Four Reactions to My Essay on Direct Action in Animal Rights
and what each one says about Direct Action Everywhere
--
I had no idea what to expect after publishing Direct Action Leading Where? yesterday, but I was blown away by the response. Medium tells me there have been thousands of views and hundreds of completed reads. I truly appreciate that my fellow animal advocates have taken the time to consider my ideas and research. I’ve received hundreds of comments, emails, and messages and the responses have mostly fallen into four categories:
1. Appreciation for expanding the effort to research our movement’s impact
I have received dozens of private messages and comments from activists, movement leaders, and researchers simply to express gratitude for the time I spent looking into this information. Since Direct Action Everywhere has leaned so heavily on sociological research to justify their tactics, many have been surprised by the holes I found in Direct Action Everywhere’s analysis of some of their favorite scholars, like Erica Chenoweth, Sidney Tarrow, and Doug McAdam. While I consider my role in this movement to be an activist and not a critic, I am happy to have contributed to the ever-growing effort to improve our strategy.
2. Appreciation for drawing attention to Direct Action Everywhere’s pattern of racism and sexism
My article did not discuss the accusations of racism and sexism in detail because I feel that the information that accusers have provided is more than enough evidence that there is an issue within their ranks. Instead, I focused on connecting this problem to Direct Action Everywhere’s wanton disregard of the important differences between animal and human rights movements. Several former Direct Action Everywhere activists have messaged me to thank me for bringing their grievances to a larger audience. I am happy that I was able to give a platform to these people who have felt so unheard.
3. Appreciation for finding empirical evidence supporting arguments others have made for years
Several former Direct Action Everywhere activists have messaged me to say that they have tried to initiate similar discussions about the effectiveness of their aggressive tactics. Several others have said they participated in one action before deciding there was something wrong. But all of them said, unequivocally, that their criticisms have been shut down by Direct Action Everywhere leadership because they did not offer empirical evidence to support their criticism. I am happy that I was able to validate these activists’ concerns and offer academic insights into why they had such a reaction.
4. Critics suddenly diminishing the importance of research previously hailed as game-changing
Direct Action Everywhere issued an official response on their Facebook page today, as I anticipated they would. However, I did not anticipate that they would so quickly back down from their typical insistence that all movement strategy must be supported by evidence. Their response also seems to divert attention to their open rescues and away from their disruptions, which is odd since I did not criticize open rescue in my essay. That would be an entirely new discussion, but I will note that open rescue relies on the oppressor to allow it, so it’s only going to be effective (to whatever extent it is) until the oppressor realizes it is.
I know this article promised just 4 types of responses, but the response from Direct Action Everywhere needs to be further broken down than the others. To better understand my points, please read my original article and their response before continuing. Here are a few examples of assertions in the article that are completely unsupported by evidence:
- Their increased mobilization indicates movement growth
Premature mobilization of a minuscule movement is not a sign of growth. Direct Action Everywhere has no evidence that they have created new vegans as a result of disruptive activism — on Go Vegan Radio, Wayne Hsiung admits that most of their activists were already vegan before joining, after all. This is ironic because Hsiung has made a habit of criticizing the mainstream animal rights movement for not adequately measuring impact. Now it’s enough for them to defend their practices based on anecdotal evidence of growth? We’re to trust their assessment despite their clear confirmation bias?
In my essay, I cite two recent scholarly articles about the connection between public support and public protest: University of Washington sociologist Jon Agnone’s “Amplifying Public Opinion: The Policy Impact of the U.S. Environmental Movement” and University of Geneva sociologist Marco Giugni’s “The Policy Impact of Social Movements: A Replication Through Qualitative Comparative Analysis.” Both researchers point to an unbreakable connection between the impact of public protest and the amount of public support behind that protest. While Direct Action Everywhere cites mere anecdotal evidence that they can turn vegans into effective activists, they have no evidence that their methods create vegans.
In the same vein, their response ignores or excuses their prior omissions of large chunks of Chenoweth and Tarrow’s research on social movements. Chenoweth’s research indicates a far lower success rate for movements who mobilize prior to involving 3.5% of the population — how do they then believe they should boast about their ability to mobilize approximately .00058% of the population? (Note: I roughly based this on Direct Action Everywhere’s number of Facebook likes compared to US adult population, but their Facebook page is open to people internationally and also includes several non-supporters who follow out of curiosity, like myself and other activists). Tarrow looks at the civil rights, feminist, and environmental movements and observes that no radical organizations experienced growth in the early stages of their movements. Furthermore, I cite a study just released this month that concluded that poorly attended protests have a discouraging impact on movement growth.
Lastly, they cling to their last remaining study on a social movement that indicates any support for their actions: a report about the Tea Party conducted in 2011. In their response, Direct Action Everywhere describes that the study found “ that attendance at a protest both mobilized people locally and brought ten more votes to Tea Party candidates.” The researchers observed that people who attended rallies were major influencers of their peers to become Tea Party supporters. This study doesn’t discuss whether protests are necessary to spread views quickly (or if other means work too) or whether the content of the views being spread has an impact.
I would contend that content and message do have an impact on the pace of progress: hate spreads quickly, especially among people who feel unrepresented or disenfranchised by their government. While we can learn some from human rights movements, what can a movement for compassion and justice learn from a movement that existed to spread frustration, prejudice, and hate? Research shows us that appealing to prejudice can cause massive and ugly shifts in public opinion. Our 8th grade history lessons showed us the same when we studied the rise of Nazism in Germany. But most of all, should we be seeking knowledge from a movement like the Tea Party when it has so utterly failed?
