Seeing the big picture is complicated. Research to measure and predict outcomes is an indispensable tool in the development of sustainable policies. Like any tool, it’s up to us what we build (or tear down) with it. A compartmentalized mindset has become the accepted standard, in advocacy as well as in research. But is compartmentalization sustainable?

In observance of Earth Day, new items posted to the HumaneSpot.org database this week address the intersection between animal advocacy and environmental advocacy.

Look Around and Look Ahead

The term “sustainability” first entered the ecological vocabulary of the global development community in the mid-20th century, referring to a longer-sighted, more holistic perspective on industrial development and its effects on culture and nature. Though this is not a new perspective in human history, it has been a paradigm shift for the modern western world, gathering relevance as the consequences of previous assumptions and values come due.

In the context of development, there are specific criteria associated with the term, “sustainable.” However, it has also entered the mainstream vocabulary as a more general reference to considering the full implications of attitudes and behaviors over time, and across all contexts they may impact. Today I’m going to consider what “sustainable research” and “sustainable advocacy” might look like.

Sustainable Research – The Big Picture

Seeing the big picture is complicated – it is, after all, big! Research is an indispensable tool in the development of sustainable policies. Without it, we can’t accurately quantify far-reaching effects, or project future impacts.

But like any tool, research is neutral – it’s up to us what we build (or tear down) with it. As we’ve learned more and more about the world and ourselves, it has become necessary to specialize in order to master complexities and achieve expertise. In so doing, we often lose track of that big picture. Education systems encourage, and even demand, a narrow focus that exacerbates a disregard for the implications of one’s work beyond the goals of one’s own field. I’ve been waiting for a university to offer a degree in synthesis for decades – to date, in vain. The compartmentalized mindset has become the accepted standard. But is compartmentalization sustainable?

Let’s look at a psychology study we recently added to the HumaneSpot database, Comparing the Effectiveness of Monetary Versus Moral Motives in Environmental Campaigning. Although the study did not concern animals, we included it because message-construction analysis is useful to any form of advocacy.

The authors tested the assumption that the best way to motivate environment-supportive behavior change was by appealing to economic self-interest. They were able to demonstrate that study participants were more effectively motivated by appeals to their sense of moral identity (most of this study was conducted in the Netherlands, so it may not apply in less affluent and/or more individualistic cultural contexts). Even in a context where greed is more motivating than green, say the study authors, “focusing people on the selfish reasons for pro-environmental behaviour in one domain… may make them less inclined to engage in pro-environmental behaviour in other domains…”

I hope this is a sign of an evolution towards considering the implications of data more inclusively. We can’t just mindlessly work the research results. We have to consider the larger implications of study results in the real world. That’s sustainable thinking.

Easy enough, when the research results and sustainability analysis agree, as in this case. But what about when they don’t? In another HumaneSpot database item, Accommodating the Target: Veganism, Healthfulness, and Hegemonic Masculinities, author Corey Waters analyzed Faunalytics data to test the hypothesis that men might respond more positively to diet change arguments based on health benefits than on animal protection concerns. The numbers suggested that Waters was on to something.

But Waters didn’t stop there. He applied a more inclusive view, considering the longer-term costs to animal advocacy of using the health approach to reduce meat consumption by men. For example, Waters writes, “a discourse of veganism as healthful does not necessarily account for how particular animals have an interest in their own lives, and how wearing other animals, as with eating other animals, violates their rights as sentient beings.”

And he didn’t limit his analysis to cost and benefits for “his” issue. He continues, “A discourse of veganism as healthful does not necessarily expose social structures that marginalize other animals, a significant shortcoming if we consider veganism to be a social justice project.” Furthermore, promoting veganism primarily for its health benefits “cannot expose and deconstruct the concealed link between speciesism and sexism.” In short, though he didn’t use the term, he was considering the overall cultural sustainability of applying his study results.

Sustainable Advocacy – Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Waters achieved a sustainable analysis by taking several steps back from the immediate goal of vegan advocacy to see it as one of many forms of anti-hierarchical advocacy. Having identified that core value in his work, he tested his study conclusions against it, to see whether they really made sense in the larger picture. He took responsibility beyond his own particular focus for the larger implications of his recommendations.

Researchers aren’t the only ones who need to do this. Compartmentalization in advocacy is widespread. Choosing priorities consistent with our personal interests, and to avoid becoming overwhelmed into inertia, seems to make sense. Spending a lot of time and energy criticizing people with other priorities, on the other hand, probably doesn’t. There is good anecdotal evidence (see Green Party) that such a strategy reduces everyone’s effectiveness. We don’t have to look very far in the world to see that conflict and division are not sustainable.

Since animal and environmental advocates place a high value upon and feel strongly connected to the natural world, there are many issues they can partner on. I suspect many people identify with both roles. Every database item posted this week represents an issue of concern to those who care about our planet and all of its residents.

So animal advocates, make those protest signs out of re-purposed materials, carpool to that next Lobby Day, and include the environmental factor when you analyze the costs and benefits of leafletting. And environmental advocates, think about animals as more than just a part of the ecosystem, and consider whether eating meat is really consistent with your concern for the planet.

Let’s use data and respectful discourse to build some sustainable alliances.