, “HOME” uses beautiful, high definition aerial photography from over 60 countries to tell the story of the Earth’s ecosystem, how humans have affected it, and how environmental problems are all interconnected.

Some scientists (such as James Lovelock, who recently lectured at UCD on his Gaia Theory [see below]) believe that global warming is now irreversible and disaster is inevitable but the message of “HOME” is more hopeful – provided action is taken now.

Prime movers in The Green Party have been invited to attend Animal Rights July, it is hoped that they will be able to attend this important event focused on environmental issues.

Dr. Roger Yates explains why “HOME” has been included as part of “Animal Rights July”: “The film itself is not about animal rights, per se, but clearly environmental issues affect the nonhuman world as much, and sometimes more, than human society. In the end, the fate of all animals, including human beings, is interlinked. This film is impressive in that it does not shy away from issues conspicuously absent in Al Gore’s recent film on the environment. The issue of the devastating impact meat eating has on the planet is described in HOME and, indeed, supports UN statements about the climatic damage caused by a meat-based lifestyle. For example, the waste of water in producing meat is enormous compared to the water needed to produce plants. It certainly is not green to eat meat.”

US Law professor and animal rights philosopher, Gary Francione, who will present a live lecture as part of Animal Rights July (see separate document, Animal Rights July at-a-glance, attached), says, “HOME is better by miles than Al Gore’s document, An Inconvenient Truth...There is explicit criticism of intensive agriculture and discussion about the inefficient use of resources (grains, water) used to produce meat. Although the film certainly does not advocate veganism, that is the logical implication of its message. As I have argued for longer than I care to remember, anyone who cares at all about the environment should be vegan even if she/he does not care about the moral issue involved in animal exploitation.”

Roger Yates added: “The is a good deal of talk in Ireland at the moment that we all need to pull together to escape the ravages of the global economic recession, there is much less discussion on the need to act collectively for the sake of the planet. We talk a lot about human rights and our love for our children – it is a direct contradiction of those claims to carry on living as we do. HOME tells us that we must take responsibility and one of the best – and easiest – ways we can is through changing what we consume. The message of HOME is also a direct challenge to The Green Party to address the issue of meat-eating, which it has shown a remarkable, if understandable, reluctance to do.”


World Environment Day

James Lovelock at UCD, April 2009.

Gary Francione’s full statement on HOME.

How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool against Climate Change.

‘Maybe no Green dares tell the voters that vegetarianism is the only sure way to curb global warming because they haven't personally grasped the argument yet.’

Friends Update

In January, I wrote a blog entry about two friends, an elephant and a dog. This lovely story is so important in terms of animal rights theory and animal cognition.

A new update on the story of Bella and Tara is available HERE.

"Animal Rights July."

Every Wednesday evening in July 2009.
7.00 - 9.45pm.
Theatre ‘N’, Newman Building, U.C.D.
Admission (and food) is free.

·Week 1. July 1st.

The Animal Rights Debate: A Bill of Rights for Animals?

Although filmed in the late 1980s, this debate is still relevant today. Featuring professors Tom Regan, Richard Ryder, Andrew Linzey, Mary Warnock, Steven Rose and Germaine Greer, and with contribution from audience members, the debate explores issues such as the connection between human and nonhuman animal rights, rights-based thought and utilitarianism, and animal rights –v- animal welfarism.

·Week 2. July 8th.

HOME. A film released on World Environment Day, 2009.

“HOME is better by miles than Al Gore’s document, An Inconvenient Truth...There is explicit criticism of intensive agriculture and discussion about the inefficient use of resources (grains, water) used to produce meat. Although the film certainly does not advocate veganism, that is the logical implication of its message. As I have argued for longer than I care to remember, anyone who cares at all about the environment should be vegan even if she/he does not care about the moral issue involved in animal exploitation.” Gary Francione - http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

· Week 3. July 15th.

A Cow at My Table.

This is an unusual and fascinating documentary about a journalist, Jennifer Abbot, who was arrested for filming a dead cow. A Cow at My Table features contributions from the author of The Case for Animal Rights, philosopher Tom Regan, representatives from the animal agriculture industry, animal welfare expert Dr. Ian Duncan, ex-rancher Howard Lyman, and ecofeminists Carol Adams and Vandana Shiva.

