Should schools try to boost self-esteem? Beware the dark side by Roy Baumeister

Just wanted to share an article I like, pertaining to misconceptions about the value of self-esteem, written by eminent social psychologist Roy Baumeister. SHOULD SCHOOLS TRY TO BOOST SELF ESTEEM? Beware the dark side BY ROY F. BAUMEISTER Roy F. Baumeister is the Elsie Smith professor of psychology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. For a fuller discussion of the relationship between self-esteem and violence, see "Relation of Threatened Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem," by Roy F. Baumeister, Laura Smart, and Joseph M. Boden (Psychological Review, 199(5, Vol. 103, No. 1). “WE MUST raise children's self-esteem!" How often has this sentiment been expressed in recent years in schools, homes, and meeting rooms around the United States? The sentiment reflects the widespread, well-intentioned, earnest, and yet rather pathetic hope that if we can only persuade our kids to love themselves more, they will stop dropping out, getting pregnant, carrying weapons, taking drugs, and getting into trouble, and instead will start achieving great things in school and out. Unfortunately, the large mass of knowledge that research psychologists have built up around self-esteem does not justify that hope. At best, high self-esteem is a mixed blessing whose total effects are likely to be small and minor. At worst, the pursuit of high self-esteem is a foolish, wasteful, and self-destructive enterprise that may end up doing more harm than good. Writers on controversial topics should acknowledge their biases, and so let me confess mine: I have a strong bias in favor of self-esteem. I have been excited about self-esteem ever since my student days at Princeton, when I first heard that it was a topic of study. Over the past two decades I have probably published more studies on self-esteem than anybody else in the United States (or elsewhere). It would be great for my career if self-esteem could do everything its boosters hope: I'd be dining frequently at the White House and advising policymakers on how to fix the country's problems. It is therefore with considerable personal disappointment that I must report that the enthusiastic claims of the self-esteem movement mostly range from fantasy to hogwash. The effects of self-esteem are small, limited, and not all good. Yes, a few people here and there end up worse off because their self-esteem was too low. Then again, other people end up worse off because their self-esteem was too high. And most of the time self-esteem makes surprisingly little difference. Self-esteem is, literally, how favorably a person regards himself or herself. It is perception (and evaluation), not reality. For example, I think the world would be a better place if we could all manage to be a little nicer to each other. But that's hard: We'd all have to discipline ourselves to change. The self-esteem approach, in contrast, is to skip over the hard work of changing our actions and instead just let us all think we're nicer. That won't make the world any better. People with high self-esteem are not in fact any nicer than people with low self-esteem—in fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. High self-esteem means thinking well of oneself, regardless of whether that perception is based on substantive achievement or mere wishful thinking and self-deception. High self-esteem can mean confident and secure—but it can also mean conceited, arrogant, narcissistic, and egotistical. A recent, widely publicized study dramatized the fact that self-esteem consists of perception and is not necessarily based on reality. In an international scholastic competition, American students achieved the lowest average scores among all participating nationalities. But the American kids rated themselves and their performance the highest. This is precisely what comes of focusing on self-esteem: poor performance accompanied by plenty of empty self-congratulation. Put another way, we get high self-esteem as inflated perceptions covering over a rather dismal reality. Looking ahead, it is alarming to think what will happen when this generation of schoolchildren grows up into adults who may continue thinking they are smarter than the rest of the world—while actually being dumber. America will be a land of conceited fools. All of this might fairly be discounted if America were really suffering from an epidemic of low self-esteem, such as if most American schoolchildren generally had such negative views of themselves that they were unable to tackle their homework. But that's not the case. On the contrary, as I'll explain shortly, self-esteem is already inflated throughout the United States. The average American already regards himself or herself as above average. At this point, any further boosting of self-esteem is likely to approach the level of grandiose, egotistical delusions. Benefits of Self-Esteem Let us begin with the positive consequences of high self-esteem. Much has been claimed, but very little has been proven. Some years ago California formed a task force to promote self-esteem, and its manifesto was filled with optimistic assertions about how raising self-esteem would help solve most of the personal and social problems in the state. Here is a sample of its rhetoric: "the lack of self-esteem is central to most personal and social ills plaguing our state and nation," and indeed self-esteem was touted as a social vaccine that might inoculate people "against the lures of crime, violence, substance abuse, teen pregnancy, child abuse, chronic welfare dependency, and educational failure."' Such rhetoric is especially remarkable in light of another fact. That same task force commissioned a group of researchers to assemble the relevant facts and findings about self-esteem. Here is what the experts in charge of the project concluded from all the information they gathered: "The news most consistently reported, however, is that the associations between self-esteem and its expected consequences are mixed, insignificant, or absent." In short, self-esteem doesn't have much impact. Even when the occasional study does link low self-esteem to some problem pattern, there is often a serious chicken-and-egg ambiguity about which comes first. For example, if someone showed that drug-addicted pregnant unmarried school-dropout teenagers with criminal records have low self-esteem, this might mean only that people stop bragging after they mess up their lives. It would not prove that low self-esteem caused the problems. The few researchers who have tried to establish causality have usually concluded that self-esteem is mainly an outcome, not a cause. At best there is a mutual influence of spiraling effects. To be sure, there are some benefits of high self-esteem. It helps people bounce back after failure and try again. It helps them recover from trauma and misfortune. In general, high self-esteem makes people feel good. Low self-esteem accompanies various emotional vulnerabilities including depression and anxiety. (Again, though, there is no proof that low self-esteem causes these problems, or that raising self-esteem will prevent them.) Children who do well in school have slightly higher self-esteem than those who do poorly. Unfortunately the effect is small, and in fact anyone who believes in the value of education should wish for a stronger effect simply on the basis that successful students deserve higher self-esteem. Across multiple studies, the average correlation between grades and self-esteem is .24, which means about 6 percent of the variance. In other words, moving from the very highest self-esteem scores to the very lowest would yield about a 6 percent difference in school performance. A small increase in self-esteem, such as might be produced by a school program aimed at boosting self-esteem, would probably make only a 1 percent difference or less. And even that assumes that self-esteem is the cause, not the effect, contrary to many indications. To the extent that it is school success or failure that alters self-esteem and not the other way around, any independent effort to raise self-esteem would have no effect at all on school performance. Once again I must say how disappointing I've found these facts to be. Self-esteem is not altogether useless but its benefits are isolated and