Reducetarian Movement Snatchers, or Matt Ball Should Leave Vegans Alone
Matt Ball, co-founder of Vegan Outreach, has produced a video (see below) attacking vegans.
Ball declares that, "Everyone has met a vegan who has been rude to them or who has been outrageous or just angry or yelling at them."
Ball illustrates that by showing DxE actions in supermarket and café settings. In the supermarket, an activist makes a statement about the dairy industry. A true statement about the dairy industry. I will say that I do think there's a big difference between DxE-type actions in supermarkets rather than in cafes or restaurants. The latter locations are bound to upset people – in my experience, that tends not to happen in supermarkets.
So, which accusation Ball pitches at vegans applies here? I'm using the supermarket example, because it's the only one with sound. Was this a "rude" action? Was it outrageous? Well, it might be thought that in the sense that one aspect of DxE I like is the spirit of Herbert Marcuse's Great Refusal that they often embody. But, in what other sense is an action inside a supermarket (as distinct from, say, a café or restaurant) something that's "outrageous" and how? Are these DxE activists "angry" – how knows? Are they yelling? Well, the woman is making her statement in a loud voice. But are they "yelling at them," meaning the public. No, I don't think this action, the equivalent of street theatre, can be characterised as that.
Of course, Ball is playing up to the "crazy vegan" stereotype much loved by Tobias Leenaert and Sebastian Joy. I invite Mr. Matt Ball to come to Dublin, Thursday to Saturday, to see how Vegan Education on the Go (VEGO), and the VIP (Vegan Information Project) interact with people. He'll see calm, rational, discussion. If anything, the shouting comes from members of the public who pass by and don't engage. One recent shouted comment, "I like meat!" and another: "God gave us teeth." The people who come up to us are vegan curious. They talk to us. Guess what: we talk back.
I'll also bet my bottom dollar that Ball didn't see much, if any, of Leenaert's ideological "crazy vegan" stereotype when he observed vegans handing out Vegan Outreach literature. Better not mention Vegan Outreach too much though. Ball implies that he regrets ever using that obscene, horrible, word "vegan" in the group's title. Not good, money-wise, for one. We all knew Vegan Outreach had hit the buffers when co-founder Jack Norris got married to a PeTA activist at a KFC restaurant, celebrating with KFC's vegetarian sandwiches.
Bizarrely, Ball then seems to care that the rude and outrageous "celebrity chef" Anthony Bourbain regards vegans as terrorists. Are we supposed to care anything about what this person thinks of vegans?
Are we somehow to shape our message to cater for a person like this? [This is from that great font of knowledge, Wikipedia, so may not be totally accurate]…
Bourdain has a public persona that has been characterized by Gothamist as "culinary bad boy". Because of his liberal use of profanity and sexual references in his television show No Reservations, the network has placed viewer discretion advisories on each segment of each episode.
Known for consuming exotic local speciality dishes, Bourdain has "eaten sheep testicles in Morocco, ant eggs in Puebla, Mexico, a raw seal eyeball as part of a traditional Inuit seal hunt, and an entire cobra—beating heart, blood, bile, and meat—in Vietnam," reported the Daily Freeman in 2010. According to Bourdain, the most disgusting thing he has ever eaten is a Chicken McNugget, though he has also declared that the unwashed warthog rectum he ate in Namibia and the fermented shark he ate in Iceland are among "the worst meals of [his] life."
If I saw vegans being rude and angry towards this sexist, violent, horrible man, I think I'd pretty much understand to be honest.
Ball then goes on to make some reasonable sociological points. People, by and large, don't want to be purposely harmful towards other animals. They are simply following social convention, obeying their culture, consuming what's cheap and convenient. He then says that he wants a new approach than just talking to the public about veganism.
Wait. What's being said here? That a vegan position cannot understand these sociological facts and take them into account? Most vegans I know are fully aware that they are dealing with people who are thoroughly socialised into a deeply speciesist culture. However, to imply that this somehow rules out effective vegan advocacy is nonsense.
