How should vegans talk to the public?

A discussion with Paul Bashir (Anonymous for the Voiceless)

In every social movement, there are activists who take a pragmatic approach and those who take a more idealistic one. Pragmatists focus on steps they believe are achievable in the current context, even if these fall short of the ultimate vision. Idealists call for the full realization of that vision, believing that setting out the ideal can inspire and mobilize others.

It’s no different in the animal liberation movement (or whatever you want to call it - indeed the term you use may actually betray a pragmatic or idealistic stance). I myself have long been in favor of pragmatism, and indeed the subtitle of my book How to Create a Vegan World is A pragmatic approach. A person who is representative of the more idealistic, non-negiotable go vegan now-approach is Paul Bashir, founder of Anonymous for the Voiceless, famous for their so-called “cubes of truth”. Paul and I had a long discussion about tactics and communication on David Ramms’ Youtube channel.

Discussions between these different vegan factions often become bitter or hostile, and there is quite a bit of hostility and infighting in the vegan movement in general as well. That’s why I’m happy that we were able to have this discussion in a respectful and hopefully productive way.

All of us humans are very prone to defend the views we have invested in and identify with. To be open for different views often feels threatening. To drop a whole bunch of convictions is scary. But we have to be able to do that if we want to help animals in the most effective way (and besides: we’re asking non-vegans the same thing). So I did my best to be as open-minded as possible.

There is, in fact, a big part of me that wants Paul to be right. For one thing I obvioulsy want there to be a very succesful tactic or communication style to sway others and turn carnists into anti-speciesists. For another, talking direcly to people seems to be a lot more personally satisfying than the boring and lame-sounding pragmatic stuff that I do. So when the evidence is there, I’m really happy to pivot. I promised Paul I’d participate in his cubes (maybe at a big demo in Amsterdam next year - I’ll let you know how that goes).

Regarding me changing other activists’ minds: I have been in this movement for too long - 29 years, not 25 as was said in the video - to believe that I can quickly and sufficiently explain the pragmatic position to die-hard idealists. Frankly, the way many people seem to immediately jump to conclusions is exhausting and frustrating. I say seem to jump, because of course I can’t really know how much they thought about all of this, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that many didn’t think about it at all. I think many vegans are young and/or new to the movement, and believe that they have figured everything out. After having been on the wrong side for a long time, they are now on the right side, and it’s all very simple: tell the truth to people, in a straightforward way, and enough of them will change. Is it so difficult to at the very least see that as a strategy to veganize the world, this is woefully incomplete and other, complementary approaches are needed?

When confronted with more pragmatic ideas, many of these people seem unable to consider them, and immediately respond with the old and tired “you wouldn’t tell a child abuser to abuse children less” or “anti-slavery or civil rights activists asked for all or nothing too, why would we do different?” If I find the energy I’ll try to respond to these objections more extensively in another post.

Below I offer some more takeaways and thoughts after the discussion.

First, a recap of Paul’s position, which I hope is fair:

• Direct abolitionist stance: He believes the only ethical and effective ask is to go vegan immediately, not to reduce.

• Three-step outreach method: (1) Hold people accountable for animal suffering, (2) make them empathise by putting themselves in the victims’ position, (3) deliver a call to action to change right now.

• Guilt as central tool: He argues guilt is the best and “only” effective way to push people to change.

• Dismisses reductionism: Views flexitarians/vegetarians as complacent and harder to convert because they feel they’re already “doing enough.”

• Focus on action, not attitudes: He downplays what non-vegans say about messaging, insisting only behaviour (actually going vegan) matters.

• Rejects incremental strategies: He does not favour reducetarian campaigns or system-level gradualism, seeing them as delays or distractions from abolition.

My views and takeaways:

Working with guilt, shame and accountability
According to the research on shame and guilt, Paul’s approach with emphasis on accountability and guilt/shame can both work and can backfire, depending on the audience (see also this study). People who are already thinking about and open to the issue might be influenced by guilt and shame. But there’s also the people who in this study are called meat shame-resisters, who will show reactance, and be pushed further away from the ideas we want them to adopt.