minor, except for the fact that it feels good. When I embarked on a career in research on self-esteem, I had hoped for a great deal more. The Dark Side of High Self-Esteem The very idea that high self-esteem could have bad consequences strikes some people as startling. The self-esteem movement wants to present self-esteem as having many good and no bad effects. But very few psychological traits are one-sidedly good, and those few are mostly abilities (like intelligence or self-control). High self-esteem can certainly cause its share of problems. If you pause to recall that the category of high self-esteem includes people who think they are great without necessarily being great, this conclusion may seem less startling. A large, important study recently adopted a novel approach to separating self-esteem from all its cause and correlates. The researchers measured how each individual rated himself or herself compared to how that person was rated by others who knew him or her. They were particularly interested in the category of people with inflated self-esteem—the ones who rated themselves higher than their friends rated them. This after all, is where the self-esteem movement leads: Concentrate on getting kids to think well of themselves, regardless of actual accomplishments. The researchers had no difficulty finding plenty of students who fit that category. They are, in a sense, the star products and poster children of the self-esteem movement. And what were they like? The researchers' conclusions did not paint an encouraging picture of health, adjustment, or success. On the contrary, the long-term outcomes of these people's lives found above average rates of interpersonal and psychological problems. A second study, with laboratory observations of live interactions, showed these people to be rather obnoxious. They were more likely than others to interrupt when someone else was speaking. They were more prone to disrupt the conversation with angry and hostile remarks. They tended to talk at people instead of talking to or with them. In general, they irritated the other people present. Does any of this sound familiar? This is what comes of inflated self-esteem. The picture is one of a self-centered, conceited person who is quick to assert his or her own wants but lacks genuine regard for others. That may not be what the self-esteem movement has in mind, but it is what it is likely to produce. In practice, high self-esteem usually amounts to a person thinking that he or she is better than other people. If you think you're better than others, why should you listen to them, be considerate, or keep still when you want to do or say something? Over the past several years, I have been writing a book on evil and violence (Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, to be published by Freeman this fall). Given my longstanding interest in self-esteem, I naturally wanted to acknowledge any part that it plays. Various pundits and so-called experts have long asserted that low self-esteem causes violence, but I've had enough experience with self-esteem to know that I'd better check the data rather than relying on vague generalizations and ostensibly "common" knowledge. Two graduate students and I reviewed literally hun¬dreds of studies on the topic. What we found was so surprising that in addition to my book, we recently published a lengthy article in psychology's most eminent journal, the Psychological Review. We combined evidence from all spheres of violence we could find: murder, assault, rape, terrorism, bullies, youth gangs, repressive governments, tyranny, family violence, warfare, oppression, genocide, and more. We concluded that the idea that low self-esteem causes violence is simply and thoroughly wrong. It is contradicted by a huge mass of information and evidence. People with low self-esteem are generally shy, humble, modest, self-effacing individuals. Violent perpetrators—from Hitler, Hussein, and Amin, down to the common wife-beater or playground bully—are decidedly not like that. If anything, high self-esteem is closer to the violent personality. Most perpetrators of violence are acting out of some sense of personal superiority, especially one that has been threatened or questioned in some way. I am not saying that high self-esteem, per se, directly causes violence. Not all people with high self-esteem become violent. But violent people are a subset of people with high self-esteem. The main recipe for violence is threatened egotism—that is, a belief in personal superiority that is challenged, questioned, or "dissed" by somebody else. Inflated self-esteem often leads to that pattern. Consider some of the evidence. In the first place, whenever there are two groups with different levels of self-esteem, the more egotistical group is nearly always the more violent one. The most familiar example is gender. Men have higher self-esteem and higher rates of violence. When self-esteem fluctuates, the risk of violence rises with the favorable views of self, such as in manic-depressive illness. Indeed, people who are intoxicated with alcohol show increases in self-esteem and increases in violent tendencies. A recent study found that nowadays many homicides occur in connection with other crimes such as robbery, but in the remaining cases the homicide is often the result of an altercation that begins with challenges and insults, in which someone's favorable self opinion is disputed by the other person. The person who feels he (or less often she) is losing face in the argument may resort to violence and murder. Even within samples of offenders, it appears that indicators of egotism can discriminate violent and troublesome tendencies, and it is the favorable view of self that are linked to the worse actions. A group of researchers administered the California Psychological inventory to young men (in their late teens) on parole. The researchers were able to predict future parole violations (recidivism) better than previous attempts. Among the traits that predicted high recidivism were being egotistical and outspoken (as well as "touchy" which suggests being easily offended). Meanwhile being modest and unassuming (associated with low self-esteem) were among the traits linked to be least likely to violate parole. These results all seem fit the view linking favorable views of self to violent tendencies. Aggression starts in childhood, and bullies are the most notable examples. They are of particular importance because childhood bullies have been found to be four times more likely than other children to engage in serious criminal behavior during their subsequent adult life. Dan Olweus is an expert who has studied bullies for years, and he recently summarized the conclusions that his program of research has yielded. Unlike victims of bullying (who show multiple indications of low self-esteem), the bullies themselves seemed relatively secure and free from anxiety. In contrast to a fairly common assumption among psychologists and psychiatrists, we have found no indicators that the aggressive bullies (boys) are anxious and insecure under a tough surface," said Olweus, adding that multiple samples and methods had confirmed the conclusion, and concluding that bullies "do not suffer from poor self-esteem."' One of the most earnest and empathic efforts to understand the subjective experience of committing crimes was that of sociologist Jack Katz. Homicide as well as assault emerged in his study as typically caused by threats to the offender's public image. In Katz’s view, the offender privately holds a positive view of self, but the eventual victim impugns that view and implicitly humiliates the offender, often in front of audience. The response is unplanned violence resulting in injury or death. Katz insisted that feelings of being humiliated are quickly transformed into rage. He argued that many men feel that almost anyone can judge them and impugn their esteem, whereas for women’s self-esteem is most heavily invested in their intimate relationships—with the result that men will attack strangers while women mainly just murder their intimate partners, because only the partners can threat their self-esteem to a sufficient degree to provoke such a violent response. Another example of the relationship between inflated self-esteem and violence focuses on juvenile delinquency. The classic study