The Not-So-Great Divide – Reform vs. Abolition
Given the reality of their situation, animals would probably scoff at the increasingly heated debate among some advocates regarding “welfare reforms” vs. “animal liberation.” A discussion of where to focus one’s limited resources is rarely a bad idea, but to suggest that any single approach to animal advocacy is right – or that others are wrong – is just naïve. The argument is moot, not least because advocating for animals will always be a diverse effort. But making gains for animals today is perfectly valid, even if those gains are minimal. And ensuring that we stay focused on the ultimate goal of abolishing animal cruelty (at least to the extent possible) is also a valid role for some advocates to play.
However, parsing advocates into “welfarist” and “abolitionist” camps is not just divisive; it’s also a waste of everyone’s limited time and, more importantly, a disservice to animals. The only advocates who have it “wrong” are the ones who believe that their approach is the only one that’s “right.” On the other hand, those who respect the broad range of tactics that comprises the animal protection movement also recognize that small changes can lead to big long-term results. If I were to guess, I’d say that animals appreciate both the incremental changes as well as the long-term focus on liberation. So a good first step for advocates would be to end the debates and start focusing on effective advocacy.
The third part in a five-part of serialization of The Death of Animal Rights published by the Humane Research Council.