The speciesist disconnect in this reducetarian approach is underlined next. Ball says that his strategy is to get people to stop eating chickens and apparently move to cows (described as "beef") and pigs as a step in the right direction. Now, how does he put this: "No matter what they eat instead…" Yes, I think he means, no matter WHO they eat instead. Naughty.
Next, Ball cites some data from Faunalytics' "Study of Current and Former Vegetarians and Vegans." First, we should always be wary of research that conflates the vegetarian diet and the philosophy of veganism. These are two very different things. See Casey Taft on research used in the animal advocacy movement.
Ball picks out ONE statistic from the Faunalytics summary only. The one reading: "85% of vegetarians/vegans abandon their diet."
Yes, well, now we are getting somewhere. The emphasis on diet is important. If people are not eating other animal products - or modifying who they choose to exploit, as in vegetarianism - for dietary reasons, then we might expect this fall off. Ethical vegans are more likely to remain vegans – see HERE.
What Ball chooses not to highlight from the summary are important parts of this issue. For example…
The only motivation cited by a majority (58%) of former vegetarians/vegans was health.
A number of motivations were cited by a majority of current vegetarians/vegans, with "animal protection" coming in at 68%.
The summary also notes how isolated former vegetarians and vegans were: "84% of former vegetarians/vegans said they were not actively involved in a vegetarian/vegan group or organisation." 63% emphasised the important of isolation by saying that their diet made them "stick out from the crowd." Yeah, more sociology – human mammals are social animals.
Given the complexity that just this summary raises, it is revealing that Ball chooses to point only to the numbers who stop being vegetarian, or vegan. We don't know the numbers in each group – and there's no mention of ethics. Tobias Leenaert applied this distortion recently too – see HERE.
A fundamental mistake in Ball's position is next up. We're pushing people to eat what we eat, he says. You know, it says at the beginning of this video that Matt Ball is an "animal rights advocate" into "animal welfare." Unfortunately, he hasn't taken much animal rights theory in it seems (and more on "animal rights below). If Ball knew anything about animal rights thinking, then he'd know that the plant diet follows the philosophy, just as the vegan diet follows understanding the ideas within vegan philosophy, such as peace, justice, and non-violence.
Like a lot of reducetarians, Ball has gone for this line that we are only really talking about altering eating patterns, at least at first. Well, it's a little more than that. If we are to shift a culture, we are talking about altering thinking patterns. We need people to think like vegans, not just to eat like them. It's the people who are eating a vegan's diet only that are returning to animal products.
Any more terrible mistakes to come? Oh, yes – here's the biggy.
Ball is arguing that vegans are not making much progress after "decades of advocacy." First, there hasn't been decades of vegan advocacy anywhere in the world – see what Ronnie Lee, vegan activist since 1971, says about that HERE.
The examples of "advocacy" Ball cites are Peter Singer and PeTA. Yes, Peter Singer and PeTA! Ball says Singer's Animal Liberation came out in the 1970s, and PeTA was founded in 1980, apparently showing by this that people have been "at this" for decades.
I suggested above that this was a mistake. Actually, I think that this part of the video is pure ideological distortion, and I'm sure that Ball knows it. One clue that he knows it is that he stops talking about veganism in relation to these "decades of advocacy" and talks about the numbers of vegetarians only. This is wise – even though all this is pulling the rug out from under the feet of his argument.
So, Animal Liberation came out in the 1970s. Sure, the book in which philosopher Peter Singer writes
The question is, therefore, whether the pleasant lives of the hens (plus the benefits to us of the eggs) are sufficient to outweigh the killing that is part of the system…In keeping with the reasons given there, I do not, on balance, object to free-range egg production (Animal Liberation, second edition, PP: 175-176).
Not veganism then. So, we are left with PeTA (The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Oh boy, what a wonderful organisation to pin our vegan social justice hopes on. A sexist, racist, ableist, fat shaming, organisation is not making progress. I'm shocked!