by Glueck and Glueck compared juvenile delinquents against a matched sample of nondelinquent boys. Although the study was an early one and has been criticized on methodological grounds, it benefited from a large sample and extensive work, and nearly all of their findings have been replicated by subsequent studies. The Glueck and Glueck study did not measure self-esteem directly (indeed it antedated most modern self-esteem scales), but there were plenty of related variables. The pattern of findings offers little to support the hypothesis that low self-esteem causes delinquency. Delinquent boys were more likely than controls to be characterized as self-assertive, socially assertive, defiant, and narcissistic, none of which seems compatible with low self-esteem. Meanwhile, the delinquents were less likely than the comparison group to be marked by the factors that do indicate low self-esteem, including severe insecurity, feelings of helplessness, feelings of being unloved, gen¬eral anxiety (a frequent correlate of low self-esteem), submissiveness, and fear of failure. Thus, the thoughts and actions of juvenile delinquents suggested that they held quite favorable opinions of themselves. It is useful to look for convergences between the Gluecks' study and more recent studies of youthful violence, not only because of the seminal nature of the Gluecks' work, but also because their data were collected several decades ago and on an almost entirely white sample, unlike more recent studies. Converging findings thus confer especially high confidence in conclusions that can be supported across time and ethnicity. One of the most thorough research projects on youth gangs was that of Martin Sanchez Jankowski, whose work involved 10 years, several cities, and 37 gangs. Although as a sociologist he was disinclined to use self-esteem or personality factors as explanatory constructs, his study did furnish several important observations. Jankowski specifically rejected the notion that acting tough is a result of low self-esteem or feelings of inadequacy. In his words, "There have been some studies of gangs that suggest that many gang members have tough exteriors but are insecure on the inside. This is a mistaken observation" (p. 27). He said that for many members, the appeal of the gang is the positive respect it enjoys in the community as well as the respectful treatment from other gang members, which he found to be an important norm in nearly all gangs he studied. He said most gang members "expressed a strong sense of self-competence and a drive to compete with others.” When they failed, they always blamed something external rather than personal inadequacy or error. This last observation is especially relevant because several controlled studies have shown that it is characteristic of high self-esteem and contrary to the typical responses of people with low self-esteem. Recently I appeared on a radio talk show. The hostess seemed to have difficulty accepting the conclusion that low self-esteem is not a cause of violence, possibly because she had swallowed the propaganda line that all good things come from high self-esteem. To explain our findings, I offered the example of the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK has long advocated beliefs in white superiority and has turned violent in response to effort to extend full equality to black citizens (thereby eroding the superior status of whites). I thought KKK violence was a good, clear example of threatened egotism. For a moment the hostess seemed to see the point but then she jumped back on the self-esteem band wagon. "What about deep down inside?" she asked. I inquired whether she thought that Klansmen believed that they, as whites were inferior to blacks, which would fit the low self-esteem view. She balked at the word "inferior" but offered that the violent Klansmen believe deep down inside that they are "not superior"—in other words, equal—to blacks. I didn't know what to say to this basically loony argument. Her theory that Klan violence could be traced to a 'deep down’ inner belief that blacks are equal to whites has two parts, both of which are bizarre: first that members of the KKK truly believe in racial equality, and second, that belief in racial equality causes violence. It struck me that attempts to defend the self-esteem movement against the facts end up having to make such preposterous assertions. Although this particular hostess's idea was absurd she was invoking a point that the proponents of self esteem have on occasion raised as a possibly valid defense. When obnoxious or socially undesirable acts are performed by egotistical people, thus contradicting the belief that high self-esteem is generally good, some propose that these obnoxious individuals must secretly have low self-esteem. Indeed, the editorial reviewers who evaluated our article on violence for the Psychological Review insisted that we tackle this theoretical question head-on in the final published version of the paper. There are two main reasons to reject the "hidden low self-esteem" view. The first is that plenty of researchers have tried and failed to find any indications of this allegedly hidden low self-esteem. It's not for lack of trying, and indeed it would be quite a feather in any researcher's cap to show that actions are caused by low self-esteem hidden under a veneer of high self-esteem. Studies of childhood bullies, teen gang members, adult criminals, and various obnoxious narcissists keep coming to the same conclusion: "We've heard the theory that these people have low self-esteem or a negative self-image underneath, but we sure can't find any sign of it." The other reason is even more compelling. Suppose it were true (which it does not seem to be) that some violent people have high self-esteem on the surface but low self-esteem inside. Which view of self (the surface veneer or the hidden one) would be the one responsible for violence? We already know that genuine low self-esteem, when not hidden, does not cause violence. Hence one would have to say that low self-esteem is only linked to violence when it is hidden. That means that the crucial cause of violence is what is hiding the secret insecurity—which means that the "veneer" of high self-esteem is the cause, and so we are back anyway to the position that egotism is the cause. There isn't space here to exhaust the dark side of high self-esteem, but let me touch on a few other features. People with high self-esteem are less willing than others to heed advice, for obvious reasons—they usually think they know better. (Whether children with inflated self-esteem are less willing to listen to teachers is one possible implication of this, but to my knowledge this has not yet been studied.) They respond to failure by blaming everyone and everything but themselves, such as a flawed test, a biased or unfair teacher, or an incompetent partner. They sometimes extend their favorable self-opinion to encompass people close to or similar to themselves, but unfortunately this often translates into prejudice and condescension toward people who differ from them. (High self-esteem is in fact linked to prejudice against out-groups.) Finally, when their egotism is threatened, they tend to react irrationally in ways that have been shown to be risky, self-defeating, and even self-destructive. Boosting Self-Esteem: The Problem of Inflation Most (though not all) of the problems linked to high self-esteem involve inflated self-esteem, in the sense of overestimating oneself. Based on the research findings produced in laboratories all over North America, I have no objection to people forming a sober, accurate recognition of their actual talents and accomplishments. The violence, the self-defeating behaviors, and the other problems tend to be most acute under conditions of threatened egotism, and inflated self-esteem increases that risk. After all, if you really are smart, your experiences will tend to confirm that fact, and so there's not much danger in high self-esteem that is based on accurate recognition of your intelligence. On the other hand, if you overestimate your abilities, reality will be constantly showing you up and bursting your bubble, and so your (inflated) self-opinion will be bumping up against threats—and those encounters lead to destructive responses. Unfortunately, a school system