The Last Question About the Pamphlet

Because I'm just an individual and I don't represent a group and I'm not endorsing any groups (as in: give your money to the 501[c]3 called X), and because I mention Gary Francione and no other abolitionist theorist, and because I always want to know who wrote what I'm reading because that puts the material into context (or at least can help do that), I can't just write a pamphlet, not put my name or Animal Person anywhere, and not give an explanation for what the heck the impetus for writing it was. At least I don't think that would be a good idea.

To clarify the context of the pamphlet, I have a Statement from the author of Thinking Critically About Animal Rights that states, among other things (such as that I've never been paid by anyone mentioned):

I composed this brochure because 20 years ago, when I first stopped eating animals, all of the literature I was exposed to was about the terrible suffering of animals we use as food and clothing. That suffering continues.

It's my personal story and a disclosure opportunity motivated by the desire for transparency. Now here's the question: I have my statement on the back; it's the last item in the pamphlet. It's a couple of paragraphs. Might you have wanted that information sooner? Like maybe on the bottom of the first page in some kind of box that has a different font or something?

Should I relegate it to a footnote? I'm not a footnote fan. I'm not even an endnote fan. I like to see helpful information when I need it most, and since the University of Chicago Style people, and the MLA, APA and AP  folks won't be coming after me, I can do whatever I want.

The layout has been extraordinarily time-consuming, what with the spaces between letters and words looking most odd if I allow the program to do it automatically. But it's almost done, I promise.

Which is it: personal statement on the front, the back, somewhere else, nowhere else?

Comments

[Deb]

I think the back. Partially because that is where that kind of information usually appears, and so that is where people would expect to find it. It also makes it clear that the pamphlet is about the message, with info on who, what, and why provided because it is relevant and of interest, but that it isn't about you.

[Dustin]

I agree with Deb--the back.

[emily]

I would suggest the back, like where acknowledgements and statements of interest go in articles?

[Ellie]

Yep, I'll go with the back, too.

[Mary Martin]

I'm an outside-the-box kind of person, and though something might ordinarily be done a certain way, I don't much care about the way it's usually done. I care about what's most useful to the end-user. Sometimes, when the planets are perfectly aligned, what's traditionally done and what's most useful are the same thing!

[JonBen]

It's clear that people will expect the info on the back, the only reason to put it on the front would be to detract from your message, essentially I agree completely with Deb. I don't see why your relationship with a box matters much in this case :)

[emily]

My suggestion was about where I think the information would be most useful and effective and where I would look for it as a reader--with examples.

[Eric]

The back is fine, or the inside of the front cover, in a box in one of the lower corners. Are you leaving room on the outside of the pamphlet for individual groups to stamp or stick their information it?

[Mary Martin]

JonBen,

"It's clear that people will expect the info on the back, the only reason to put it on the front would be to detract from your message."

I'm hopin' that's a joke. The reason to put it on the front is to provide a larger context and have the author's motivation clear from the start. It's kind of like the blurb on the back of a book cover or even the inside flap information in the front and back.

"I don't see why your relationship with a box matters much in this case :)"

I sort of spend much of my professional life designing written communication materials (though I never have to do the actual grunt work, and let me tell you it is NOT easy and quick for me. I bought a program and am learning how to use it.), and I know that every decision matters. You've seen hideous book covers, brochures, catalogs, and websites, right? And ones that don't flow well, right? The entire experience of the reader can be negatively affected by details.

I'm trying to avoid that.

I usually have a team of people who give me feedback --AND YOU GUYS ARE IT THIS TIME!

I hope what may have seemed like a silly question makes a bit more sense now.

Thanks, everyone.

And yes, Eric, there's a space for a label or stamp. To decrease printing costs/# of pages, there is no cover, per se. If there were, though, you could put something there, I could put my statement on the inside cover and begin on the opposite page. But that's a big expense, over time, and I was trying to keep it minimal.

[Dave Shishkoff]

Okay, i'll vote 'on the front'. If you think this is important and one of the first things people should read, then it should be on the front. =)

[Priscilla Feral]

I believe there are bigger questions here than first page or last.

Putting aside the question of who is being paid how, which is arguably
irrelevant, is anyone "just an individual" who is creating, observing, and
offering guidance to a community of thinkers and activists? Surely the
identity of the pamphlet's writer should be made obvious.

As for not endorsing any groups, why not? Given the colossal effort it takes
over time to keep the faith and not compromise to make things easier, why
not credit an abolitionist group with being just that? This doesn't mean
instructions on money-giving; it's a matter of indicating where abolitionism
is spoken and understood.

Which raises another question: Should there be -- could there be -- only one
abolitionist theorist, and is such a category separate and distinct from
people whose primary commitment is the organization of an activist
community?

Aren't some of the people engaged in such organization showing the way to
theory, acting within it, advancing it, challenging it, reshaping it?

We at Friends of Animals have advanced the position that animal rights is
about more than addressing the suffering of nonhuman animals, although
insofar as they suffer due to human population crowding them out, to
deliberate exploitation, and to losing their lives for sport, food, or
science, their suffering is clearly contained in what we address. In our
public talks and feedback sessions, in our written articles and books, and
in our community initiatives alike, we have pointed out and continue to
point out that animal rights involves not only what animals should not be
(bred, bought, sold, traded) but also what they should be (free, respected,
safe in the air and water and on land).