On animal rights, just for the record. Peter Singer is philosophically opposed to animal rights, and PeTA sell Peter Singer as animal rights, even though they know he does not stand for animal rights. You really couldn't make this movement up, could you? Who would believe it? The rights-based pioneer philosopher and abolitionist, Tom Regan, was shamefully marginalised by the movement that calls itself the "animal rights" movement.
The last part of Ball's video I can tolerate – except to the extent that this non-vegan part will be pushed towards vegans to suggest to them that the best way to advocate for veganism is have a reduced view of veganism, reject the radical philosophy of veganism, and be sloppy about one's dietary choices.
If Matt Ball wants to abandon vegan advocacy, fine. However, there is NO reason for vegans to take any notice of this reducetarian position - or alter their own vegan advocacy to the public. Vegan advocacy that has JUST BEGUN remember. Historically, we are at the very beginning of a movement that puts veganism centre stage – and these people want us to put the brakes on to further their reducetarian careers.
Reducetarian Movement Snatchers, or Leenaert Should Leave Vegans Alone
Content warning: extremely speciesist language by the "vegan" "strategist" who regards other animals as ingredients.
The anti-vegan strategist, Tobias Leenaert, recorded a recent podcast with a fan of his, Michael Dello-lacovo. These are some of my thoughts about it and related issues.
Dello-lacovo has recently attended the "reducetarian summit" and written a review of The Reducetarian Solution, a book edited my Brian Kateman, who likes to mock vegans and veganism, much like Leenaert does. Indeed, Kateman makes the extraordinary claim that he's a carnivore. Kateman needs to consult Dr. Milton Mills. Leenaert spoke at the reducetarian summit as a representative of his latest gravy train, "Pro-Veg."
Tobias Leenaert is extremely poor and gets quite panicky when questioned about his position - see HERE, and gets utterly floored if someone makes an animal rights point - see HERE. This happened again in the recent podcast, even though the questioning could not have been more supportive and gentle.
​Michael Dello-lacovo had said in a previous podcast about reducetarianism that he had some misgivings that the reducetarian approach may encourage people to just switch from one animal product to another and, depending on the circumstances ("red meat" to eating chickens, or hens' eggs, for example), that may increase animal suffering.
Dello-lacovo brought this up with Leenaert. This is just part of Leenaert's blundering answer (and this is where the content warning above applies).
"Even if there is an increase in chicken or fish consumption, what we might see, for instance, is that, like, if I tell somebody, like, reduce, I'm imagining that they could, for instance, replace a certain quantity of beef by chicken, and eat more chicken, but a certain quantity of beef they could also, if our system works, are going to replace it by vegetarian, plant based dish – vegan dish, whatever – and the fact that they do that is so important. This is the first step. So, even if there's a fist temporary increase in chicken or fish consumption, if there's also – if the gate is open to trying vegetarian, vegan, products or dishes, then this is a very important fact and, in the second phase, this temporary increase of chicken and fish could be annihilated. So you could imagine, for instance, if a child grows up with parents who are reducetarians and who may eat even more chicken and fish but who put vegetarian and vegan dishes on the menu now and then, that child would, erm - there would be more change that that child gets to know vegetarian dishes and evolve further and further, and so – I mean, it's really important to look at concrete results but sometimes maybe we pick too short-term results and we need to look a bit in the longer term."
This response raises some big questions. For example, what is Leenaert's time frame here? Well, we do know the answer to that - it's very LONG. He's on record talking about slowness; that he's in favour "of taking this thing very gradually." This should not be a shock. Leenaert is a careerist in it for the long haul. He makes his living from the continued use of other animals, and it doesn't look like he's going to put himself out of a job anytime soon.
Notice, in the response above, that he talks about "the second phase." This raises all sorts of bizarre issues about Leenaert and his approach(es). He uses a two phase model. Phase one is now - a pre-vegan phase in which it is best to minimise the use of words like "vegan," "animal rights," and "speciesism." He doesn't know how many years, decades, centuries, phase one will last - he just thinks that phase one is the time when animal advocates should ease up big time on the whole "be vegan" routine. People just ain't ready for that sort of radicalism, and to hell with Donald Watson's idea of deliberately using the word to "ripen" people to what it means.
