Berkeley cognitive scientist George Lakoff, whose work has
influenced a generation of political campaigners, is famous for the idea that
metaphors are the essence of human thought – “”. On so many
issues of public controversy, the metaphor a community uses, to understand a
problem, determines how individuals feel and act on the issue.

Is homophobia about “family values” or “bigotry”?

Is taxation a matter of “coercion” or “sharing”?

Is the Iraq War about “safety and security” or “violence and
aggression”?

Yet, even in animal rights communities, the metaphors that currently dominate
our thinking on animals are self-defeating metaphors of personal consumption –
what milk to buy (soy, or dairy?), what restaurant to eat at (herbivore or carnivore?),
which product to purchase (with the bunny logo? or without?). The problem with this
consumerist framing is that it leaves us trapped in the metaphor of the
oppressor.  Critics or our message
immediately ask themselves, “In a free society, why should any of us care what
others are buying and selling?”

But we do not have to accept this metaphor. We can challenge
it by saying directly and confidently that this movement is not a matter of
personal choice, but of horrific violence. By telling the story from the victim’s
perspective, rather than the oppressor’s.

Is animal rights about “consumer choices” or “animal
liberation”? The answer to that question will determine whether our movement
sees the explosive growth it needs, to effect real and permanent change.