Editorial: Change vs. “movement”
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1992:
Our mail box has been full of letters either presuming or attacking our presumed
position with respect to the animal rights movement. Animal rights philosopher Tom Regan
among others welcomed our contribution to the movement; New York activist Dawn
Hernandez jumped on us for “movement-bashing”; and on the letters page, opposite,
Michael Gurwitz proposes that we should rename the movement, whatever it happens to be.
As we see it, though, the “movement” is largely history. A movement is the take-
off phase of a theme in social evolution, when a cause has relatively few supporters, and
must provoke confrontation to draw notice––often taking rhetorically extreme and practical-
ly impossible positions for the same reasons that an infant shrieks. The primary aim of the
animal rights movement was restoring animals to public awareness, after nearly a century
of slipping interest in humane concerns. Public opinion polls, political response (pro and
con), and a few striking camapign successes all showed that this was achieved by 1988, as
sociologist Bill Moyer of the Social Movement Empowerment Project pointed out in 1989
to a gathering of “movement” leaders convened by ANIMAL PEOPLE publisher Kim
Bartlett and Priscilla Feral of Friends of Animals.