What if they were human?

Asking ourselves “what if they were human?” in a deeply speciesist culture is almost always an effective and emotive way to check whether or not something or someone is speciesist. For example: is it morally right to rear and slaughter human people for their flesh? The answer is no, it is immoral, and this then presents the blatant bias in the case of nonhuman people. Is it morally right to trap and murder humans for their hair? Again, the answer is obvious. This question, however not always substantial or as nuanced as it needs to be, can uncover important questions and inconsistencies within the dominant culture, and also within vegan groups and individuals.

But here is an interesting and unusual example of where this question isn’t sufficient: Is kink (BDSM) play where human people dress up as nonhuman people (such as dogs) and derive sexual, social and emotional gratification from this play a sort of appropriation of nonhuman behaviour, bodies and communication, and as this appropriation is of marginalised people, is it then speciesist/oppressive? Without a nuanced analysis and sociological understanding of kink/BDSM/fetish, we risk being sex-negative by immediately calling it speciesist. Jeff Mannes, a queer, sex-positive sociologist argues “animal play” is subversive towards speciesism rather than perpetuating it because of the sociology behind kink.¹ He explains how kink arises out of “anti-habitus" (taboo, essentially) and in the case of “animal play”, in similar words, is as a result of humans’ separation from their animality. This exciting and multidimensional answer means that often the answers to these questions are more nuanced than they initially appear, and so we should be careful with them.

Overall, this question can help point us in the direction of what our actions, imagery and language ought to be and look like. Unfortunately, this question has also been used as a weapon to gaslight both those who hold onto speciesist beliefs, but also especially berate those who are doing anti-speciesism work into becoming puritanical.

"What if they were a dog?"

As discussed in a previous writing piece called “the problem with dog analogies in anti-speciesism”, the question “what if they were a dog?” concerning the murder of cows or pigs was argued to strengthen speciesism rather than subvert it. The main argument against this phrase was that dogs experience violent speciesism as well, and their “special status” (in the “West”) is superficial, as this “special status” is itself a form of emotionally consumable speciesism through the systemic violence of the pet industry, or other dog exploitation industries. This phrase ultimately places dogs on a fake “loving” pedestal and diminishes their lived experience while not shedding light on speciesist ideology.

So the non-speciesist alternative is “what if they were human?”, sort of.

The definition of veganism/anti-speciesism in our words is: “rejecting and fighting speciesism as far as is practicable and possible”. And in simple terms, “speciesism” is human people viewing themselves as morally superior to nonhuman people, and thus echoing this throughout human systems, human cultures and interpersonal relationships.

"The Liberation Pledge"

The “Liberation Pledge” is where a human takes a pledge to not sit at tables where nonhuman bodies and secretions are being consumed for either their emotional wellbeing, a social refusal protest, or both. We are using the “Liberation Pledge” as an example of possible vegan purism because of it’s (rightful) associations with vegan cultism. As a disclaimer, we do not eat at tables or engage in direct social situations where there is flesh, cow’s milk, etc. being consumed, but we recognise this not as a “pledge” of vegan purity while wearing a fork bangle but as a tactical use of social refusal in protest of violent speciesist norms. We do this because it is speciesist to enable socially speciesist situations. For example, if the pig flesh on the table was instead human flesh, we would not sit at the table and eat plants. Most notably, we use this tactic because we can, and are socially, emotionally and physically able to. Is it speciesist to eat at tables where there is nonhuman flesh? Absolutely. Can every vegan use this tactic? No. Is it dangerous to demand other vegans use this tactic while not giving them properly informed consent about the social, emotional and career risks of said action? Absolutely, it is.

Speciesism in film

The main problem is when we demand everyone must reject speciesism in its entirety and expect the same standards from everyone (purism), we forget veganism (rejecting and opposing speciesism) is about what is practicable and possible for human people. When we watch films and TV shows, we easily forget nonhuman people could have been exploited as actors, their flesh and secretions as food props, their skin and hair as clothing, etc. Is it speciesist to watch and pay for these films which entertain us, when if it were humans in the same place, we would not? The answer is yes, it is speciesist, but that doesn’t mean it’s emotionally or socially possible to boycott every film where there is speciesist violence in the production, or equally worse, speciesist ideology in the moral message of the film. Watching “Game of Thrones”, for example, doesn’t mean you condone the literal horse enslavement or the fictional exploitation of the dragons in the series.

Anonymous for the Voiceless

A while ago, there was a racist post created by AV (Anonymous for the Voiceless) about a Black person who used a pig’s severed head as a prop (implying cops are pigs) at a Black Lives Matter protest. The post was undermining the BLM movement by targeting the overt speciesism of a Black anti-racist, yet was not critical of the speciesism of the violent police systems who enslave horses and dogs and weaponise them for movement repression. One person commented on this post explaining that this was “one person”, who was using shocking speciesism against police, and that the post was a racist dog whistle. The response: “what if they were your mother?...” (the pig’s remains) “...would you have said this?”, this is an iteration of “what if they were human?” question, and in this case was used to gaslight and guilt (by strawman) the commenter into thinking they were being speciesist. This question can and has been used by right-wing and eco-fascists to control the narrative and employ dog whistles to other nefarious and exploitative humans.