This begs a huge question. If phase one isn't the time to talk about veganism, and phase one is now, and phase one is likely to last a long time yet, why call yourself The Vegan Strategist? Wouldn't that be the absolutely wrong and silly name to adopt in these endless pre-vegan times? Surely The Reducetarian Strategist, or The Vegetarian Strategist would be better (as well as more accurate)?
Of course, Leenaert would say that his end game is veganism. Is it? I'm not so sure. For example, he argues that he wants veganism to be redefined as being "about food" only - and even then it should allow for flexibility and exceptions. He has a whole bunch of reasons - and a whole host of times - when he tells vegans that they should willingly eat other animals. An eat other animals for veganism position!
In the podcast, Leenaert declares
I'm not saying that we should avoid talking about veganism but I'm wondering, like, if we talk about veganism, how should we define veganism. I'm in favour of defining it in a way, or maintaining a concept that is just a bit less rigid than what most people do, and I think that would greatly benefit the numbers of vegans that we get. I argue that 100% consistency is unproductive and is redundant – it's not necessary.
So, even though he's more likely to say that there are some times when it may be appropriate to talk about veganism, he means his "veganism" that is not veganism. A new animal-eating veganism - because vegans eating other animals is "effective" and "strategic."
Well, there's another term for all that too: NOT VEGAN.
The current definition of veganism is too big and too radical for Leenaert. This is deeply ironic to me, given the numbers of present-day vegans who seem determined to betray the originators of their own vegan social movement and slim down the meaning of veganism, much as Leenaert wants to do. Careful of the company you keep I say.
He's a bit sneaky in this podcast. He knows redefining veganism is pretty controversial, so he suggests that the bar should be lowered from 100% veganism to 99%. Anyone who has seen his presentations knows that he wants to lower the bar much lower than that!
You may or may not be surprised to learn that Tobias Leenaert is utterly baffled when animal advocates want to tell the truth - especially about their vegan aspirations. In contrast, he says that his approach is based on "adaptiveness."
Adaptiveness. You adapt your communication style and your communication – your ask – you adapt it to the people you have in front of you, according to what you think works and in some cases that can be a "go vegan" approach, in other cases it is a reducetarian approach.
Leenaert says adaptiveness means not being "dogmatic."
The reducetarian approach…is to advocate for the reduction of animal products rather than something like veganism or vegetarianism...A dogmatic approach would say that we always have to advocate for veganism. To me, that's dogma. To me, again, what matters is results.
Leenaert, very much like Melanie Joy on this, is really only at ease mentioning veganism if he knows that the audience is full of vegans, at "animal rights conferences," for example.
Dello-lacovo is a consequentialist like Leenaert, so he's interested in adaptiveness and comes back to the concept. He asks Leenaert for examples. Oh, no! Those bloody difficult questions again, I thought you were a fan! Leenaert's first example doesn't even attempt to answer the question, or make much sense.
A million dollars for an advertising campaign – what would the message be? You've no idea what your audience will be like. You have to get, like, the lowest common denominator – basing yourself on research, and there probably you're going to see that most people care more about health, environment maybe, and that might be a more interesting message when you are broadcasting to a million people to say something about health and environment, or about reduction.
Yeah, couldn't do something like the amazing Go Vegan World campaign - grassroots led from an animal sanctuary in Ireland - that gives a clear vegan message always. It's getting to the stage, isn't it, when one wonders when Leenaert thinks the public can ever hear the word vegan without fainting.
This is the second example of adaptiveness.
Talking to a politician or a "decision maker." It is usually the health or the environmental arguments that are more relevant to them, and more socially relevant. They are bleeding hearts people who care about the animals necessarily, they will care about what their electorate cares about. In many cases, there are officials about health and environment, but not about animal welfare, for instance.
