For almost as long as the modern animal advocacy movement has been in existence, there have been debates among advocates about whether the movement is a consumer movement, or an anti-speciesist one: while some of the central theories of animal rights are rooted in a critique of how capitalism contributes to animal suffering, a great deal of mainstream animal advocacy does not battle on theoretical grounds. Instead, mainstream groups often disseminate horrific footage of animal abuse, and advocate for consumption of “cruelty-free” products, but rarely if ever give lessons in the philosophies that inform their campaigns.

The purpose of this paper was to critically examine the production of capitalist and consumerist discourses from the last decade, through an analysis of the websites of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and The Vegan Society. The author wanted to investigate whether or not those organizations have actively promoted “vegan consumerism” as a primary form of activism, and “if their campaigns have shifted ideologically in terms of how they portray activism.” To do so, the author conducted an archival analysis of the PETA and Vegan Society websites, from 2006-2016. Specifically, the author was looking “to uncover hidden (and unhidden) themes and agendas,” paying particular attention to “the discourses that appeared to have been reproduced through a neoliberal ideology.”

What the analysis found was that, despite some differences in presentation – the PETA website has gone through numerous changes over the years while the Vegan Society page has remained relatively static – both groups have maintained positions that “suggest activists do not have to do anything except buy ‘cruelty-free’ products … both groups set themselves up as mediators within the nonhuman animal rights movement.” The author points out how both groups focus on individual satisfaction and “neoliberal keywords and phrases” such as “voting with your dollar.” This focus on cruelty-free consumerism is a market-centric approach that makes it appear that if we just buy the right products, the rest will take care of itself.

For animal advocates in general, the paper presents an interesting analysis of consumer-driven advocacy and politics. However, for those interested in effective advocacy, animal rights theory and anti-speciesist philosophy may be crucial in terms of motivation and inspiration, but not essential in terms of action. It’s a tension that we’ve explored at Faunalytics before, and there are no simple solutions. Shifting consumer habits is crucial to pushing change in an economic way, but fostering consumer change without also fostering a shift in thinking may lead to more veg*ns, but fewer animal advocates. The best balance likely lies somewhere in between, practicing advocacy that both encourages meaningful dietary and behavior changes while also helping the public to understand why animals matter.