2. Community building makes it all worth it (and aggressive tactics don’t dissuade its growth)
While I admire Direct Action Everywhere’s emphasis on community, we have no reason to believe it is the result of their use of disruptive protest. There are equally-strong communities of vegans who are doing work on the opposite side of the spectrum — just look at the bond between activists at animal welfare groups like The Humane League, for example.
This contention is meaningless unless they’re claiming they’re better suited to grow community than less aggressive groups. But the research cited in my essay implies that their tactics make it harder because people are unlikely to associate with tactics that face social ostracism. In a growing theme, their response cites an abstract from a study about extreme-right activists and their reasons for exiting the movement, finding that the general public’s opinion of them was not impactful in their decision. Instead of analyzing the five other studies cited about social ostracism being dissuasive for environmental and justice activists, they picked a study showing that activists who are bonded by extreme hatred and racism are unlikely to be swayed by the disdain of the general public. Again, is this really where we should be learning from?
3. We have no choice but to adhere to activist stereotypes
In arguing that we need to be walking stereotypes, Direct Action Everywhere’s response quotes one of the studies I cited: “Unfortunately, however, the very nature of activism leads to negative stereotyping: By aggressively promoting change and advocating unconventional practices, activists become associated with hostile militancy and unconventionality or eccentricity.”
While this is entirely true, it’s not the findings of the study — it’s part of the premise. Their response cherry-picks this quote from research that compares atypical activists to typical activists; in other words, the entire premise of the study is based on the fact that activists can and do alter their approach to lessen their stereotyping and improve their effectiveness. Contending that we can do nothing is baffling, especially coming from an organization that seems to be incredibly creative at developing new ways to aggressively protest. In light of the evidence I have presented, why not apply that creativity to less stereotypical and less confrontational actions?
4. Any media attention that generates discussion is good
Media can generate bad discussions and they offer no evidence that the discussions generated by coverage of their stunts or similar stunts within other movements have had a positive impact. My essay cited two psychological studies that indicate the opposite, both using the environmental movement as test subjects. Both studies conclude that stereotypical delivery of messages is less impactful — and since Direct Action Everywhere’s response readily admits to embracing stereotypical behavior, it’s clear that these findings paint Direct Action Everywhere’s media strategy in a poor light.
5. Civil rights, environmental, and feminist movements started solely because of a small number of people loudly demonstrating:
The advice of Erica Chenoweth and Sidney Tarrow to focus on growth is actually strong evidence for DxE’s approach rather than against it. The movements both of them chronicle started small and only grew because there was a small number of people demonstrating resistance in the first place.
This assertion in their response plainly ignores my analysis of Chenoweth and Tarrow while also ignoring the evidence that civil disobedience and protest aren’t powerful without ample support of the public. And regardless, none of the movements Chenoweth and Tarrow discuss are as small as the animal rights movement, so “starting small” takes an entirely new meaning.
6. If our movement is not led by the oppressed, then it may take an even bigger push to get mobilization”
This is a theory without basis or evidence to support it. Their response contends that the only way to get attention is through disruption. SeaWorld would probably disagree — they handled a decade of protests with little effect before a mainstream documentary changed public opinion and demolished their company. Technology provides us with a wealth of opportunities to reach people in meaningful ways. Let’s get creative.
And just for the record, I never suggested we should “cower in fear,” as the response characterized my position. Supporting vegan education, lobbying for important institutional change, and seeking to improve plant-based foods are not cowardly tactics — and disrupting unsuspecting and confused members of the public isn’t particularly brave.
7. “ We hope that the controversy we cause makes other groups’ efforts at vegan education more impactful.”
This is new! Nearly every speech and article from Direct Action Everywhere’s leadership has been critical of other groups’ educational efforts. If their goal is to provoke education opportunities for other groups to exploit, why aren’t they coordinating with other groups instead of criticizing them?
8. Animals are better off than oppressed classes have been in other movements
While animals lack legal rights, there are more regulations on their use than there were laws protecting other oppressed classes before their movements started.
The focus of our movement is the 10 billion farmed animals who are bred, raised, and killed for food every year — they have no protection at all. With this statement, Direct Action Everywhere lumps the protected status of dogs and cats with the unprotected status of farmed animals just to try to prove a point. This absurd assertion continues the organization’s pattern of tone-deafness when discussing issues of intersectionality. In a current political climate where many black US Americans feel less protected than dogs or cats, this is an incredibly offensive comparison to make.
Perhaps most absurd is the idea that “support for animal rights in our society effectively started at zero percent.” The idea that animals deserve equal consideration has, in one form or another, been written about for millennia from Pythagoras to Ashoka.
The animal rights movement is extremely new and a result of the privilege that modern civilization affords. While there are historical examples of people who viewed animals as more than property, we only have evidence that they numbered in the dozens. But if this semantic complaint is my “most absurd idea,” I’ll gladly concede that we started with slightly more than zero percent.
While I appreciate Direct Action Everywhere’s effort to continue this conversation, I hope that they take a couple days to review my essay in more detail before responding again. I wish I didn’t have to rephrase and restate parts of the essay I’ve already written just to reply to assertions without evidence. Ironically, their habit of insisting on evidence in order to engage in discussion on movement theory is what inspired me to write this essay to begin with:
Can we go back to that level of discourse, or is it only preferred when Direct Action Everywhere feels they can dominate the conversation?