He says there's no point in talking to a Minister of the Environment about animal rights. Yeah, well there's not much point in talking to any politician about animal rights (by which I mean rights-based animal rights) until the culture shifts away from how deeply speciesist it is now.
Of course, with talk of politicians, we know just how "adaptive" Leenaert can be - bendy over backwards even. Leenaert was once told by a politician waiving money in his face that vegans are "crazies." Did palms up - eyes down Leenaert challenge that? NO, of course he didn't. He "adapted" to it - he used the slur to construct the myth of the "crazy vegan," and spread it around along with his colleague, Sebastian Joy (they are both founders of the latest Pro-Veg gravy train).
In case you are wondering - but I doubt that you are by now - "crazy vegans" are consistent vegan who, according to Leenaert and Joy, scream and shout in people's faces while frantically waiving their arms about in the street.
Leenaert likes to claim that vegans owe reducetarians a very big dept. He claims that the "vegan market" is driven by reducetarians – that the number of vegan choices available is down to reducetarians, and not vegans themselves. Maybe in the future, it will be vegans who drive the market but – for now – it is the reducers, he claims.
All vegan restaurants and all "vegan producers," he states, are primarily catering for reducers and flexitarians. There is not a large enough vegan market, or as he tellingly puts it: "they could not live off the vegans alone."
I'm not sure if I care whether this is true of not, although I certainly know that the pioneering vegan companies like Plamil had vegans in mind when they started producing, for example, plant milks.
This raises another problem for Leenaert. He seems to think that there needs to be a reducetarian movement in order for people to reduce. Ironically, Dello-lacovo says in his previous podcast about reducetarianism, mentioned above, that he generally disagrees with virtually everything Gary Francione says, yet acknowledges that Francione's position accepts and expects people to reduce. Francione expresses this sentiment as the "Vegan 1-2-3" sometimes, and it's part of the modern idea of not saying "go vegetarian first," but be as vegan as possible. In this blog entry, I write.
So, instead of the flawed "conventional wisdom" of vegetarianism first, Francione recommends his "Vegan 1-2-3 Plan," which introduces a three-stage move toward veganism: "The person goes vegan for breakfast for some period of time (a few weeks, a month). She sees how easy it is and how delicious and satisfying a vegan breakfast is. She then goes vegan for lunch for some period of time, and then for dinner, and then she's vegan."
Dello-lacovo is much more fair minded, nuanced, thoughtful and, frankly, smarter than Leenaert. He makes the following important point about how abolitionist incrementalism may be more effective than reducetarianism.
Dello-lacovo says, for example, that first getting people to commit to one vegan meal means that, whenever that is, they are focused on veganism - they are thinking about veganism and what veganism means, not on the fact that, for now, they are merely "reducing." This is an excellent point because it gets people much more quickly - immediately - to where Leenaert claims he wants them to be (however many centuries it takes), which is thinking about animal ethics and justice.
There's one point in the podcast that I thought I would strongly agree with Leenaert. Didn't turn out that way though. Leenaert suggests that, in addition to a "go vegan for the animals movement," a "reduce for any reason"... ask is needed.
There was a pause before the word "ask," and, for a second I thought Leenaert was going to say "movement." If he had, I would have been more happy and I'd suggest straight away that Leenaert does not join (or remain in) the "go vegan for the animals movement" (because he doesn't fit in) and join the reducetarian movement. He should leave the vegans alone.
I'm drawn back to the oddity that "The Vegan Strategist" - really the anti-vegan strategist - is constantly talking to vegans. Why? Why try to get vegans to stand for positions they don't believe in? Why not get non-vegans to do the non-vegan work? Especially when he says this is a pre-vegan phase in the first place.
​Are we once again back to money? The majority of conferences around the world are those run by and attended by vegans. How many vegetarian conferences are there nowadays? One annual reducetarian one? Now, that ain't enough, is it?
LEENAERT: LEAVE THE VEGANS ALONE.