Is the pan mightier than the sword?

The "activism" on our campus is largely a regressive movement. This does not necessarily mean that the demonstrators are unsuccessful in meeting their objectives; there are many signs that point to the increasing efficacy of groups like Princeton Against Protectionism (PAP) and the Princeton Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) to affect the food we eat, the coffee we drink and the way we conduct discourses on rights.

PAWS, in particular, thanks to excellent leadership that combines charisma, diligence and innovation, has risen to be one of the most visible activist groups on campus with such displays as wrapping half-naked students in cellophane to spread the message that consuming meat is unethical. Word of mouth and community outrage have inspired many a student to take Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" course. A significant number come out of the classroom accepting Singer's carefully presented, seductively logical arguments for not indulging in our passion for beefsteaks.

A great many students, however, cannot be persuaded to give up decades of meat-eating on the merits of utilitarianism alone. Activists attempt to gather converts through a variety of means, including guilt, social pressure, visual terrorism and even bribery. A month ago, one student hung up a poster in her hallway, offering scrumptious vegan cookies in return for a pledge not to eat meat on some arbitrarily determined day. When debates spread on campus around the legitimacy of juxtaposing images of the Holocaust and violence against animals, PAWS wins automatically, since shocking images can serve to polarize segments of our otherwise apathetic student body and nudge some fence-sitters over on to the lovely green pastures of eco-friendliness.

These strategies, and the goals behind them, are problematic. Activists essentialize the very group that they seek to liberate. Comparing the slaughter of animals to the concentration camps is not wrong because the two are necessarily that different or outright incomparable. Rather, the problem is that the victims (in either case) are reduced to objects, becoming little more than means to an end. Where before we had a living, breathing animal, activists will reduce it to a facebook photo or an internet link.

If their theatrics seem to set the stage for discussion and controversy, it is because no one bothers to look at the fragile foundations. The willingness to use others and to turn images of suffering into a weapon is deeply troubling regardless of whether the property that makes those images capable of being used as a tool — the moral commensurability of two events such as the Holocaust and the often-horrific operation of a slaughterhouse — exists or not.

Activists want you to join their vision of how the world should be by reducing the complexity of life to statistics and youtube.com videos. Activism invites you to be part of a collective identity, telling you: "We can fight against 'the established system.' We can become the vanguard of morality, dragging the polo-wearing conservatives into the golden light of a liberal utopia."

Why not grow up and stop dreaming about this future of rights and liberation? Why force people "to feel" or "to do"? In fetishizing vegetarianism as the corollary to living the good life, all the movement manages to do is seem self-righteous. The concerned student can continue to use the tools of activism if the power to change people's dispositions is so very appealing, but this power trip can hardly be called moral or ethical.

The sooner we realize that there will be meat consumption throughout our lifetime, we can put down the sword of activism and pick up the pan. We can go to youtube.com and type in "Nigella Lawson," who will show you how to make vegetarian chili to satisfy the pickiest eater or how to make chocolate-filled ceramic pots with "a golden carapace." Or why not suggest the "Moosewood Cookbook" to your friends, which features irresistible vegetarian takes on meaty classics like Borscht soup?

As people become educated about nutrition and realize that they do not have to hold to the "it's not a meal unless there's meat" rule, animals will benefit much more than from a panel discussion on the ethics of eating cheeseburgers. And activism will still have a role to play — post those videos of slaughterhouse conditions! But to patronize and to bully, to demand meat abstinence in exchange for cookies, that is nothing about which to feel morally dignified. We can abandon 'isms' like activism without becoming any less effective. We can stop being progressive and just be ... active. Alex Metelitsa '09 is a politics major from Princeton Junction, N.J. He can be reached at metelit@princeton.edu.