Reducetarian asks have more positive results
I believe using only one message and approach and accepting that only a small part of the population will be open to it, is a bit lame. Better to find ways to speak to people who are not ready for this approach. This we can do using different asks (reduction), styles (friendly, encouraging), and arguments (health, environment…). The research is limited, but a reducetarian seems to lead to a bigger positive effects. With a reducetarian ask, I mean every ask that is not the go-vegan-now ask: it could be about Veganuary or the Veggie Challenge, Meatless Monday, or just a vague suggestion to reduce. This study, for instance concludes that appeals to reduce had effects five months after the study, while an eliminate appeal did not. This study shows that mid-range results (asking for 40-70% reduction) result in the biggest reduction overall (number of compliant people x individual reduction effect). A Faunalytics study found that advocating for meat reduction led to more meatless meal purchases than advocating for vegetarianism (let alone veganism). I’m trying not to cherry-pick here. If you have studies that show the opposite, send them to me.

Paul says that reducers and vegetarians are the worst to talk to, often feeling complacent. There definitely must be reducers who are complacent like that, but most evidence points in the direction that people move in steps and that reducers or vegetarians go vegan easier, or that, conversely, vegans were at some point reducers/vegetarians.

Reducers drive demand
As I pointed out, it’s not the 1% vegans responsible for all the meat and dairy alternatives in the supermarkets: it’s the reducers, of whom there are many more. I think it goes without saying that the more options you have, the easier change will be, and the less moral motivation is required. I found Paul’s response to this, that animal alternatives are not really necessary and that people are ready to eat fruits and vegetables, unconvincing. Like I said, if a chicken nugget is one of the most consumed foods in the world, it makes sense to make a meatless chicken nugget.

Behavior change can lead to attitude change
Once people are already eating vegan now and then, for whatever reason there’s a bigger chance that hearts and minds open for animal arguments (people now know they don’t have so much to lose). I’ve written about this extensively in my book, with references and examples - and see also this post. One of the most common examples of this is how people who start eating less animal products or become vegan for health reasons, evolve to becoming vegan - and activists - for the animals (in fact Paul himself started out with being interested in health). This makes total sense: defensiveness drops once one knows there’s nothing to sacrifice.

Other past and present social justice movements were incremental/pragmatic as well.
Comparing with other/past social justice movements is tricky, and all of us tend to look for things that confirm our own opinions. It’s hard to determine what was responsible for the success of other movements, but at the very least it’s easy to see that all of them used incremental asks and tactics. The anti-slavery abolitionists, for instance, campaigned for the abolition of the slave trade and used different arguments (e.g. health of British sailors, economic ones…).

Studies and data matter
I’m not discounting Paul’s experience on the street, and I’m the first to admit the research on any of this is limiting and not 100% conclusive. But Paul can only go by what people tell him they will do, under - let’s be honest - some pressure. This is remarkable, as he at the same time does not take non-vegans on their word when they voice their opinion about what works on them or doesn’t. In any case, counting people who tell you that they’ll go vegan is a shaky matric at best. Paul’s reply was that we'd need to have private investigators to go into people's houses in order to really know. That seems like a bit of a copout, and surely other things are possible. Have people at AV considered asking email addresses (e.g. of those who proclaim they’ll go vegan after a conversation) to follow up?

Various approaches can co-exist.
I’m not at all saying there is no merit to Paul’s approach. I am sure there is a place for it, and that it will work on some people. I also think it’s good a good way to create new activists, and it gives activists something to do (not everyone can do political lobbying or is a great writer or whatever). On the other hand, I’m a bit worried that Paul helps create cohorts of activists that are not open to anything else than his approach. It’s not hard to see various approaches can co-exist, and are needed. There is more than street outreach. When we work on institutional change, talking to decision-makers who can influence what can end up on the plates of thousands, or politicians who can help push new legislation, it would be prudent to be flexible in our tactics.

If we’re the least bit open-minded, there is no reason for different factions to to be hostile to one another. I’ve seen people commenting on the discussion with “I stand 100% with Paul.” I don’t want to see this as a divide. We’re all on Team Animals.

I wish Paul and Anonymous every success. I admire their dedication, and the fact that they’re still around. Again, I’ll try the cubes, and I hope I’ll be flabbergasted by the efficiency of their methods.