“You wouldn’t say that if they were human!?”, the answer is often probably “no I wouldn’t”, but we live in a deeply speciesist culture and there are multiple facets and nuance to human lives. Sometimes human people must sit at tables and eat vegan food with humans who are eating flesh because of the social element, as they would feel isolated and wouldn’t mentally cope in the world without this emotional support mechanism, therefore, it’s then arguably inaccessible for them to avoid part-taking in this speciesist practice. Some may be more comfortable in their emotional security and ability to use this tactic effectively and safely, so it is accessible to them and they should do this if they can, just like if eating a plant-based diet or unlearning their speciesist language is accessible to them, then they should do so too.

When we discuss social refusal as a tactic (and that’s what it is) with activists, especially young/new activists who are ideologically vulnerable, we must not be demanding an unattainable purity. That’s not to say social refusal is not a powerful tactic about how much someone opposes something and is being tactfully exclusive with their social capital, but when it’s about purity, then it is useless and cultish.

Problematic organisations

Another way purity, in the form of cancel culture, can express itself is when an organisation is speciesist, hierarchical or oppressive in some way, those in protest of these organisations demand human people involved (usually the ideologically vulnerable and un-paid new-vegan volunteers) immediately renounce these organisations puritanically. We must be conscious that humans may have social, emotional and financial support systems in place because of these organisations and we need to acknowledge that it is not always practicable and possible to disinvest from a non-profit job or chapter of a franchise immediately or ever.

"Service Animals"

"What about blind or visually impaired humans who exploit dogs as 'service animals'?" These dogs are enslaved undoubtedly, their bodily autonomy and consent violated, but it’s also not possible or practicable for some of these blind humans to go without exploiting dogs to survive in this ableist world. Do we respond by ignoring the speciesism? No, we recognise it’s speciesist, but also recognise it’s not currently possible for everyone to not part take in this form of exploitation. We don’t medicine-shame humans who take medication which was tested through vivisection; we fight the vivisection industries. We don’t shame blind humans for exploiting dogs to survive; we fight for a non-ableist world which adapts itself to the various abilities, species and bodies which inhabit it.

Lastly:

The point of this writing piece is to ask everyone to throw away vegan purism. Purism is likely the most unattractive (and right-wing) quality of modern mainstream “veganism” and probably our number one obstacle to gaining strong solidarity from other socio-political (Left) movements. We’re purist about our diet, our ideology, our lifestyle, our language, our actions; we build our walls very high and expect many to come to us. That said, being against purism isn’t to be confused with the “welfarist” “vegetarian” model of being “vegan-ish”, which condones speciesist violence for the “greater good”, for example, recommending vegans eat some fish flesh in front of non-vegans to appear “less extreme”, (yikes). What we’re saying sounds somewhat similar to that, but it is different in that we are saying that speciesism is completely unacceptable, but that engaging in speciesism on various levels is sometimes unavoidable for some human people in some situations, and that being puritanical with these humans will not help us.

Our enemy is speciesism, and when we keep fighting speciesist ideology and its structures rather than being pedantic with other individual humans, then we will have a movement that understands what it is against. A movement that can move speciesists, “welfarists”, environmentalists and non-vegan leftists closer to anti- speciesism rather than gate-keeping them and their potential socio-political power.

Veganism is a socio-political movement against the violent ideology of speciesism and human supremacy; veganism at its core is anti-speciesism. Anti-speciesism aims to reject and oppose speciesism as far as is practicable and possible. Opposing speciesism firstly means directly fighting speciesist ideology, industries and violence; it means campaigning against it using a diversity of tactics and various strategies. Opposing speciesism means not directly exploiting or enslaving nonhuman animals, either by rearing them for slaughter, hunting them, using them for entertainment, vivisection, etc. Rejecting speciesism also comes in the form of diet change for those who are able, as eating someone else, or what comes from their body, violates their bodily autonomy; not because we naively think we are manipulating capitalism with our wallet. In terms of lifestyle change, human people may reject speciesism by not wearing or using the skin, hair or secretions of nonhuman people, or use products tested through vivisection. In terms of language (/speciesist-language) change, they might try to unlearn the rampant speciesism that insidiously consumes our communication. Rejecting and opposing speciesism naturally comes with opposing capitalism and all forms of oppression, so doing anti-speciesism work should guide humans to a radically Left political viewpoint.

There are many aspects to anti-speciesism, and many ways to dismantle it. Purism in any form, and within any movement, is counter-revolutionary.