tim gier

I think much of the criticism of “single-issue campaigns” assumes that we (as people involved in any particular advocacy) overestimate our own influence and underestimate the ability of individual people to think on their own. I will try to explain.

Suppose that a person witnesses a SIC and thinks to themselves “Those people were protesting the terrible treatment of dogs at that shelter, but they weren’t saying anything about all the animals people eat. I bet they’re having steak for dinner. Hypocrites!” The logic goes that such a person would be therefore “let off the hook” or somehow “allowed” by the advocates to ignore the issue, and worse, they would be more convinced that they too should eat other animals. This takes for granted that, if only the advocates had presented the campaign within the context of a vegan message, more people would “make the connection” and then go vegan.

Now suppose that a person were to witness a campaign framed in a vegan context protesting the terrible treatment of dogs at a shelter. Isn’t it a real possibility that that person would say something like “Vegans? That’s crazy! How dogs are treated at shelters has nothing to do with what I eat, those people are extremists!” It is a very real possibility. Indeed, in the Ban Live Exports campaigns in Australia, from what I have been told that is exactly what people were saying to the people who wanted to frame that campaign in terms of veganism. So, even though advocates might think it makes sense to frame every issue in terms of anti-speciesism and veganism, it’s quite possible that targeted audience would be less inclined to think favorably about veganism as a result.

But here is where the underestimation of people’s ability to think comes in. Remember the first person I mentioned – who might say “Those people were protesting the terrible treatment of dogs at that shelter…I bet they’re having steak for dinner. Hypocrites!” – isn’t it at least possible that a person thinking this might then also think to themselves, “Wait a second, I think it’s wrong to be cruel to dogs, but I eat steak too, and that means I’m a hypocrite too. I don’t want to be a hypocrite, so I’ve got to do something differently from now on.” Isn’t that at least a possibility? I think it is a very real possibility.

Wait!! you may say, how can people know that they have to go vegan if we don’t tell them? To which I would respond, the vast majority of people don’t go vegan just because we tell them to (obviously) so there must be something more to it than just telling them. If people are going to “make the connection” that we have made, they are going to have to be ready to do it, and they aren’t going to do it just because someone tells them they should. If people just did what they’re told to do, then every person who’s ever heard Gary Yourofsky speak, or who has ever gotten a good leaflet would be vegan. We know that very few people who have heard Yourofsky speak or who have gotten a good leaflet go vegan, so simply telling people what to do, using just the right words, isn’t enough to get most people to go vegan. (Some people will object and say that Yourofsky isn’t using the right words, and that’s why his approach isn’t as good as it good be, but that just points out the problem again – who knows what are the exact right words? I say that no one does.)

I think the whole supposed problem with single-issue campaigns is overstated, based on a misunderstanding of how human beings make decisions, especially about things that are central to their world view, and an overestimation of our ability to influence others. I think advocates for other animals who being doing those animals a better service by spending less time thinking about how other advocates are “getting it wrong” and instead just doing what they think is right.