Category: Neil Lea

Thanks Neil. RIP

6/2/2016

For those who did not know Neil Lea, see THIS LINK

Neil’s work with an online database Is it Vegan? and Vegan Buddies is central in terms of promoting veganism as the baseline position of animal rights advocates.

I first knew Neil as he latched on to the fact that he found in me someone who would agree to read and review the books regularly sent into Arcnews magazine which he edited. In all his dealings, he was a straight-down-the-line sort of guy. As someone said at Neil’s funeral on the 28th of July 2007 there were few pleasantries (apart from some talk of Manchester City and the philosophy of Star Trek as I recall). When Neil Lea wanted assistance, he’d ring me and say "have you received the book I sent? I need a review asap." Two days later he’d want to know if it was finished and ready to be sent as an attachment.

It was mentioned at the funeral that Neil was a great motivator. I agree – "constructively pushy" might be the best term. I think he was a born editor too – he knew how to get people to drop everything and work on what he wanted them to be working on. Of course, it was always obvious that Neil wasn’t asking for any of these things for himself – we all knew he was endangering his health by the sheer amount of work he was doing.

Neil was keen on education – vegan education obviously but education in general too. He would phone me to tell me about the latest academic essay he’d written for a course I was never sure he was ever doing, was about to do, or was about to finish. I think he concluded just about every text with a statement that the solution to the world’s problems was global veganism, human co-operation, and peaceful living. I would say I thought his conclusion was fine but perhaps (turning on as much diplomacy as I could muster) he ought to make at least some reference to the fact that the essay might be on Marxist views on poverty and class struggle. I’d have liked to be a fly on the wall during any time some middle class academic told Neil he hadn’t adequately addressed the question!

One thing I’ll always be grateful to Neil Lea for is his reminders to me that I should keep my feet firmly on the ground and not lose all contact with the grassroots vegan activists who make up the heart of the animal movement.

Whether I succeeded to his satisfaction is debatable but I hope I have. In fact, when I wrote my Ph.D I took the potentially risky decision to state openly in the text that some parts of it were deliberately written for such activists, and I referenced several non-academic sources such as Arcnews magazine. Animal activists do not tend to read sociology - and why should they – and yet there is a great deal they can learn from a sociological understanding of human relations woth other animals, even if it is only in the negative sense of "know thy enemy." On the more positive side, however, sociology can show vegan advocates the depth of the cultural norms and values they must challenge and transcend if any real progress for other animals and for vegan philosophy more generally is to become a reality.

Thanks for the guidance, Neil, R.I.P. and, yes, I know, I will try harder.

2 Comments

The Rationality of Becoming Vegan

12/3/2015

1 Comment

An article by Barbara McDonald on becoming vegan, first published in the 1990s, has recently been featured in a new reader on human-nonhuman relations. Although the piece is now a little dated (the original research being conducted in June 1996), and the sample of 12 vegans interviewed is very small, it seems to contain some points of interests for rights-based abolitionists.

Although McDonald is critical of Jack Mezirow’s "transformation theory," ideas embedded within it seem relevant to a study of how people become vegans, especially when certain critical elements on, for example, power relations are added to the original formulation. Mezirow's perspective is certainly overly psychological and in need of sociological elements for balance and context. McDonald is undoubtedly an expert on Mezirow since her doctoral thesis was about his work. She states that the transformation theory “does not explain the process of learning to become vegan.”

However, some of her discussion in this paper seems to contradict that conclusion, at least to the extent to which McDonald claims the theory has no explanatory value. For example, in a 2000 book, Mezirow builds on 20 years of his theory and outlines the basic ideas about how people change in a 10-point process of "transformative learning"

1. Experience a disorienting dilemma
2. Undergo self-examination
3. Conduct a deep assessment of personal role assumptions and alienation created by new roles
4. Share and analyze personal discontent and similar experiences with others
5. Explore options for new ways of acting
6. Build competence and self-confidence in new roles
7. Plan a course of action
8. Acquire knowledge and skills for action
9. Try new roles and assess feedback
10. Reintegrate into society with a new perspective
One of the main thrusts in the theory, borrowing heavily from Habermas, is the power of rational discourse and a level of cognitive functioning which critics of Mezirow say most adults never achieve. For her part, McDonald focuses on the theory’s need for individuals to be critically reflexive about assumptions. She says her study of vegans failed to identify such critical reflection in their talk. Again, other parts of her piece seems to contradict that claim too.