I would caution against a dubious dichotomy that says theory is or should be
issued from school hallways and books and academic conferences, and that
activism is or should be the purview only of community-based organizations
or independent agitators. To achieve animal rights we need to know that good
activism shows integrity and attention to a guiding theory, and becomes part
of the theory's development; and that theory is as good as it works in
practice.

I hope your pamphlet will appreciate and reflect this reality. To be
genuinely representative of abolitionism, I think it must.

Priscilla Feral, Friends of Animals

[Mary Martin]

Priscilla,

Thanks for stopping by and thanks also for your thoughtful comment. You (and probably loads of other people) and I see this a bit differently.

First, the question of whether I was paid, for me, is not irrelevant at all. If you were paying me, and I endorsed FoA, how would that look?

By "just an individual," I mean I am not an employee or subcontractor of any individual or organization mentioned in the pamphlet.

For me, "endorse," is different from "mention," as I don't "endorse" unless I myself give money to an organization.

For me, helping people learn how to evaluate an organization is more valuable than telling them what to do. Part of what I do in my professional life is help people decide where to put their philanthropic dollars. My goal is to increase critical thinking. You would have had a different goal, and you have a brochure of your own, which I happen to be fond of.

As for abolitionist theorists, Gary Francione changed the way I approached my activism. He was my personal tipping point away from believing I was an abolitionist, yet doing so while campaigning for incremental reforms. I don't write about Tom Regan because he didn't have an impact on me. As they say: When the student is ready the teacher appears. I could refrain from mentioning Gary, as property rights are mentioned only once, but I would be dishonest if I mentioned property rights theory without mentioning him.

More important for me, is that if I hadn't read Gary Francione, I'd still be giving my money to PeTA. I mention him (once) to give him credit as credit is due.

Furthermore, he has a great definition of abolition, a helpful, informative site (especially his flash presentations), and whenever I direct someone there, they come away forever changed. I have had great success with his site. And what's important for the people I know, is that I'm not telling them to join an organization or give any money to anyone. They like that the site is about information. That's who they are and I know that and I play to who they are. My goal is to help them go vegan, as I think that's the most important action they can take.

I know the position you advance at FoA and I have no problem with it, from what I have seen.

You say that you "would caution against a dubious dichotomy that says theory is or should be issued from school hallways and books and academic conferences, and that activism is or should be the purview only of community-based organizations or independent agitators."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I don't believe theory and activism are separate and I'm certainly not saying that in the pamphlet. You can't really have effective activism without sound theory, and theory without actions that are aligned with it is just talk.

Finally, unless I add pages (and you can't add just one, as you know, you have to add 4), I will not be able to print as much of my personal statement as I had planned (which I'm sure everyone is thrilled about), so I'm keeping it to the necessary information: that I am not an employee or subcontractor of any individual or organization mentioned. I've managed to work some of the other information into the text.

Thanks again for writing.

[Dave Shishkoff]

Hi Mary,

While I can appreciate your experience and revelation due to a specific experience, isn't that 'one' that is mentioned thus elevated 'above all others' in the context of material like this?

I'm just trying to consider the impression that this gives to new readers (and I'm assuming most will be new), and to me it seems that GF is highlighted, but no one else (and there are also very few that GF advocates as well...so it makes for a bit of a dead-end reference.)

Additionally, I’m confused at the reference you make to GF’s ‘flash presentations’ – are you referring to the videos on his site? If so, I’m a bit surprised.. lots of very graphic imagery (and also appearing in the heading graphic), I thought you weren’t all that crazy about this?

I would agree with Priscilla that either other agreeable abolitionists be included (such as Lee Hall, who has contributed a remarkable amount of thought to the movement), and the only international (I’m Canadian!) group with an abolitionist agenda, or perhaps leaving 'the one' off, and instead invite people come to your blog, where they will encounter a wider range of perspectives.

Like, what happens if Gary suddenly goes bonkers and goes on some Cathar dualistic crusade? He claims to be the head of this religion.. who knows where that could lead? ;)

- Dave

[Mary Martin]

Hey Dave (and everyone),

This might help: In the Rethos articles, there are two references to GF, and one is sort of long (and the videos used to be called "flash presentations" on his site, and I should change that language--thanks). But in the pamphlet, there's one reference. I use his definition of abolition, which I love, and I cite him. That's it.

And I'm not interested in any personal battles other people have with him. I am acknowledging his work, and frankly, I think it isn't acknowledged enough, and in fact I don't believe there is currently one pamphlet that mentions him. I hardly think this is any kind of overkill. It's warranted, it's responsible, and it's honest to recognize him.

And as for graphic presentations, I personally don't want to do that, but I do see the utility. And GF's videos have a mixed bag of photos and I wouldn't consider any of it gratuitous. The scene in Earthlings where the man holds a pig over his head and continuously slams her onto the floor was disgusting, offensive and gratuitous (for me. Everyone has a different experience.).

I have made editorial and creative decisions that are appropriate for my intention for this pamphlet. And I have asked for input from people who leaflet, as I've never leafletted in my life (with that said, I will mail a copy, printed on stylin' paper, to everyone I know). I saw a need for something and I'm trying to fill that need because writing and laying out brochures is something I've done for years and it's not that big a deal for me (or at least it wasn't supposed to be). Now, you all might not like my choices, but they are what they are. At best, someone will find what I've done useful--or even have learned something from observing my struggles with this process. And at worst, everyone will dislike what I've done. But if you do dislike it, at least learn from it and use my pamphlet as a guide to what NOT to do, and create your own.