Interview with Gary Francione
© Droits des Animaux, June 5th 2008
Translation: Sébastien Sarmejeanne & Urielle Penn
[French version]

© N. Romanenko

Following our meeting with Gary Francione* on the occasion of the conference he gave at the International College of Philosophy, last April in Paris, it is with an immense pleasure that we publish this interview that this famous animal rights theoretician kindly agreed to give us.

*Gary Francione, born in 1954, is a lawyer and Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law, state university of New Jersey, United States. He is in particular the author of books such as "Animals, Property, and the Law" (1995) and "Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement" (1996). His positions are analysed by Enrique Utria in « Droits des Animaux, théories d'un mouvement », published by our association.


1.You advocate the development of big "pro-veganism campaigns" in order to stop the slavery of animals. However, we know that it is very difficult for the public to be confronted with a practice that looks quite "extreme" in comparison with their current diet. We must admit that loads of vegan activists used to be vegetarian before turning vegan. Do you think that we should stop talking about vegetarianism (which doesn't really match animal rights) despite the difficulty to convince someone to adopt a vegan lifestyle that is very far away from the norm, or do you think vegetarism can be presented as a practical stage towards veganism, not as a moral one, by, for example, specifying that vegetarism is not a consumption practice that is compliant with the fundamental animal rights? If you don't, in which manner(s) do you think you can promote veganism efficicently, which method(s) is/are to be used?

Yes, I think we should stop promoting "vegetarianism" to the extent that it means consuming any products. If someone consumes fish, cheese, milk, etc., then she is an omnivore who just does not eat certain animal foods. We must stop portraying veganism as "extreme" in any sense. It is the only coherent choice for those who take animal interests seriously. You mention that many vegans started off as vegetarians. It is also true that many people who claim to adhere to "animal rights" have been vegetarians for years and have not ever become vegan—I met a number of such people when I was in France recently and I meet them wherever I go. But all of has more to do with the fact that the "movement" does not promote veganism as the baseline position and, indeed, portrays it as extreme, or, as Singer claims, "fanatical." This really has to stop.

It is also true that if you urge people to go vegan, many—perhaps most—will not do so immediately, but will move in steps. It is, however, important that they understand that veganism is the goal and that vegetarianism is not and cannot be thought of as representing any meaningful discharge of our moral obligation to nonhumans. We should never convey the idea that vegetarianism is inherently desirable or anything other than animal exploitation with a more benign label. Steps toward veganism should themselves be vegan. For example, I always urge those who claim that they cannot make the change immediately to start off with one vegan meal a day and stick to that for a week or so (or however long it takes), and then switch to a second vegan meal, and then to the third. That is, have a vegan breakfast for a period, then have vegan breakfast and lunch, and then have all three meals vegan. But I never encourage vegetariansm or the eating of "happy" meat or animal products.

Even if someone is going to go "vegetarian" as a step toward veganism, I think it important for the message to be clear that veganism is the only answer for those who take animal interests seriously. Abolitionists should never endorse—as a matter of ethics or practical strategy—vegetarianism, "happy" meat, etc. If people accept the abolitionist approach but aren't ready to go vegan even partially, and they choose vegetarianism as a supposed step toward veganism, that should be a matter of their choice and not our encouraging them to do so in any way.

Many—if not most—of the essays on our website (www.abolitionistapproach.com) deal with veganism, but the following essays may be relevant to your question. They, like all of the materials on our site, have been translated into French:

L'éducation au véganisme rendue facile - Partie I

Entrevue sur le véganisme/abolition pour The Vegan

« Oh mon Dieu, ces végans… »

« Ceux qui ne peuvent se souvenir du passé sont condamnés à le répéter. »

Quelques réflexions à propos de l'éducation au véganisme

L'éducation au véganisme rendue facile - Partie I

2. You say that promotion of veganism is the best thing we can do to help animals. But does this mean that single-issue campaigns cannot be run, so long as they are run on animals rights foundations? Would you support a campaign which claims the banning of cruel actions such as geese force-feeding, castration, de-beaking, etc., if it's run on an animal rignts fundation, or do you think it is impossible? If you say yes, can you explain why?

As a general matter, I do not favor single-issue campaigns. Remember that we live in a world of limited time and limited resources. It's a zero-sum game. The time and other resources that we spend on single-issue campaigns represent resources that cannot be used to promote veganism, which I regard as the most important thing we can do.

There is a danger in single-issue campaigns in that they convey the impression that certain forms of exploitation are morally worse than others. Yes, foie gras is produced using a barbaric method. So are all other animal products. If we promote single-issue campaigns, we risk confusing the public into thinking that if they buy eggs from birds who have not been de-beaked, or if they do not consume foie gras, they have acted in a morally satisfactory way. This sort of confusion encourages the public to continue to engage in what is (mis)represented as more "humane" animal exploitation.

If advocates are going to promote single-issue campaigns, they should pursue campaigns that prohibit, and do not merely regulate, exploitative practices, and these campaigns should be characterized explicitly and repeatedly as part of an overall effort to eradicate all exploitation. For the most part, single-issue campaigns are never portrayed in this way. Indeed, the whole point of single-issue campaigns is to present "moderate" campaigns that are used primarily for fundraising purposes.

In sum, I think that single-issue campaigns are very dangerous: they run the risk of confusing the public and actually increasing animal consumption.

3. Our association leads interposition actions against hunters. These are non-violent actions, intended to prevent them from making an animal suffer and killing this animal within the context of hunt with hounds. This is based on the fundamental right animals have to live. What do you think of such actions?

Non-violent actions in defense of another—whether human or nonhuman—are fine as long as they are truly nonviolent. I would, however, caution that you never portray hunting as worse than other forms of exploitation. The animals who are raised on farms, including "free-range" farms, suffer more than most animals who are live in the wild and who may be killed by hunters. We should never convey the idea that hunting is ethically less desirable than buying flesh or animal products at a store.

4. You often present an environmental argument, supporting the Third-World, or health reasons, to promote a vegan way of life, contrary to our association which rejects the use of theses arguments. Don't you think those kind of arguments are out of context in the animals rights logic? Don't you think using these kinds of arguments could encourage people to think that animals are not important enough as a moral matter to justify our veganism?

No, I do not agree with your position here. First of all, I always emphasize that the primary argument is the moral one. Second, I use the environmental argument in two primary contexts. I maintain that it is not "necessary" in any coherent sense to consume animal products, and I use the environmental argument (and the health claim) to support the necessity argument. And I use the environmental argument to discuss the impact of an animal-based diet on other animals—humans. Therefore, an animal based agriculture violates the rights of humans and nonhumans alike. As I do not favor speciesism, including reverse speciesism, I think it is important to point out the connections.

Professor Francione, thank you.