·KEYNOTE EVENT: Week 4. July 22nd.

The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?

Lecture by law professor and animal rights philosopher Gary L. Francione (live from the USA, via Skype).

Gary Francione is the leading exponent of the Abolitionist Approach to animal rights. His books, Animals, Property and The Law, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement, Introduction to Animal Rights and Animals as Persons, explore his vision of animal rights. Francione argues for one right for nonhuman animals, the right not to be property. He is a critic of Peter Singer’s utilitarian philosophy which does not rule out all animal use and killing, and he objects to Tom Regan’s version of animal rights theory for its emphasis on nonhuman animals with sophisticated cognitive abilities. Francione's theory applies to all sentient beings.

·Week 5. July 29th.

Something a little different – Judge John Deed: “Everyone’s Child”.

In this episode of G.F. Newman’s drama, Deed’s daughter gets involved with demonstrations in support of an ‘animal rights hunger striker,’ while Deed decides the fate of a minor who has refused a heart transplant due to his adherence to the philosophy of vegan animal rights and the principles of nonviolence.

More Vegan Education Developments.

In a recent blog entry, I mentioned some welcome developments in vegan education initiatives and vegan podcasting. For example, I highlighted the NZ Vegan Podcast, online vegan recipes from Vegan-a-go-go, Adam Kochanowicz’s The Vegan News and, of course, Bob and Jenna Torres' Vegan Freaks Radio Show.

Law professor and animal rights philosopher, Gary Francione, recently noted that Elizabeth Collins of the NZ Vegan podcast is developing a new 'flip book' or flip chart idea for use in vegan community education. This seems to be particularly useful where the use of video is problematic - although there are some great ideas about that too (see HERE.)

Francione writes that, "Elizabeth is in the process of constructing a stall that she will use to provide community education about animal rights and veganism. She wants to use the videos from this site—Theory of Animal Rights, Animals as Property, and Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare—but finds it impractical to take her laptop into the streets. So she is going to print each slide and create albums or "flip books" that will allow people who come to her stall to read relatively brief and accessible presentations about the central ideas of the abolitionist approach."

For Francione's full account of this initiative, click HERE.

The Rationality of Becoming Vegan.

An article by Barbara McDonald on becoming vegan, first published in the 1990s, has recently been featured in a new reader on human-nonhuman relations. Although the piece is now a little dated (the original research being conducted in June 1996), and the sample of 12 vegans interviewed is very small, it seems to contain some points of interests for rights-based abolitionists.

Although McDonald is critical of Jack Mezirow’s ‘transformation theory’, ideas embedded within it seem relevant to a study of how people become vegans, especially when certain critical elements on, for example, power relations are added to the original formulation. Mezirow's perspective is certainly overly psychological and in need of sociological elements for balance and context. McDonald is undoubtedly an expert on Mezirow since her doctoral thesis was about his work. She states that the transformation theory “does not explain the process of learning to become vegan.”

However, some of her discussion in this paper seems to contradict that conclusion, at least to the extent to which McDonald claims the theory has no explanatory value. For example, in a 2000 book, Mezirow builds on 20 years of his theory and outlines the basic ideas about how people change in a 10-point process of ‘transformative learning’

1. Experience a disorienting dilemma
2. Undergo self-examination
3. Conduct a deep assessment of personal role assumptions and alienation created by new roles
4. Share and analyze personal discontent and similar experiences with others
5. Explore options for new ways of acting
6. Build competence and self-confidence in new roles
7. Plan a course of action
8. Acquire knowledge and skills for action
9. Try new roles and assess feedback
10. Reintegrate into society with a new perspective

One of the main thrusts in the theory, borrowing heavily from Habermas, is the power of rational discourse and a level of cognitive functioning which critics of Mezirow say most adults never achieve. For her part, McDonald focuses on the theory’s need for individuals to be critically reflexive about assumptions. She says her study of vegans failed to identify such critical reflection in their talk. Again, other parts of her piece seems to contradict that claim too.

However, let’s stick with Mezirow a little longer, and via Nancy Franz’s discussion of Stephan Brookfield’s definition of ‘critical reflection theory,’ which may well serve to correct some of the shortcomings in Mezirow’s approach. Critical reflection requires persons being self-aware, making sense of experiences, deconstructing and reconstructing meanings , the critiquing of premises and ideologies, and ‘principled thinking’ all of which can be defined, according to Brookfield, as ‘reflecting on the assumptions underlying ours and other’s ideas and actions, and contemplating alternative ways of thinking and living.’