However, let’s stick with Mezirow a little longer, and via Nancy Franz’s discussion of Stephan Brookfield’s definition of "critical reflection theory," which may well serve to correct some of the shortcomings in Mezirow’s approach. Critical reflection requires persons being self-aware, making sense of experiences, deconstructing and reconstructing meanings , the critiquing of premises and ideologies, and "principled thinking," all of which can be defined, according to Brookfield, as "reflecting on the assumptions underlying ours and other’s ideas and actions, and contemplating alternative ways of thinking and living."

These ideas may be expressed in this way - and by means of the following "phases"

1. Trigger event
2. Appraisal of assumptions
3. Exploration of alternatives to current assumptions
4. Developing alternative perspectives
5. Integration of new perspectives into daily life
At this point we have a basic understanding of some of the ideas that interest McDonald in her study of vegans. Perhaps we can see how these 10 points and 5 phases inform an appreciation of the changes people go through when they become vegan?

McDonald works with a process which begins with the notion of "Who was I?" (meaning, who was the person before learning about veganism and animal cruelty). This is followed by what some have called "a moral shock" but McDonald uses the term "catalytic experience" instead (meaning a person’s learning of some aspect of cruelty). At this point, two things are likely to occur. The information about animal cruelty can be acted upon, and therefore the person "becomes oriented" towards learning more and maybe making a decision (for example, to stop eating other animals' flesh), or there can be repression of the information (when people put what they know to the back of their minds). In the latter case, another catalytic experience or event may be required to, in some sense, re-engage a recall of the repressed knowledge of animal cruelty.

After this there is a process of learning about animal abuse and how to be a vegan (i.e., start reading the damn labels!! [1]) A decision is made to live as a vegan (or a vegetarian). Finally, the person’s general world view has changed. With a new perspective she or he begins to face the world as a vegan. This process can take a long time: some of McDonald’s interviewees took years to become vegan.

We can now follow some of the study’s participants through some of these stages. The first thing that would register with animal rights abolitionists is the number of McDonald’s respondents who acknowledged being in a state of what Francione unfortunately characterises as "moral schizophrenia." McDonald writes that the majority of those in the study had a prior love for nature and of pets. However, they did not see the connection between their pets and "food animals." McDonald says they had "compartmentalised their compassion." Moreover, many of them "expressed amazement that they had not seen the connection."

This notion of prior "love" for pets is interesting from an abolitionist point of view. I think it is fair to say that the "pet issue" is one reason why many animal advocates reject the rights view of human-nonhuman relations. Just like the pet breeders and pet lovers in countermovements, they cannot imagine a future with no living ornaments/toys, or a future without their child substitute "fur babies."

Many animal advocates suggest, then, that pet keeping is a necessary or at least widespread means by which humans come to have some ethical regard for nonhuman animals. Without their "prior love" for pets, they believe, they may never have seriously considered being an animal advocate. McDonald’s findings seem to support this view – but not fully by any means. For example, not every respondent had a strong affection for nonhuman animals when young and, as one person pointed out, most kids are dotty about their pets; most are upset when pets die, but that does not prompt further thinking about human-nonhuman relations. Most, it seems, can be quite comfortable in their "morally schizophrenic" state and no amount of "companion animals" pegging out on them seems to cure them.

When it comes to the catalytic experiences, one respondent seems to have had a "Paul and Linda McCartney moment." The McCartney's are said that have awoken to reality looking out of their Scottish farmyard window at gambolling lambs when cooking "lamb," while this respondent looked up "and exchanged a long and pensive gaze with a buck standing on the hill above him." At that moment, he decided to not eat meat again. Others in the study went vegan after watching videos.

At this point, McDonald discusses the issues of emotions and cognition. McDonald reports that her respondents’ catalytic experience was often but not necessarily emotional and often, it seems, a blend of emotion and rational thought goes into the process by which people turn vegan. If anything, there is a hint that going vegetarian is an emotional reaction while the decision to go vegan is based on a cognitive interpretation of learning. Often the one followed the other.

Thus, while people spoke of videos "breaking their hearts" and their reaction being, "My God, I just didn’t realise what things went on," McDonald says that, "Emotions seem to have been one of the major defining characteristics of the more memorable catalytic experiences. The decision to become vegan following a period of vegetarianism was more often rational." McDonald says it was typical that the decision to go vegan followed a period of learning, particular about the issue of "being in favour of animal rights" while "continuing to eat animal products."

