Here are a couple of examples of how I have tried to use the notion in recent forum posts [I have altered the texts a little for the sake of clarity]:-
I think I might try the notion of ‘neo-welfare animal liberationists’ (N-WALs) to differentiate such people from rights-based animal rights advocates for a while.
My chief concern is misrepresentation. As we know the KFC campaign is led by PeTA who insist on (1) calling themselves the 'biggest animal rights organisation in the world' while adopting Peter Singer's utilitarianism for their philosophy on human-nonhuman relations and (2) deliberately calling Singer's position a rights-based one consisting of animal rights philosophy.
The latter is a blatant lie but they care not about that. For his part, Singer tells me to stop wasting my time trying to persuade PeTA to alter their claims. Since I realise that Singer regards moral rights as 'nonsense', following Bentham, I cannot expect him to care much about the aspirations of rights-based animal advocates. It seems that PeTA are in the same boat.
In recent debates involving two leading reps of PeTA they both said that they use the term 'rights' as a convenience (Singer uses rights as 'political shorthand').
What this means is that the 'largest animal rights organisation in the world', following their non-rights philosopher, cares not two figs about animal rights as a philosophical base of a position on human-nonhuman relations.
When academics look at the 'animal rights movement' they see a theoretical muddle - the kinder ones characterise it as 'philosophically nuanced'. All in all, though, this is a kick in the face of rights theorists like Francione and Regan who want to present a rights-based argument as their main claims about human-nonhuman relations. And yet neo-welfare animal liberationists claim it is the rightists who are 'divisive' in the animal protection movement. The reason for this claim is that the rightists have learned over time that the MO of the N-WALs is seriously flawed if any fundamental change is the aim - and they say so.
It is a tactical argument to be sure. Neo-welfare animal liberationists believe that their reforms can lead to animal rights - they would seriously claim that 'pushing' KFC to gas chickens is a step toward that goal. So, in this sense, in the internal logic of the argument, they are entitled to regard themselves as abolitionists - what they cannot do is characterise themselves as animal rights advocates without doing violence to animal rights theory.
and:-
One major problem with it is that we have the major organisations within the animal protection movement moving AWAY from veganism and presenting veganism as just another option. Neo-welfare animal liberationists use terms like 'veg*n' and use the terms 'vegan' and vegetarian' interchangeably as those they are in the same ethical region.
They certify meats as 'humane' and suggest that one can be a 'conscientious omnivore'. Francione points out that Singer has begun to talk about veganism as a 'fanatical' position and suggests that advocates can have the 'luxury' of not being vegan sometimes - but he always did have such views in terms of the logic of his utilitarian position which is not opposed to killing nonhumans painlessly and replacing them with others and has said consistently since Animal Liberation that he cannot see a major ethical problem with free range farming. Essentially his position is firm on factory farming from the cruelty angle but then it gets all wobbly on less intensive use systems.
Now all this is fair enough, and Singer has been consistent throughout in this (it is only his followers who are suddenly shocked to learn that he could not rule out all vivisection) but one thing is clear, his position is not consistent with animal rights theory. For some, it is 'near enough' and 'who cares anyway'; there is so much animal use at present that it is hardly worth niggling over this. However, the basic reality about social movements is that they are claims-makers in civil society. They present a vision for change (or for not changing) and they ground their vision in their philosophical position.
The 'animal rights movement' currently grounds most of its claims-making within the tenets of animal welfare, be they SHAC or ALF activists, PeTA, and even Animal Aid. Can people not see that this situation is a deliberate kick in the teeth and constraint on those animal advocates who wish to present rights-based arguments as their MAIN claims-making? I think the problem at heart is that nonrightists realise that the rights position contains an explicit critique of the value of animal welfarism, so they keep the name 'animal rights' for themselves, claim rights-based advocates are 'divisive', all in order to silence valid criticism.
Now, obviously, the advocates I am referring to as N-WALs are Gary Francione's new welfarists. Despite its accuracy, this is a label animal advocates resist. In fact I think many of them hate it so much that they turn away from the substantive arguments that generated it without really engaging them. On a psychological level this is not particularly surprising. Many animal advocates self-identify as radical or cutting edge, so the idea that their position is a form of animal welfare just will not do. In Britain, for example, the idea of animal welfarism conjures up in the minds of animal advocates the RSPCA as its organisational representative - for North Americans, they are likely to think of the HSUS or other 'humane societies'.
So, what's the point?
I think that the term N-WALs will be less objectionable than new welfarists. More to the point, as you see in the block quotes above, I am arguing that the internal logic of N-WALs suggests to them that they are abolitionists. An organisation such as Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) are likely to regard themselves as abolitionists: they want to abolish factory farming but not all animal use - they promote 'rose veal'.
I am less concerned that such groups regard themselves as abolitionists than the fact that they may be characterised as animal rights mobilisations. Consequently, I feel it is problematic for animal rights advocates to call themselves abolitionists if that means they are giving up the AR label.
Any thoughts?