These ideas may be expressed in this way - and by means of these ‘phases’

1. Trigger event
2. Appraisal of assumptions
3. Exploration of alternatives to current assumptions
4. Developing alternative perspectives
5. Integration of new perspectives into daily life

At this point we have a basic understanding of some of the ideas that interest McDonald in her study of vegans. Perhaps we can see how these 10 points and 5 phases inform an appreciation of the changes people go through when they become vegan?

McDonald works with a process which begins with the notion of ‘Who was I?’ (meaning who was the person before learning about veganism and animal cruelty). This is followed by what some have called ‘a moral shock’ but McDonald uses the term ‘catalytic experience’ instead (meaning a person’s learning of some aspect of cruelty). At this point, two things are likely to occur. The information about animal cruelty can be acted upon, and therefore the person ‘becomes oriented’ towards learning more and maybe making a decision (for example, to stop eating other animal flesh), or there can be repression of the information (when people put what they know to the back of their minds [see also]). In the latter case, another catalytic experience or event may be required to, in some sense, re-engage a recall of the repressed knowledge of animal cruelty.

After this there is a process of learning about animal abuse and how to be a vegan (i.e., start reading the damn labels!! [1]) A decision is made to live as a vegan (or a vegetarian). Finally, the person’s general worldview has changed. With a new perspective she or he begins to face the world as a vegan. This process can take a long time: some of McDonald’s interviewees took years to become vegan.

We can now follow some of the study’s participants through some of these stages. The first thing that would register with animal rights abolitionists is the number of McDonald’s respondents who acknowledged being in a state of what Francione characterises as ‘moral schizophrenia.’ McDonald writes that the majority of those in the study had a prior love for nature and of pets. However, they did not see the connection between their pets and ‘food animals.’ McDonald says they had ‘compartmentalised their compassion.’ Moreover, many of them ‘expressed amazement that they had not seen the connection.’

This notion of prior ‘love’ for pets is interesting from an abolitionist point of view. I think it is fair to say that the ‘pet issue’ is one reason why many animal advocates reject the animal rights view of human-nonhuman relations. Just like the pet breeders and pet lovers in the countermovements, they cannot imagine a future with no living ornaments/toys, or a future without their child substitute ‘fur babies.’

Many animal advocates suggest, then, that pet keeping is a necessary or at least widespread means by which humans come to have some regard for nonhuman animals. Without their ‘prior love’ for pets, they believe, they may never have seriously considered being an animal advocate. McDonald’s findings seem to support this view – but not fully by any means. For example, not every respondent had a strong affection for nonhuman animals when young and, as one person pointed out, most kids are dotty about their pets; most are upset when pets die, but that does not prompt further thinking about human-nonhuman relations. Most, it seems, can be quite comfortable in their morally schizophrenic state and no amount of ‘companion animals’ pegging out on them seems to cure them.

When it comes to the catalytic experiences, one respondent seems to have had a Paul and Linda McCartney moment. They are said that have awoken to reality looking out of their Scottish farmyard window at gambolling lambs when cooking ‘lamb,’ while this respondent looked up ‘and exchanged a long and pensive gaze with a buck standing on the hill above him.’ At that moment, he decided to not eat meat again. Others in the study went vegan after watching videos.

At this point, McDonald discusses the issues of emotions and cognition. McDonald reports that her respondents’ catalytic experience was often but not necessarily emotional and often, it seems, a blend of emotion and rational thought goes into the process by which people turn vegan. If anything, there is a hint that going vegetarian is an emotional reaction while the decision to go vegan is based on a cognitive interpretation of learning. Often the one followed the other.

Thus, while people spoke of videos ‘breaking their hearts’ and their reaction being, ‘My God, I just didn’t realise what things went on,’ McDonald says that, ‘Emotions seem to have been one of the major defining characteristics of the more memorable catalytic experiences. The decision to become vegan following a period of vegetarianism was more often rational.’ McDonald says it was typical that the decision to go vegan followed a period of learning, particular about the issue of ‘being in favour of animal rights but continuing to eat animal products.’ Here the logical inconsistencies of vegetarianism often finally sunk in. By thinking, talking, reading and becoming active, people realised their actions may not match their beliefs. McDonald cites one respondent who admits that he had drawn the line in the wrong place by being a vegetarian. Through reflection he realised that ‘using milk and putting cheese in stuff’ wasn’t good enough.

