I’m going to read this full article more carefully and post a more considered comment later on, but I wanted to get this in early as my contribution to the conversation which I hope this article produces (because I think its a great piece):
I think your portrayal of ‘short term pragmatism’ is a bit of a straw man. I don’t really recognise this view amongst the animal nonprofits that I speak to.
Yes, many people spend a lot of time talking about and thinking about winning the specific campaign that they are involved in right now (naturally), but those campaigns are usually tied into a longer term theory of victory which involves the end of factory farming.
It might be that there are differences in terms of how far away from that ultimate victory we are (a few decades or 50+ years for example) and so it might be that these specific campaigns feel too timid to some, but then we should be having a conversation about how we work our which timeline is more accurate and, therefore, what the appropriate level of ambition is.
Yeah I agree with this. Specifically, I don’t think that basically anyone working on cage-free/alt proteins/most pragmatic issues would agree with the statement below (I think approximately everyone thinks we should pursue several effective approaches, not just one).
A search for the (one) most effective approach. For example it’s not uncommon for advocates to say the movement should converge on one specific approach, such as alt-proteins/cage-free campaigns/legal advocacy/whatever — with an implication that we should significantly discount other approaches.
I also agree with your other comment Thom about timelines. I think talking about theories of victory is much more relevant if you think we can end factory farming in 10 years (which people in Animal Rising do). I think it is more like 75 years away, so it makes less sense to discuss the details (especially when it is hard to make good predictions for things 50+ years away).
Cheers for engaging James, I appreciate you spending the time on this.
On your second point about timelines: I agree to the extent that talking about theories of victory in fine-grained detailwould only be more relevant on shorter timelines. But even on longer timelines (e.g. whether it’s 50 or 200 years), I’d argue we need theories of victory in broad strokes—at least outlining what major outcomes we are reasonably confident would need to happen. Otherwise how can we make bets on what capacities we need to build now? For example, can we be confident that we’re currently investing enough in mechanisms to shift public opinion, or our ability to engage in lobbying? These are just examples—the main point is, I think we should map the terrain even if roughly so we have a better sense of where to walk.
On the “one approach” claim: This is a fair point, it’s probably the least prevalent of the three characteristics I ascribe to short-term pragmatism, and I was a bit hesitant about it. I think it’s largely absent amongst organisational leaders (though I wouldn’t say zero). I decided to include it anyway as I have encountered it plenty in broader movement culture from different camps, and I think culture amongst non-leaders still matters. I’ve seen e.g. claims that things like cage-free, nonviolent disruption, and more recently very often alt-proteins, are “the most effective thing” and the key to changing things for animals. But overall I think in recent years, we’ve moved away from searching for silver bullets and more towards acknowledging that multiple approaches are needed.
Hey Thom, thanks for engaging. I’m evolving my thoughts as I go here, so what ensues might slightly contradict some parts of the main post:
On short-term pragmatism being a straw man: I think you’re right that my description of short-term pragmatism is a straw man at the individual level, but I think it holds true about our movement-level expression. I don’t think any individual non-profit or person would necessarily embody short-term pragmatism — I imagine/hope that everyone involved in a campaign/project has (a) some end goal they truly want; and (b) some model in their head of how their current work moves toward that goal.
But I rarely see those models articulated publicly (and I’ve spoken to quite a few deeply involved people who observe the same). This creates a movement-wide dynamic where, even if many are acting on long-term plans, those plans remain out of sight from others, and unexamined. So even if individuals are thinking long-term, the movement’s collective expression looks short-termist.
The effect of this is that it’s hard to be confident we’re walking an effective path towards a bigger end goal. If we don’t share our theories of victory, we can’t coordinate around them, notice if we’re working at cross-purposes, challenge assumptions, or build on each other’s insights.
On timelines: I agree that we should have conversations about timelines to aspire towards (I would add, trying to find a sweet spot between ambitious and realistic). And I think we could have much more productive conversations about that if we made our theories of victory more explicit. FWIW, I have no strong opinions on timelines, probably leaning in the direction of “a few decades at minimum”.
It doesn’t seem like a straw man to me when 1) the effectiveness of these interventions is evaluated against their short term impact (as far as I’m aware ACE doesn’t consider this kind of long term impact much at all), and 2) the orgs don’t publish any long term theory of change to help donors or critics decide if they agree with it. This strongly implies that their long term theory of change is far less important than the short term wins, at least at the organization level.