that seeks to boost self-esteem in general is likely to produce the more dangerous (inflated) form of self-esteem. It would be fine, for example, to give a hard test and then announce the top few scores for general applause. Such a system recognizes the successful ones, and it shows the rest what the important criteria are (and how much they may need to improve). What is dangerous and worrisome is any procedure that would allow tin other students to think that they are just as accomplished as the top scorers even though they did no perform as well. Unfortunately, the self-esteem movement often works in precisely this wrong-headed fashion. Some students will inevitably be smarter, work harder, learn more, and perform better than others There is no harm (and in fact probably some positive value) in helping these individuals recognize their superior accomplishments and talents. Such self-esteem is linked to reality and hence less prone to causing dangers and problems. On the other hand, there is considerable danger and harm in falsely boosting the self-esteem of the other students. It is fine to encourage them to work harder and try to gain an accurate appraisal of their strengths and weaknesses, and it is also fine to recognize their talents and accomplishments in other (including nonacademic) spheres, but don't give them positive feedback that they have not earned. (Also, don't downplay the importance of academic achievement as the central goal of school, such as by suggesting that success at sports or crafts is just as good.) To encourage the lower-performing students to regard their performance just as favorably as the top learners—a strategy all too popular with the self-esteem movement—is a tragic mistake. If successful, it results only in inflated self-esteem, which is the recipe for a host of problems and destructive patterns. The logical implications of this argument show exactly when self-esteem should be boosted. When people seriously underestimate their abilities and accomplishments, they need boosting. For example, a student who falsely believes she can't succeed at math may end up short-changing herself and failing to fulfill her potential unless she can be helped to realize that yes, she does have the ability to master math. In contrast, self-esteem should not be boosted when it is already in the accurate range (or higher). A student who correctly believes that math is not his strong point should not be given exaggerated notions of what he can accomplish. Otherwise, the eventual result will be failure and heartbreak. Along the way he's likely to be angry, troublesome, and prone to blame everybody else when something goes wrong. In my years as an educator I have seen both patterns. But which is more common? Whether boosting self-esteem in general will be helpful or harmful depends on the answer. And the answer is overwhelmingly clear. Far, far more Americans of all ages have accurate or inflated views of themselves than underestimate themselves. They don't need boosting. Dozens of studies have documented how inflated self-esteem is. Research interest was sparked some years ago by a survey in which 90 percent of adults rated themselves "above average" in driving ability. After all, only half can really be above average. Similar patterns are found with almost all good qualities. A survey about leadership ability found that only 2 percent of high school students rated themselves as below average. Meanwhile, a whopping 25 percent claimed to be in the top 1 percent! Similarly, when asked about ability to get along with others, no students at all said they were below average. Responses to scales designed to measure self-esteem show the same pattern. There are always plenty of scores at the high end and plenty in the middle, but only a few straggle down toward the low end. This seems to be true no matter which of the many self-esteem scales is used. Moreover, the few individuals who do show the truly low self-esteem scores probably suffer from multiple problems that need professional therapy. Self-esteem boosting from schools would not cure them. Obviously there's precious little evidence of low self-esteem in such numbers. By definition, plenty of people are in reality below average, but most of them refuse to acknowledge it. Meanwhile large numbers of people clearly overestimate themselves. The top 1 percent can really only contain 1 percent, not the 25 percent who claim to belong there. Meanwhile, the problem that would justify programs aimed at boosting self-esteem—people who significantly underestimate themselves—is extremely rare. Conclusion What is to be done? In response to the question about whether schools should boost self-esteem, my answer is: Don't bother. Efforts at boosting self-esteem probably feel good both for students and for teachers, but the real benefits and positive consequences are likely to be minor. Meanwhile, inflated self-esteem carries an assortment of risks and dangers, and so efforts to boost self-esteem may do as much harm as good, or possibly even more. The time, effort; and resources that schools put into self-esteem will not be justified by any palpable improvements in school performance, citizenship, or other outcomes. There is one psychological trait that schools could help instill and that is likely to pay off much better than self-esteem. That trait is self-control (including self-discipline). Unlike self-esteem, self-control (or lack thereof) is directly and causally involved in a large set of social and personal problems." Addiction, crime, violence, unwanted pregnancy, venereal disease, poor school performance, and many other problems have self-control failure as a core cause. Also unlike self-esteem, self-control brings benefits to both the individual and society. People with better self-control are more successful (socially and academically), happier, and better adjusted, than others. They also make better parents, spouses, colleagues, and employees. In other words, their self-control benefits the people close to them. Indeed, I am convinced that weak self-control is a crucial link between family breakdown and many social problems. Study after study has shown that children of single parents show up worse than average on almost every measure, ranging from math achievement tests to criminal convictions. Most single parents I know are loving, dedicated, hard-working individuals, but all their energy goes toward providing food and shelter and their children's other basic needs. It seems to take a second parent to provide the supervision and consistent rule enforcement that foster self-control in the child. How much the schools can do to build self-control is unclear. Still, just recognizing the priority and value of self-control will help. Obviously, self-control is not something that is instilled directly (as in a "self-control class") but rather should be cultivated like a cluster of good habits in connection with regular academic work, especially in the context of clear, consistent enforcement of academic and behavioral standards. The disciplinary and academic culture of a school should be aimed at recognizing and encouraging the self-control of individual students, including rewarding good self-control and punishing its failures or absences. With each new plan, policy, or procedure, school officials might pause to ask "Will this help strengthen self-control?" instead of "Might this hurt anybody's self-esteem?" In the long run, self-control will do far more for the individuals and for society as a whole than will self-esteem. Moreover, self-control gives people the ability to change and improve themselves, and so it can bring about changes in substantive reality, not just in perception. And if one can make oneself into a better person, self-esteem is likely to increase too. Raising self-control may thus end up boosting self-esteem—but not in the dangerous or superficial ways that flourish now. My final message to all the people working in today's schools and seeking to help the next generation get a good start is, therefore, as follows: Forget about self-esteem, and concentrate on self-control. _________________ Note: The format of this document has been altered to make for easier readability, to remove extraneous characters, and to provide more space for annotations. The original document can be accessed at this link.