Here the logical inconsistencies of vegetarianism often finally sunk in. By thinking, talking, reading and becoming active, people realised their actions may not match their beliefs. McDonald cites one respondent who admits that he had drawn the line in the wrong place by being a vegetarian. Through reflection he realised that "using milk and putting cheese in stuff" was not good enough.

Following catalytic experiences, respondents were "becoming oriented" to learning and then they learned about animal abuse. They learned about cruelty and how to be vegetarian or vegan. McDonald says that, at this stage, people are "guided by an ethical praxis of compassion." They learned by thinking, talking, becoming involved in activities and, most importantly, by reading. Reading "was the primary way of learning for every participant."[2] All at once, they were trying to learn, teach and cope - but often their families proved to be a problem. Many respondents reported that family members argued with them, or trivialised their beliefs, and some even rejected them. Understandably, they found these experiences hurtful. One said she lost a friend of 20 years standing by going vegan.

What’s interesting at this point in McDonald’s paper is that, although she talks of the vegans’ new "transformed world views," it is not entirely vegan and it certainly is not all about animal rights. Therefore, even at the end of this process, vegetarianism and animal welfarism are mentioned. It is as though the paper echoes "the movement at this point." While there is talk of recognising the "moral rightness of veganism," there is also talk of "experiencing the world as a vegetarian and vegan," along with the advocacy of both animal welfare and animal rights. McDonald states that a central part of the new worldview is a generalised agreement that "animals were no longer viewed as food," which is hardly true of vegetarians.

I think what’s being reflected in McDonald’s work is the apparently widely-held view that veganism is rather difficult and we should expect a period of vegetarianism beforehand, despite the fact that it makes little sense. This may explain the current habit in animal advocacy literature of using the terms"'vegetarian" and "vegan" interchangeably as though they mean the same thing, often expressed by the horrible word, "veg*n."

I recently had recourse to revisit Victoria Moran’s 1997 book, Compassion the Ultimate Ethic: An Exploration of Veganism, in which she notes (p. 53) that some people turned vegan overnight, but most were vegetarian for a year or two first. This appears to be the expected pattern: it "makes sense" that people will drop one thing at a time. Moran cites Singer’s Animal Liberation in which the author quite reasonably is concerned about the firm grip speciesism has on the social agent. He writes, "In our present speciesist world, it is not easy to keep so strictly to what is morally right."

Perhaps, thinks Singer, since people have difficulty just giving up meat, the thought of eschewing milk and cheese as well may ultimately prevent them doing anything at all. It seems to me that this perspective is fairly reasonable since it was originally written in the early to mid 1970s. However, it seems that Singer’s views on this issue remain largely the same in the 21st century.

This marks a real difference for the abolitionist approach to animal rights. In an age when being vegan is very much easier in many places and for many people and groups than it was in the 1970s, our new movement should not expect – and certainly need not encourage – this pattern of "vegetarian first." What it means is that the young animal rights movement must prioritise making veganism as easy as possible, something that Neil Lea was a pioneer in with his "Is It Vegan?" and "Vegan Buddies" initiatives.

Since veganism is direct action for nonhuman animals, getting people to embrace ethical veganism is the best thing advocates can do at the present time: this activity also has the advantage over some others in that, presently at least, vegan advocacy and vegan education does not lead to anyone being chucked in jail for a decade or more.

[1] Joking apart, this was another interesting aspect of the research. Via both Mezirow and Habermas, McDonald looks at communicative and instrumental learning in vegans. The former ‘has to do with ideas, such as the idea of instrumentalised animal cruelty, animal rights, and veganism,’ while the latter "concerns the skills needed to live a vegan lifestyle, such as how to cook, order food in restaurants, and read ingredient labels."

[2] Peter Singer and John Robbins' texts were cited in this context.

1 Comment

Remembering Neil Lea

6/29/2015

0 Comments

I began a new group on Facebook in honour of vegan pioneer, Neil Lea.

I wrote the following...

Remember Neil Lea, 1958-2007.
Neil Lea, founder of Vegan Buddies, founder of the vegan database, Is It Vegan, editor of the animal rights magazine, ARCNews, and dedicated animal advocate volunteer, died on the 10th of July, 2007.

We at The Vegan Information Project salute this inspirational grass-roots campaigner, and wish to have his life and achievements remembered within the animal advocacy movement. People join the vegan community all the time and, through no fault of their own, are often unaware of the pioneers of the movement to which they support. The 1940s vegans, such as Donald Watson, were the vegan pioneers we all remember, of course, but Neil Lea was a vegan pioneer too in his day.