Following catalytic experiences, respondents were ‘becoming oriented’ to learning and then they learned about animal abuse. They learned about cruelty and how to be vegetarian or vegan. McDonald says that, at this stage, people are ‘guided by an ethical praxis of compassion.’ They learned by thinking, talking, becoming involved in activities and, most importantly, by reading. Reading ‘was the primary way of learning for every participant.’[2] All at once, they were trying to learn, teach and cope - but often their families proved to be a problem. Many respondents reported that family members argued with them, or trivialised their beliefs, and some even rejected them. Understandably, they found these experiences hurtful. One said she lost a friend of 20 years standing by going vegan.

What’s interesting at this point in McDonald’s paper is that, although she talks of the vegans’ new ‘transformed worldviews,’ it is not entirely vegan and it certainly is not all about animal rights. Therefore, even at the end of this process, vegetarianism and animal welfarism are mentioned. It is as though the paper echoes ‘the movement’ at this point. While there is talk of recognising the ‘moral rightness of veganism,’ there is also talk of ‘experiencing the world as a vegetarian and vegan,’ along with the advocacy of both animal welfare and animal rights. McDonald states that a central part of the new worldview is a generalised agreement that ‘animals were no longer viewed as food,’ which is hardly true of vegetarians.

I think what’s being reflected in McDonald’s work is the apparently widely-held view that veganism is rather difficult and we should expect a period of vegetarianism beforehand, despite the fact that it makes little sense. This may explain the current habit in animal advocacy literature of using the terms 'vegetarian' and 'vegan' interchangeably as though they mean the same thing, often expressed by the horrible word, 'veg*n.'

I recently had recourse to revisit Victoria Moran’s 1997 book, Compassion the Ultimate Ethic: An Exploration of Veganism, in which she notes (p. 53) that some people turned vegan overnight, but most were vegetarian for a year or two first. This appears to be the expected pattern: it ‘makes sense’ that people will drop one thing at a time.[3] Moran cites Singer’s Animal Liberation in which the author quite reasonably is concerned about the firm grip speciesism has on the social agent. He writes, ‘In our present speciesist world, it is not easy to keep so strictly to what is morally right.’ Perhaps, thinks Singer, since people have difficulty just giving up meat, the thought of eschewing milk and cheese as well may ultimately prevent them doing anything at all. It seems to me that this perspective is fairly reasonable since it was originally written in the early to mid 1970s. However, it seems that Singer’s views on this issue remain largely the same in the 21st century.

This marks a real difference for the abolitionist approach to animal rights. In an age when being vegan is very much easier in many places than it was in the 1970s, our new movement should not expect – and should certainly not encourage – this pattern of 'vegetarian first.' What it means is that the young animal rights movement must prioritise making veganism as easy as possible, something that Neil Lea was a pioneer in with his ‘Is It Vegan?’ and ‘Vegan Buddies’ initiatives. Answering Francione's call for examples of imaginative vegan education, it is great to see new ideas being developed all the time.

Since veganism is direct action for nonhuman animals, getting people to embrace ethical veganism is the best thing advocates can do at the present time: this activity also has the advantage over some others in that, presently at least, vegan advocacy and vegan education does not lead to anyone being chucked in jail for a decade or more.




[1] Joking apart, this was another interesting aspect of the research. Via both Mezirow and Habermas, McDonald looks at communicative and instrumental learning in vegans. The former ‘has to do with ideas, such as the idea of instrumentalised animal cruelty, animal rights, and veganism,’ while the latter ‘concerns the skills needed to live a vegan lifestyle, such as how to cook, order food in restaurants, and read ingredient labels.’

[2] Peter Singer (along with John Robbins) was cited in this context.

[3] I wonder if it ‘makes sense’ to a human rights advocate that a torturer or human trafficker gradually stops aspects of his exploitation. The person who has stopped visiting the brothel still downloads exploitative porn?