Radio piece on veganism

In a few weeks I'll be recording a script explaining the rationale for going vegan for the "Speak Your Mind" segment on the local public radio station, WFIU. (The delay is because they have a backlog and only broadcast these once a week.) May as well post it here so people who don't listen to WFIU can see it! Here it is:

"This is Jeff Melton. Nothing shapes our beliefs, values and actions more profoundly than our culture, yet we often don't notice its effects. Stealthily, it leads us to believe things without necessarily pondering their implications or why we believe them.

Consider our attitudes toward animals. Many of us call ourselves animal lovers. Many of us consider our pets to be family members, and grow very attached to them. If you took a poll of your friends and relatives, most would say that it is wrong to unnecessarily harm animals.

Yet, we unnecessarily harm animals every day when we eat them or their products, wear their fur or skin, or use them in other ways. In the US, 10 billion animals are killed for food or other uses every year, generally far short of their natural lifespan, and they suffer greatly during their lives. Whether raised for their flesh or because they produce milk or eggs, animals in the livestock industry are essentially treated as our slaves. Animal agriculture also causes many environmental problems; for example, it is one of the leading causes of global warming.

We don't need to consume animal products for our health; in fact, the evidence is overwhelming that a plant-based diet is very healthy and that, conversely, heavy consumption of animal products is very bad for our health. Nor do we need to eat them to enjoy delicious meals, as anyone who has eaten a well-prepared vegan meal can attest.

In short, we don't need to consume meat, dairy or other animal products at all. There is no logical justification for treating some species of animals as loved family members, while treating others as commodities that we use to satisfy our taste for animal flesh or other desires, and both we and our fellow animals would be better off if we didn't. Just as every human, regardless of their intelligence or any other characteristic, has the right not to be treated as others’ property, other animals should be accorded that right as well. So please consider going vegan. It’s not difficult, it’s healthy, and it’s the right thing to do. For Speak Your Mind, this is Jeff Melton."

Does "Meatout Day" Help Animals?

For the last several years, an organization called the Farm Animal Rights Movement has organized an annual event called "Meatout" that calls for people to give up meat for one day, the first day of spring, and also organizes "Meatless Mondays." Other self-proclaimed animal rights organizations, including PETA, Vegan Outreach, Mercy For Animals, and several others also promote the event and are listed as supporters on the Meatout (www.meatout.org) home page, as are numerous celebrity promoters such as Alicia Silverstone and Ed Asner.

Undoubtedly the organizations and individuals involved in promoting Meatout believe that they are serving the cause of animal rights by doing so. But are they? What if anti-slavery activists had supported a promotional campaign in favor of slaveowners giving their slaves Sunday off? Or what if activists in the Civil Rights movement had promoted "Lynching-Free Wednesdays"?

Of course, neither of these movements did these things, and there's a good reason why: Nothing says "I don't take my ethical principles seriously" like advocating that others give up actions contrary to one's ethics one day a week--or, in the present case, give up ONE unethical behavior (eating meat) for one day per year. Animals are sentient beings who can experience pain and suffering just as humans can. Treating them as mere "things," as nothing more than property to be used for humans' pleasure and convenience, is not any more ethically justifiable on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday than it is on Monday. Using them as milk slaves, having them fight with each other, kidnapping them from the wild and putting them on exhibit to a curious public in cages, or other uses that revolve around our needs and desires and ignore theirs are no more ethically justifiable than killing them for their flesh. Anyone who is serious about the notion that nonhuman animals have the right to not be treated as "things" should not be promoting "Meatout" or "Meatless Mondays."

Do Vegans Think Vegetarians Are “Bad People”?

Frequently, I’ve had occasion to observe or participate in conversations with (lacto-ovo) vegetarians along the following lines: “Why are vegans so critical of vegetarians? We’re on the same side as you; we all love animals and would like to reduce their suffering. Shouldn’t we unite around our common concern for animals rather than being divided?” Some vegetarians have even asked me if I thought vegetarians were "bad people" because they weren't vegan.

Well, no, I don’t think that being vegetarian rather than vegan makes someone a bad person. For that matter, I don’t think meat eaters are bad people, either. I don’t even think that hunters, fishermen/women, or participants in bullfighting or dogfighting--or even participants in genocide--are necessarily any more “evil” than most people, though some of them may be. An abundance of social psychological research has shown that in some situations, ordinary people without any known psychopathology are capable of treating other sentient beings, human and nonhuman alike, in ways that almost anyone would agree are cruel. And well over 99% of people in our society, including the vast majority of people who are now vegan--me included--have consumed animal products for a considerable portion of their lives. Consuming animal products is a “normal” activity in our society, engaged in by people who by and large are not “evil,” “bad,” or “crazy.” Even participation in an activity such as dogfighting that is widely condemned in our society is not in itself indicative of a person’s character, because there are subcultures in which dogfighting is condoned, a point that I explored in my last blog entry.

