Loud Activism
June 2024
“There seems to be a role for both ‘loud’ and ‘quiet’ activism. Loud activism plays an important role in moving people from the ‘precontemplation’ stage to the ‘contemplation’ stage, with quiet activism then helping to move people from the ‘contemplation’ stage to the ‘preparation’ stage.. – Sada Rice & Chris Bryant
Loud & Quiet Activism
Finding effective ways to engage others is crucial to furthering the animal advocacy movement. When people think about animal activism, they often imagine frontline, confrontational methods – but a recent Bryant Research report finds that people are most willing to engage in ‘quiet activism,’ such as giving to charity and volunteering. This insight inspired us to highlight quiet activists, those who patiently and selflessly fund and work on projects to reduce animal suffering. We argue that, because so many more people are willing to engage in quiet activism, the animal movement should highlight and valorise these contributions.
Our support for quiet activism is not, by any means, a condemnation of other types of activism. While not everybody has the personal disposition or desire to grab a megaphone or debate people on the streets, there is immense value in what we term here ‘loud activism’.
Loud activists are those who unapologetically put the reality of industrial animal farming in front of the public, such as a demonstration or street activism. This includes activities such as Anonymous for the Voiceless’ ‘cube of truth’, where activists stand in a square and show videos of factory farms and slaughterhouses in busy areas, as well as other forms of public demonstration.
A Low Risk of Backlash
Some refer to classic psychology research and worry that loud activism could create a backlash effect. However, we argue that loud activism is necessary to further the movement, and the hesitancy to use it is a result of an incomplete understanding of how cognitive dissonance operates in this context.
Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort produced when a person holds conflicting ideas (i.e., “I love animals, yet I eat animals”). There is some evidence that people resort to rationalisations like trivialising animal suffering, denying responsibility, and using pro-meat justifications (e.g., that it is normal, natural, and necessary) in order to reduce their discomfort. However, most studies do not actually find a backlash effect from animal cruelty messages.
A meta-analysis including 100 studies assessing animal welfare appeals found that these interventions consistently resulted in greater meat reduction (or intention) than control groups. On average, farm animal messages were associated with a 22% reduction in intention (or actual behavior) to buy or consume meat, with 83% of studies in the intended direction. It seems, then, that rather than resort to other dissonance-reduction strategies, many people do choose to change their eating behaviours when presented with animal suffering.
Therefore, loud activism could have major benefits and may even be a necessary component for diet change. Is there anyone who has become vegan for ethical reasons who did not experience cognitive dissonance before they gave up meat? Most meat-eaters are at the ‘precontemplation stage’ of change, meaning they have never considered altering their diet. Being confronted with the reality of animal agriculture may represent progress, even if people appear to be reaching for justifications to continue eating meat.
At least now they have considered the idea that there might be an issue, and in many cases, they will continue to contend with this subsequently in private.
Loud activists from We The Free, a global online and street activist community dedicated to highlighting farmed animal suffering
The Militant Vegan, a German loud activist who does not shy away from the harshest imagery and language when discussing animal cruelty
Loud Activism Complements Quiet Activism
Loud activists may also increase support for more moderate goals of the movement by comparison. The ‘radical flank effect’ is a well-documented phenomenon within social movements in which highly radicalised groups make the more moderate groups seem more reasonable. This is similar to the concept of shifting the Overton window – the range of acceptable ideas. By serving as the radical group, loud activists may enable quiet activists and make people more receptive to the movement as a whole in the long term.
For example, a politician might not believe they had their mind changed by a disruptive loud animal rights activist – but the loud activist’s presence might enable the tie-wearing animal advocate to interact with the politician more sympathetically, performatively denouncing the tactics of the loud activist to position themself as more reasonable. This is the curse of the loud activists – they play a valuable role for animals, but part of that value is derived from being the ‘common enemy’ for more moderate activists to connect with non-vegans.
It can be difficult for a meat-eating individual to agree with the loud activist and their confrontational tactics, simply as a matter of ego. Nobody wants to feel that they are being forced to change because they lost an argument. Individuals might therefore be more likely to consciously attribute their change to a sympathetic quiet activist rather than a confrontational loud activist, even if the loud activist played a vital role in their change.
It appears to be a common experience amongst quiet activists to persuade somebody to change who had not changed after an unpleasant confrontation with a loud activist. A quiet activist might conclude from this experience that they had been effective where the loud activist was ineffective, and this is a tempting conclusion to reach.
However, it is plausible that (a) the previous interaction with a loud activist forced the non-vegan to consider the issue, (b) they have thought about the issue since, even if they reached for justifications at that time, (c) their ego would not allow them to concede to the loud activist, and (d) they feel more comfortable to concede to the quiet activist.
Therefore, there seems to be a role for both ‘loud’ and ‘quiet’ activism. Loud activism plays an important role in moving people from the ‘precontemplation’ stage to the ‘contemplation’ stage, with quiet activism then helping to move people from the ‘contemplation’ stage to the ‘preparation’ stage.
The animal movement should highlight and valorise roles for different personalities, interests, qualifications and abilities. It is extremely valuable for some to be loud activists – using shock tactics, being unapologetic, using graphic imagery and language, and engaging in public debate. It is also extremely valuable for some to be quiet activists – patiently and sympathetically engaging in personal conversations with friends and family, as well as funding or working on the essential behind-the-scenes work of animal organisations.
Crucially, while these approaches are very different, they are complementary, not competing.
The loud activist might play a critical role in making the work of the quiet activist easier – not only have they provoked the non-vegan to think about the issue, but they can make the quiet activist seem more reasonable and sympathetic by comparison. Ironically, a large part of the loud activist’s value derives from being disliked by the quiet activist and the non-vegan alike.
There may be situations where it is helpful for the quiet activist to performatively denounce the loud activist, even if they recognise that the loud activist is playing a valuable role. In this situation, both the quiet and the loud activists should be aware of the dynamic at play – quiet activists might denounce loud activists, but those who understand this dynamic might do so with their fingers crossed.