I’m going to read this full article more carefully and post a more considered comment later on, but I wanted to get this in early as my contribution to the conversation which I hope this article produces (because I think its a great piece):
I think your portrayal of ‘short term pragmatism’ is a bit of a straw man. I don’t really recognise this view amongst the animal nonprofits that I speak to.
Yes, many people spend a lot of time talking about and thinking about winning the specific campaign that they are involved in right now (naturally), but those campaigns are usually tied into a longer term theory of victory which involves the end of factory farming.
It might be that there are differences in terms of how far away from that ultimate victory we are (a few decades or 50+ years for example) and so it might be that these specific campaigns feel too timid to some, but then we should be having a conversation about how we work our which timeline is more accurate and, therefore, what the appropriate level of ambition is.
Yeah I agree with this. Specifically, I don’t think that basically anyone working on cage-free/alt proteins/most pragmatic issues would agree with the statement below (I think approximately everyone thinks we should pursue several effective approaches, not just one).
I also agree with your other comment Thom about timelines. I think talking about theories of victory is much more relevant if you think we can end factory farming in 10 years (which people in Animal Rising do). I think it is more like 75 years away, so it makes less sense to discuss the details (especially when it is hard to make good predictions for things 50+ years away).
Cheers for engaging James, I appreciate you spending the time on this.
On your second point about timelines: I agree to the extent that talking about theories of victory in fine-grained detail would only be more relevant on shorter timelines. But even on longer timelines (e.g. whether it’s 50 or 200 years), I’d argue we need theories of victory in broad strokes—at least outlining what major outcomes we are reasonably confident would need to happen. Otherwise how can we make bets on what capacities we need to build now? For example, can we be confident that we’re currently investing enough in mechanisms to shift public opinion, or our ability to engage in lobbying? These are just examples—the main point is, I think we should map the terrain even if roughly so we have a better sense of where to walk.
On the “one approach” claim: This is a fair point, it’s probably the least prevalent of the three characteristics I ascribe to short-term pragmatism, and I was a bit hesitant about it. I think it’s largely absent amongst organisational leaders (though I wouldn’t say zero). I decided to include it anyway as I have encountered it plenty in broader movement culture from different camps, and I think culture amongst non-leaders still matters. I’ve seen e.g. claims that things like cage-free, nonviolent disruption, and more recently very often alt-proteins, are “the most effective thing” and the key to changing things for animals. But overall I think in recent years, we’ve moved away from searching for silver bullets and more towards acknowledging that multiple approaches are needed.
Hey Thom, thanks for engaging. I’m evolving my thoughts as I go here, so what ensues might slightly contradict some parts of the main post:
On short-term pragmatism being a straw man: I think you’re right that my description of short-term pragmatism is a straw man at the individual level, but I think it holds true about our movement-level expression. I don’t think any individual non-profit or person would necessarily embody short-term pragmatism — I imagine/hope that everyone involved in a campaign/project has (a) some end goal they truly want; and (b) some model in their head of how their current work moves toward that goal.
But I rarely see those models articulated publicly (and I’ve spoken to quite a few deeply involved people who observe the same). This creates a movement-wide dynamic where, even if many are acting on long-term plans, those plans remain out of sight from others, and unexamined. So even if individuals are thinking long-term, the movement’s collective expression looks short-termist.
The effect of this is that it’s hard to be confident we’re walking an effective path towards a bigger end goal. If we don’t share our theories of victory, we can’t coordinate around them, notice if we’re working at cross-purposes, challenge assumptions, or build on each other’s insights.
On timelines: I agree that we should have conversations about timelines to aspire towards (I would add, trying to find a sweet spot between ambitious and realistic). And I think we could have much more productive conversations about that if we made our theories of victory more explicit. FWIW, I have no strong opinions on timelines, probably leaning in the direction of “a few decades at minimum”.
It doesn’t seem like a straw man to me when 1) the effectiveness of these interventions is evaluated against their short term impact (as far as I’m aware ACE doesn’t consider this kind of long term impact much at all), and 2) the orgs don’t publish any long term theory of change to help donors or critics decide if they agree with it. This strongly implies that their long term theory of change is far less important than the short term wins, at least at the organization level.