Moreover, if my experience with vegetarians (and my own experience when I was vegetarian) is any indication, insofar as they are aware of animal suffering, many vegetarians do genuinely care about animals. In addition to not eating animal flesh, vegetarians often avoid buying leather or fur and products that have been tested on animals, and many avoid buying other products, such as cheese made with animal rennet, that use animal parts.

So, my raising the issue of veganism with vegetarians isn’t based on a belief that I or other vegans are “better” people than vegetarians, or that vegans alone care about animals. Rather, my view is that both being vegan myself and encouraging other people (whatever their current lifestyle) to become vegan are logical consequences of my assessment of humans’ ethical obligations to animals. Animals are not “things,” but sentient beings. Most animal species are, like humans, able to experience pain and fear; they are capable of suffering. Since we humans do not need to eat animals or animal products to be healthy, and in fact are typically healthier if we do not eat animal products, we have no more right to cause an animal to suffer than we do to cause another human to suffer. In essence, both human and nonhuman animals have the right not to be treated as “things,” as property exploitable for the sake of human pleasure or convenience. Being vegan is the only way to be fully consistent with this view.

But why isn’t being vegetarian enough? Consuming dairy products and eggs doesn’t kill the hen or dairy cow, does it? And vegetarians typically consume a smaller amount of animal products than omnivores. Wouldn’t it be better in terms of reducing animal suffering if, say, ten people became vegetarians than if one person became vegan?

There are a number of problems with this view. For starters, the notion that being vegetarian doesn't result in animals' death is false. Furthermore, the distinction vegetarians make between flesh and and non-flesh animal products is arbitrary. The view that eating cheese, eggs, etc. but foregoing the consumption of animal flesh is somehow kinder and gentler to animals than consuming an equivalent amount of animal products that include flesh reflects a common misconception about how the dairy and egg industries operate. Like companies in the meat industry or any other industry, businesses that produce eggs or dairy products exist to make a profit. What has to happen for that to occur? Well, first of all, there’s the issue of what to do with the males. Male chickens do not produce eggs, and dairy bulls do not produce milk. It isn’t profitable to feed animals from whom no animal products can be obtained, so one of two things happens to male animals in these industries: either they are killed immediately after birth (the typical practice in the egg industry), or they are raised for their flesh (the typical practice in the dairy industry), most commonly for veal. In short, male animals in the dairy and egg industries suffer greatly and die young, just like their counterparts in the beef and chicken industries.

And what about the females? Let’s consider the example of dairy cows. Female cows’ destiny is to spend their lives as, essentially, milk slaves, producing milk for human consumption. And, since their milk is destined for human consumption, that means that their calves hardly get to drink it at all! Calves are taken from their mothers within days of birth, never to see them again. A few months later, when the lactating mother’s milk production begins to fall off, she is impregnated again (typically through artificial insemination), and the cycle begins anew. After four years or so, about 1/5 of a cow’s life expectancy, she joins her male counterparts at the slaughterhouse, because her milk production has declined to the point that it is no longer profitable to keep her around. (The fate of egg-laying hens is similar: When their egg production wanes, typically at about 18 months of age, they are sent off to slaughter.)

Even if there weren't death involved, and even if it didn't involve breaking up families, taking cows' milk from them involves treating them as if they were our property. To see this, consider the following hypothetical example involving humans. Let’s suppose there was a nursing human mother who was a very deep sleeper, and someone sneaked into her bedroom, hooked her up to a breast milk pump, and obtained some of her milk for his personal consumption. Even if the mother never woke up during the theft of her milk, would anyone consider this ethical? If the milk thief was later apprehended, would anyone buy an excuse such as “Well, she never would have known I took it, I didn’t hurt her and, besides, I really like cheese made from human milk”? Of course not, and the reason is obvious: The milk does not belong to him; it belongs to the mother and her baby. Even if the milk burglar didn’t significantly hurt the mother and baby and was never detected, he has exploited the mother for his own selfish ends by taking something that does not belong to him. And if it’s not okay to treat a human mother in this way, what makes us think it is okay to do that to a cow? If we think about the matter honestly, the reason why it’s thought to be acceptable becomes apparent: In our society, humans are regarded as having the right to not be exploited--to not be treated as property or a “thing” to be used as a means to our pleasurable or convenient ends--but we do not regard cows or other animals (except, for some of us, our pets) as having such a right. As a result, whether it be for their flesh, their fur or hides, their secretions, or whatever purpose, nonhuman animals are exploited by both the consumers and producers of animal “products.” As an ethical vegan, I don’t think consuming animal secretions such as cow’s milk is ethically acceptable, because it involves treating an animal as an object every bit as much as killing it for his or her “meat” does.

Even if there was an abundance of dairy farmers who weren’t interested in making a living at farming and didn’t kill males at a young age, separate mothers and calves so as to divert almost all of the milk for human consumption, deliberately keep cows pregnant or lactating continuously for all of their milk-producing years, etc., and there were consumers willing and able to pay astronomical prices for dairy products produced in this manner (which would be very costly to produce and could not be mass-produced), the question remains: Whose milk is it, anyway? (And whose eggs or honey, in the case of chickens and bees?) Even if it were the case that the dairy, egg, and honey industries never killed a single animal, even if animals in these industries were not routinely branded, debeaked, confined in close quarters, etc., it would remain the case that consumers of these products treat these animals as if they were mere property, to be exploited for the consumer’s pleasure and convenience. To an ethical vegan, this is simply not an acceptable way to treat animals.

Ultimately, although the fact that animals can suffer is what makes the way humans treat them important, strictly speaking, veganism is not about reducing suffering; it’s about upholding to the greatest extent possible in one’s everyday life the principle that animals have the right to not be exploited for human purposes. Being vegetarian no more upholds this principle than, say, shoplifting from Macy’s but not shoplifting from Barnes & Noble upholds the principle that people shouldn’t shoplift. If we take seriously the idea that animals are not mere “things,” but sentient beings whose autonomy we need to respect, then behaving in accordance with this idea some or even most of the time is not enough; we need to go vegan!

