Changing The Tide To Save The Starfish
In part 3 of our four-part series discussing Martin Balluch’s essay, “Abolitionism vs. Reformism,” we dive deeper into the concept of system change and the need for advocates to think bigger than just education and outreach campaigns. The paramount importance of lasting, system-wide progress for animals requires using more than just persuasion as the lone tool in the advocacy arsenal. It also requires looking for legal, political, social, economic, technical, and other solutions to “lock in” changes for animals.
In my previous post regarding the problem with persuasion, I quoted Martin Balluch’s analogy of trying move the ocean with a spoon instead of building a damn to create “system change.” Sticking with the marine motif, most animal advocates have probably heard of the starfish story (if you’re one of those who hasn’t, go here). In short, it’s a story about the importance of every animal saved and every life improved, while at the same time it acknowledges the futility of trying to save all animals while going about it one animal at a time.
Hurling starfish back into the sea, one at a time, is like trying to move the ocean with a spoon – it’s an essentially impossible task when there are so many starfish! Balluch uses the example of eggs from battery-caged hens, which were banned in Austria despite the fact that an estimated 80% of consumers were purchasing such eggs. Convincing that many people to stop eating eggs from caged hens would have been a very long process, possibly without end. However, with public opinion largely against battery cages, the law was much more easily changed than persuading people en masse to change their behavior.
According to Balluch…
But regarding battery farming, the movement did not have to start from scratch with regards to the public. Over decades, the public had been fed the view that battery farms are the epitome of animal abuse. Even children’s books covered that issue and in all schools battery farming was a topic. That was why, in 2004, there were already 86% of the public in favour of a battery farm ban. But that alone would have changed nothing. As stated before, 80% of the people still bought cage eggs and the government had no reason whatsoever to act, since there was no conflict apparent. In this situation, the animal rights movement decided to start a campaign for a ban on battery cages, i.e. a ban on all cages, including the so-called enriched ones…
We see: solely the political conflict in society between the animal rights movement and animal industries determines the laws and their execution. The side, which can muster more support and political pressure on an issue, wins. The corresponding law determines the system in society, which eventually defines how people behave and how animals are being treated. The opinion of the majority or of single people in society is of secondary importance. Even a large majority against battery eggs did not ban battery farming or stop them from being sold. It was only political pressure and the system change that followed, which changed society and how animals are treated.
Focusing on “general public” education, as many animal advocates currently do, is the equivalent of throwing starfish back into the sea, one by one. This is not to say that education is unimportant, but rather that it’s not the way to achieve large-scale shifts in perception and treatment of non-human animals. Sticking with our analogy, I would argue that the animal advocacy movement needs fewer starfish throwers and more people working on how to alter the tide. The Austrian battery cage ban and the recent successful efforts in the U.S. to convince corporations to commit to cage-free eggs are examples of system changes that are rooted in positive public sentiment, but not beholden to it.
Some might argue (and indeed some have argued) that eliminating battery cages is a half-measure, a “reformist” or “welfarist” effort that undermines the long-term goal of total animal liberation. To these people, the only path toward real change for animals involves converting everyone to veganism, either immediately or not at all. While the goal is laudable, however, this puritanical approach (as advocated by Gary Francione and others) is both naïve and incredibly short-sighted. And, as I have argued in other posts, it’s also ineffective. Again borrowing from Austria and Balluch’s example:
Let’s look at the ban of battery farms. In contrast to the fur farm ban, the ban on battery farms did not mean the end of egg production in Austria. But, nevertheless, this ban directly led to a reduction in the number of eggs produced (and the number of hens exploited) by 35%! Since the ban was introduced, the number of laying hens being used in Austria has gone down by 35%.
While it may be distasteful for the puritans, system-wide change usually occurs in incremental steps, hence the ban on battery cages rather than egg farming entirely. Like in a game of darts, however, the most effective approach isn’t necessarily aiming for the bull’s eye every time. Advocates would do well to heed Balluch’s advice by focusing on incremental, but pervasive changes, beginning with those that already enjoy strong public support. Through those types of efforts, we can weaken animal industries and help raise society’s standards for animal protection and move more people toward the path of veganism and a more consistent ethic toward all animals.
The primary aim of the animal rights movement must be to produce political pressure to achieve incremental reforms towards animal rights. A reform is a step towards animal rights if it significantly damages animal industries, i.e. if it weakens them and/or forces them to use more expensive production systems. That is so, because the only enemy in the political conflict to achieve animal rights is the animal industries. Without them, animal rights would be reality.
Weakening animal industries through tough animal laws serves a purpose in two ways. Firstly, it weakens the opponent for future animal laws, and secondly it makes animal products more expensive so that fewer people will buy them and the vegan alternatives will have a better chance when competing on the free market. Stricter animal laws do not hinder people becoming aware of animal rights issues, but they actually promote that, because animal welfare is the psychological basis for animal rights.
Personally, I find Balluch gives a cogent argument against the abolition-or-nothing stance, one that supports strong reforms as long as they represent meaningful, system-wide changes. So, if you find yourself frantically combing the beach, picking up every starfish and throwing it toward the uncertain sea, consider taking a step back and examining how you could alter the moon’s gravitational pull instead. A ridiculous prospect, maybe, but by giving more thought to long-lasting, system-wide changes for animals, advocates may be able to achieve meaningful differences much more quickly than using education and persuasion alone.