Back To The Drawing Board: Rethinking Advocacy
In his recent essay, “A Case for a New Green Politics,” environmentalist James Gustave Speth argues that the environmental movement must be more aggressive and far-thinking in its approach. Speth, who is also dean of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, says there has been a lack of focus on “deeper approaches to change.” Although the essay is primarily directed at environmentalists, it offers interesting challenges to the conventional wisdom that is also held by many animal advocates.
——————————
Henry Spira, one of the early leaders of the U.S. animal protection movement, often talked about “moving the peanut forward.” That is, winning small victories for animals whenever we can in order to incrementally raise the bar and increase their status and improve their standard of care. I have argued for this approach myself given that social marketing research overwhelmingly shows that people change slowly, not abruptly. But Speth has a different perspective and believes that moving the peanut forward does little to address the underlying causes of environmental destruction (or animal suffering).
Today’s environmentalism tends to be pragmatic and incrementalist — its actions are aimed at solving problems and often doing so one at a time. It is more comfortable proposing innovative policy solutions than framing inspirational messages. These characteristics are closely allied to a tendency to deal with effects rather than underlying causes. Most of our major environmental laws and treaties, for example, address the resulting environmental ills much more than their causes. In the end, environmentalism accepts compromises as part of the process. It takes what it can get. |
Speth continues:
The methods and style of today’s environmentalism are not wrongheaded, just far, far too restricted as an overall approach. The problem has been the absence of a huge, complementary investment of time, energy, and money in other, deeper approaches to change. And here, the leading environmental organizations must be faulted for not doing nearly enough to ensure these investments were made. |
I think these criticisms can just as easily be applied to the animal protection movement, which arguably struggles to see the forest for trying to save all of the trees. As a community, animal advocates should try to focus less on the urgent issues of the day and more on investing in systemic change. We are finally seeing some of these types of investments, such as the $75 million Michelson award for development of non-surgical sterilants for dogs and cats, or even the PETA challenge regarding commercially-viable lab meat (even though their effort has been justifiably criticized as a media stunt by some). Of course, investments of time and energy are just as important as financial investments.
Speth gives us some cause for optimism. He also suggests that environmentalists work together with progressive and disenfranchised groups, and animal advocates should try to do the same. Specifically, he calls on environmental activists to use the civil rights movement as a model and to be confrontational and disobedient, but also nonviolent. For those of us who hope and work for a more compassionate world for all animals – human and non-human alike – these seem like important ideas to consider.
As Richard Falk reminds us, only an unremitting struggle will drive the changes that can sustain people and nature. If there is a model within American memory for what must be done, it is the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. It had grievances, it knew what was causing them, and it also knew that the existing order had no legitimacy and that, acting together, people could redress those grievances. It was confrontational and disobedient, but it was nonviolent. It had a dream. And it had Martin Luther King Jr. |