Thoughts On The Michael Vick Case

Recently, much attention has been focused on the case of Michael Vick, a professional football player who spearheaded a dogfighting ring. His cruel treatment of dogs outraged not only animal rights advocates, but the general public, the majority of whom consider dogfighting to be morally abhorrent. (A recent poll found that 81% of Americans considered dogfighting to be “America’s most hated sport.”) Although he has served a two-year prison sentence, many have called for him to be banned from professional football and perhaps receive other punishments such as a more extensive jail sentence, and have vowed to protest the Philadelphia Eagles and the NFL over his recent reinstatement in the NFL and hiring by the Philadelphia Eagles. It has been argued that his cruelty to animals was so far beyond the pale of civilized behavior that he is almost certainly a sociopath of some sort, and incapable of expressing genuine remorse or changing his ways. Since Vick was part of a dogfighting subculture in which such treatment of dogs is routine, the implication is that participation in dogfighting generally is a sign of serious mental disturbance.

In this blog entry, I will not attempt to diagnose Michael Vick’s condition, nor will I speculate on the likelihood that he can genuinely mend his ways. Even with far more detailed knowledge of someone’s life than I have of Michael Vick’s, diagnosing personality disorders is an undertaking fraught with difficulties even for trained mental health professionals (which, as a social rather than clinical psychologist, I cannot claim to be). And even if it can be conclusively established that Vick has exhibited “a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others” since the age of 15, as called for by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual criteria for antisocial personality disorder, the issue of whether such a condition can be successfully treated remains controversial among professional psychologists. Instead, my focus will be on the issue of how dogfighting fits into the general picture of humans’ treatment of nonhuman animals and of each other.

Although there is universal agreement among animal rights advocates that Michael Vick’s treatment of his dogs was horribly cruel and inhumane, there is considerable disagreement among them about the extent to which involvement in dogfighting should be regarded as an aberration in a society where cruelty to animals is so widespread that it is the norm rather than the exception. In an article provocatively titled: We Are All Michael Vick, Rutgers law professor and veteran animal rights activist Gary Francione points out that in the United States alone, more than 10 billion animals are killed for food annually, and that the typical treatment of these animals is every bit as cruel in terms of the amount of suffering inflicted upon them as the treatment endured by Michael Vick’s dogs. The vast majority of Americans eat animal products, and thereby support with their food purchases the very same sort of cruelty that the vast majority of them condemn in Michael Vick, despite the fact that it is not only unnecessary for humans to eat animal products, but actually healthier for them if they don’t. The inconsistency in attitudes toward different animal species is quite striking. Many Americans regard their dogs, cats, or other pets as family members, and an even larger number find practices such as dogfighting to be morally abhorrent, yet the vast majority feel little compunction about sticking a fork into the flesh of a pig, cow, chicken, or fish that they know perfectly well has been killed for the benefit of their taste buds. And, whereas dogfighting is not only widely condemned, but illegal in all 50 states, the abusive treatment of farm animals that is standard practice in animal agriculture is not similarly condemned, and is legal throughout the United States. Francione concludes: “Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It's strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former. How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?...We are all Michael Vick.”

It is certainly true that the livestock industry treats animals every bit as cruelly as those involved in dogfighting treat dogs. And since at the very least, those who eat animals are generally well aware that the “meat” on their plate got there because an animal was slaughtered, they bear responsibility for those animals’ deaths.

Some animal advocates agree that just as much harm is inflicted on livestock as on fighting dogs, but nonetheless see involvement in dogfighting as distinct in many respects from the consumption of animal products. For one thing, it is argued, eating animal flesh and other animal products is almost universally accepted in our culture, whereas dogfighting is widely disdained, and therefore it should be universally understood that dogfighting is immoral. Secondly, it is argued that although they are undoubtedly aware that animals are slaughtered for food, few people who consume beef, dairy, fish, eggs, etc. understand the magnitude of suffering that animals raised for food undergo. Obviously, it is much harder to remain ignorant of animals' suffering when one is inflicting it face-to-face, as Michael Vick and other dog fighters do, and many would argue that being in a position to experience animals' suffering firsthand and choosing to do it anyway is a more reprehensible act than inflicting suffering at a distance. In fact, many would go further and say that Michael Vick or anyone else who engages in that level of cruelty to dogs face-to-face is a profoundly disturbed, amoral human being, a sociopath.

One objection that can be made to the first point is that it presumes that the cultural experience of everyone residing within a given country is the same. That presumption can reasonably be questioned. The Wikipedia entry on dogfighting notes: "Dog fighting has been popular in many countries throughout history and continues to be practiced both legally and illegally around the world. Dog fighting is widely practiced in much of Latin America, especially in Argentina, Peru and many parts of Brazil." It goes on to note that dogfighting was legal in the United States as recently as 100 years ago, and was even sanctioned by the American Kennel Club! Thus, not surprisingly, a dogfighting subculture persists in the United States. According to sociologist Rhonda Evans, who has studied this dogfighting subculture extensively, it is most prevalent among working-class Southern males. In her interviews with participants in dogfighting, Evans notes a common thread that is also present in other dogfighting cultures around the world: "A machismo mentality." In the American South, and many other cultures around the world, there is nothing more important to a man than protecting his honor. Unfortunately for animals, owning an animal that is good at fighting has become an important symbol of masculinity and means of protecting honor in many such cultures. "Tough dogs are a symbol of manhood," Evans argues, "and by winning, the dogs build up their owners' ego." Given dogfighting's important social function, Evans says, participants do not regard it as cruel, but rather as a "valid, legitimate sport that is no worse than boxing or football." In short, it is likely that participants in dogfighting, like those who hunt, fish, raise livestock, or eat animal products, do not generally believe they are doing anything wrong.