Neil realised that the “problem” of veganism is not nutrition, and not health, but often social in the sense of deliberately swimming against the tide of convention. He saw that his Vegan Buddies initiative could help and support new vegans by forging relationships with “newbies” and people who have been vegan for years. Neil Lea’s Vegan Buddies initiative has been rekindled for the internet age and “globalised” in recent years by Animal Rights Zone: http://arzone.ning.com/group/vegan-buddies

The following is a forum post, written on July 11th, 2007

The pro-animal movement lost a true champion yesterday and I lost a friend: Neil was an extraordinary man. Each day was a battle to overcome, sometimes very painful, illness to get on with his tireless campaigning for animal rights.

Born spina bifida, Neil recognised that his life expectancy was below average and lived his life accordingly, impatient and determined to make a positive difference. His vision, moral courage, tenacity and strategic insight made him a great campaigner.

Neil remained ambitious to the end and rarely talked about his illness, unless asked, or even his past achievements - but instead focussed intensely on his next project. The loss to our movement is immeasurable. But Neil's strength and determination should inspire us all to continue the fight - no matter how tough it gets.

Neil died at 6.08 yesterday, Tuesday July 10th. His death was very peaceful. As many of you know he had quite a few health problems, and in the end his kidney failed and there was nothing they could do other than make him as comfortable as possible.

In the past few weeks he received many visits from lots of his friends. It really picked him up to see so many of his friends, old and new, there's no doubt it kept him going far longer than the doctors expected. He was discussing ideas and planning campaigns from his hospital bed until very near the end. He was an inspiration.
Very sad news - death of Neil Lea

Here’s part of one of many reactions to the news of Neil Lea’s death.

His ideas about campaigning were amazing, such as starting ARCnews and getting all the local animal rights groups to network and support each other, and coming up with the idea of free events where people can try all sorts of vegan food.
We should put on as many free vegan food fairs as we can in his honour…RIP Neil
Neil Lea.

Please familiarise yourself with the life and work of Neil Lea, vegan pioneer, and be inspired by his dedication to vegan education and animal rights despite all his own problems.

Neil Lea 1958-2007.

He was an extraordinary Man.

Thanks Neil.

0 Comments

Violence in Animal Rights

6/29/2015

1 Comment

I've had occasion to recently pull out some old files full of magazines and what not (looking for a book review I wrote several years ago - unsuccessfully so far). I have quite a few boxes of publications many readers of this blog have probably not heard of: The Beast, The Black Beast, Arkangel, Animals' Agenda, Bite Back, HOWL, CAW Bulletin, The Turning Point, Agscene, Animals Defender, The Liberator and so on.

The magazine I was looking for was ARCNews, a British grassroots publication edited by my old friend, and sadly departed, Neil Lea. I think I have most copies of ARCNews from 1995 through to 2003 ~ but I'm damned if I can find the review I want.

I did find this article (left), however, Violence in Animal Rights, from p. 25 of the May 2001 edition. I had forgotten about the event mentioned and, as far as I can tell, the website cited no longer exists. I was invited along because I had been beaten up a few times when sabotaging hunts in Essex and Chester in England, and because I had not long beforehand received £4,000 in compensation from the police because an officer took it into his head to smash me in the face with a baton, breaking a cheekbone in four places, including the eye socket.

This incident took place at a demonstration outside a cat breeding facility. I was - ironically and genuinely - there primarily to make some useful contacts as I was between writing my MA and Ph.D. Demonstrators who were stood in front of me were swept away by a police charge on horseback and I was suddenly face-to-face with a line of riot sheilds. Before I could move back, the sheilds opened slighly and the next thing I remember is being on the floor with a caved-in cheek.

I think the organiser of the event mentioned in the clip, Keith Mann, wanted to create some sense of balance in the increasingly hysterical notion that the animal advocacy movement was chock-a-block full of people prepared to be violent. In my experience, that has never been the case and long may it continue. The event highlighted the fact that three animal advocates had been killed at that point, and many more had been severely injured.

1 Comment

Thanks Neil. RIP

The Rationality of Becoming Vegan

Remembering Neil Lea

Violence in Animal Rights

Roger Yates

Archives

Categories

Thanks Neil. RIP

The Ration﻿ality of Becoming Vegan

Remembering Neil Lea

Violence in Animal Rights

Roger Yates

Archives

Categories

The Rationality of Becoming Vegan