Error
Unrecognized LW server error:
Field "fmCrosspost" of type "CrosspostOutput" must have a selection of subfields. Did you mean "fmCrosspost { ... }"?
Unrecognized LW server error:
Field "fmCrosspost" of type "CrosspostOutput" must have a selection of subfields. Did you mean "fmCrosspost { ... }"?
I especially liked the parts with the personal anecdotes. I agree that welfarist-abolitionist framing is a strategic framing by Francione aimed at persuasion rather than faithfully representing the reality. Many historical abolitionists wouldn’t be classified as abolitionist by Francione’s framing.
I would like to add that insider/outsider status is more related to the tactics than the demandingness of your asks. No matter how small your asks are, if you are doing undercover investigations then it’s pretty difficult to be seen as an insider. On the other hand, some vegan organisations often have much easier time engaging with companies because they don’t do any confrontational campaigns against companies.
That’s a good point about tactics vs. demands. It’s interesting because in theory, we might think that radical tactics could be effectively paired with moderate demands and vice versa. That is, if you’re asking for something most people agree with, more people would support using radical tactics to win it, whereas if you’re asking for a fringe goal, you’d want to avoid alienating people further. Yet this is the opposite of what has happened in (at least) the U.S. animal and environmental movements in the last couple decades. Groups like XR and DxE pair radical demands with radical tactics, while HSUS/THL and the Sierra Club are more moderate on both fronts. But I suppose I’m conflating outside with radical and inside with moderate which isn’t actually what I was trying to say in the post. I’ll need to think about your point a bit more!
This is a fantastic post. I love the combination of real life stories, logic and hope—all written in a pleasant and easy to read style. Nice one!
Thanks, Nick!
Welfarism vs Abolitionism is a tough debate, for the reasons highlighted in this post. But this has become my reference article for when I stumble upon this thorny question in discussion with other advocates. Useful, concise, memorable thanks to a good use of concepts, parts and lists, and quite entertaining to read thanks to the examples and anecdotes.
I’m so glad to hear it’s still useful!
Thank you for this post — I really enjoyed it, and thought the style was very compelling.
I’m going to try on the ‘inside-outside’ frame next time I notice myself feeling confused or concerned about movement tactics :)
Thanks, Bella, I hope it helps!
Loved this post, thanks for writing it! I like the reframing to inside/outside games. I guess my main worry is whether outside games are effective. I can imagine them being effective when veganism becomes more popular/mainstream, but at the moment I’m worried they are more aversive than helpful. I remember Tobias Leenaert in his book “How to create a vegan world” talking about the need of adopting different strategies at different stages of a movement.
I have often heard this worry that confrontational/attention-grabbing tactics might be counter-productive at an early stage in the movement. Interestingly, in the wake of Just Stop Oil’s soup-throwing, @James Ozden shared with me a twitter thread from a leading academic of social movement strategies arguing basically the opposite: that controversy is most productive in a movement’s early stage, when it needs to raise awareness, compared to a later stage when it needs to win over skeptical late adopters.
I don’t think this is necessarily a question of inside vs. outside, but rather that outside game strategies look different at different points in the movement. And indeed the most controversy-oriented tactics might fit best at the beginning, though I’m not necessarily arguing that.
Amazing post! Gonna be referencing this a lot when I see infighting in various other movements
Hi Aidan,
Thank you so much for another exemplary article—with great calls to action at the end! I discontinued working on animal welfare campaigns because I seem to have an aching need for authenticity; I struggled with the inner conflict of having to mask my real thoughts. However, it’s important like you said to not mistake this difference for moral superiority. I appreciate that other humans are more well-suited for certain types of political work than I am. I am so excited by an article like what you’ve written here, because it suggests that perhaps we can embrace our natural strengths while also celebrating the gifts of others. My personality can’t sustain various types of admirable work that I see other advocates doing so well, but for those of us who feel lost or like we don’t fit in with the animal movement, surely we can find our own unique roles with which to contribute.
I wonder if you have any thoughts you can share on the conflicts surrounding funding. Your article is excellent at addressing the general division people feel because of ideological differences and different organizations, by providing a unifying theory of change. Lately I’ve just been seeing how much the controversy over funds can exacerbate the dividedness.
In theory, is there a certain percentage of donor dollars that would ideally go towards more inside-game vs. outside-game approaches? Some folks in the animal movement feel upset that big welfare campaigns are getting more funding than their more obviously abolition-aligned efforts. In fact, it may be worsening their impression of effective altruism as a whole… there’s also “EA vs. anti-EA” going on. I’m hopeful to see how each of these overlapping conflicts can lead to greater harmony in the future.