Certainly, it is true that aside from knowing that (since humans are not scavengers) their eating meat entails animals being slaughtered, many people remain largely or completely unaware of the suffering endured by animals raised for food. That was true in my case. I became a vegetarian (that is, I stopped eating animal flesh but continued to eat other animal products such as dairy) in the mid-’80s, primarily because I had read that it was better for health and the environment to eat lower on the “food chain,” and secondarily because I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with eating slaughtered animals. However, I remained largely in the dark about the way the livestock industry treated animals until several years later, when I read John Robbins’ book Diet for a New America. Upon learning of the horrors of livestock farming--branding, castration, and other painful procedures administered without anesthesia, the crowded and unsanitary conditions in which the animals typically lived, the separation of mothers and their offspring often within days of the latter’s birth, feeding of an unnatural diet to fatten animals up for slaughter (which generally takes place at a small fraction of an animal’s natural lifespan), the treatment of dairy cows as essentially milk machines for their entire lives, and on and on--I became vegan almost immediately.

However, by no means is ignorance of the treatment of animals the only reason why people continue to eat them. As with any culturally sanctioned practice, a variety of justifications for consumption of animal products have become part of the fabric of the culture, as has a tendency for people to avoid or distance themselves from the consequences for animals of consuming flesh or other animal products, and for society to make it easy for them to do so. Protection of the ego by any means necessary is a fundamental psychological process. We use euphemisms to refer to the dead animals on our plate: “Beef” instead of “cow meat”; “pork” instead of “pig meat,” etc. Slaughterhouses are generally situated in remote locations. Advertisements for animal products often display cartoonish, smiling animals, and imply that the animals raised for our consumption have happy lives. Some ads for animal products even depict animals as wanting to be killed and eaten! (The website www.suicidefood.com catalogs hundreds of ads of this nature.) Animals are continually portrayed as being inferior to humans in every imaginable way, and a favored way of describing people we don’t like is with animal names: “Rats,” “worms,” “beasts,” “pigs,” “vermin,” “insects,” etc. Obviously, regarding any being (whether human or not) as inferior to oneself makes it easier to inflict harm on it. I could go on, but you get the point: These sorts of ego defense tactics exist for a reason. We would not avail ourselves of them if there were not some pre-existing unease about the ways in which we use animals. As is often the case with other realms of life where defense mechanisms are used extensively, they serve the ego at a great price: Even when confronted with strong evidence that their continued consumption of animal products is harmful to themselves, the environment, and other animals, many people continue to be very reluctant to question or change what they are doing, because they manage to find ways to keep their unease at bay sufficiently to continue it.

However, one might object, eating animals involves cruelty at a distance -- in fact, many people are not aware of the treatment of farm animals in general, aside from knowing that they ultimately wind up in a slaughterhouse. Surely, someone who inflicts cruelty face-to-face as Michael Vick did must be a very sick person.

Psychological research, however, suggests that perfectly ordinary, average people are quite capable of inflicting cruelty face-to-face, given the right circumstances. In 1963, social psychologist Stanley Milgram set out to investigate the extent to which average, ordinary people were willing to inflict what they believed to be painful electric shocks on someone else purely because an experimenter ordered them to. What Milgram found was quite shocking: 28 of the 40 subjects in his initial study continued to follow the experimenter’s orders to supposedly inflict painful electric shocks all the way to the very end of the experiment, at which point the subjects had every reason to believe they were inflicting shocks that were not only painful, but quite possibly dangerous. Although subjects who were face-to-face with the person supposedly being shocked were less willing to obey the experimenter’s orders, nonetheless more than 20% of them obeyed the experimenter’s orders all the way to the most intense “shock.”

A similar study where the cover story, as in Milgram's experiments, was that the experiment was examining the effects of punishment on learning, investigated subjects' willingness to deliver electric shocks to a puppy. In this case, real shocks were delivered. Although not as intense as advertised, the shocks clearly caused the puppy pain. Yet, despite being able to see and hear the puppy suffer, 50% of the males and fully 100% of the females in this experiment administered shocks all the way to a supposed level of 450 volts. Although most were clearly upset by what they were ordered to do (as were Milgram's subjects), they did it anyway. In these and many other similar studies, a variety of situational factors contributed to the high level of obedience that was usually observed, most prominently the opportunity for subjects to use the excuse that the experimenter rather than themselves was responsible for the suffering that they themselves chose to inflict on the victim.

But one needn't delve into the experimental social psychology literature to find examples of perfectly ordinary, average people inflicting face-to-face cruelty on both human and nonhuman animals. Milgram's obedience research was inspired by his observation that millions of "good Germans," average, "normal" people, appeared to have participated in the Nazi Holocaust merely because they, like Hitler's right-hand man Adolph Eichmann, were "just following orders." Countless other tragic historical events can be described in a similar manner.

In the realm of more everyday events, millions of Americans hunt every year, and tens of millions go fishing. When I was a boy, I myself went fishing with my dad on a regular basis. Although I was a little uneasy as I watched fish struggle and suffocate, it never occurred to me just how terribly, terribly wrong what we were doing was. If my dad and millions of other people thought it was an okay thing to do, then as far as I was concerned it was an okay thing to do. What is or isn't socially normative, at least within one's own particular social circle, may be the ultimate situational factor. Indeed, in Milgram’s experiments, the presence of accomplices of the experimenter who displayed disobedience almost completely eliminated obedience, whereas the presence of accomplices who obeyed the experimenter without question increased an already high level of obedience by the real participants.

Whether one is involved in dogfighting, fishing, or eating animal products, the fact that one's friends, relatives, and neighbors engage in whatever the practice is without questioning it is the ultimate social force. What humans consider "normal" is largely defined by what people around them do. Thus, it doesn't make sense to judge another person's actions -- or their sanity -- in light of standards that may not be shared by that person's particular social milieu. Ultimately, the ethics of actions can only be judged by their intentionality, their motivations, and their consequences. By those standards, consumption of animal products fails the test of ethical acceptability just as miserably as dogfighting. Both are intentional, motivated purely by the pursuit of pleasure, and horribly cruel to the sentient beings on the receiving end.