Public Intellectual As Social Critic: A Profile on Gary Yourofsky

When I think of the term “public intellectual,” a phrase that Stephen Mack had in his essay “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual” comes to mind. He stated that “Presidents, poets—and public intellectuals—have invoked his [John Winthrop’s] words to remind America something fundamental about themselves: that they are people not defined by race, not by ethnicity, but by moral purpose” (Mack). That last part is really important to me. Moral purpose defines us as human beings, and dictates what we believe in and what we do. Many people who believe in some sort of sanctioned religion would agree that their core values and morals as a religious person are intrinsically a part of their personality. I had a conversation with a Christian once, in which he stated that he could never marry or date someone who wasn’t religious because “her core values and belief system would just be too different from mine.” While I disagree with that statement, and believe that people of different religions often have similar if not almost identical core values, it does solidify the point that moral purpose is incredibly important to us as human beings. So, for me, a public intellectual is someone who is in tune with his or her personal moral purpose. Perhaps this moral purpose is not the same as my own, perhaps it is. Regardless, a public intellectual uses their platform as a public personality to educate the masses about their specific moral purpose, and they try to get people to understand them as a person, and furthermore, why they do the things that they do.

With all of this to consider, one person who has made a large impact on me personally came to mind: Gary Yourofsky. You may be reading this and have no idea who that is, and that’s okay. Yourofsky is a person who believes so full-heartedly in his moral purpose, that he’s actually been arrested several times defending it. This is just the tip of the controversial iceberg that is Gary Yourofsky, but I will get into that later. What is important about Yourofsky is that he is insanely passionate about his moral purpose, and uses any means necessary to spread his message to the masses via lectures, YouTube videos, interviews and talk shows. It may be surprising to find out that the social issue this man is so passionate about is animal rights. When looking at him, you see a slender, bald man wearing glasses and a t-shirt, not a liberal, hippie animal rights defender who breaks mink from fur farms and has a criminal record. However, all of these things are true, and I think that it’s interesting to compare his moral purpose with his radical actions. The question when looking at Gary Yourofsky is: Has he gone too far in the name of his cause?

Now, an arrest record is not the most remarkable or important thing about Yourofsky. After he obtained a BA in Journalism from Oakland University, he then went to Specs Howard School of Media Arts to get a degree in Radio Broadcasting (ADAPTT). When he was 25, he went vegan, and this is where his story got a lot more interesting. As a vegan, this means that he abstains from meat, dairy, eggs, honey and seafood. After that, he became furiously involved in animal rights and vegan activism. Since then, he’s given 2,660 lectures at universities all over the country, many of which have been taped and put up on his YouTube page online. The content of these taped lectures show a man who uses logic, science and undercover exposés to explain his lifestyle choices in a way that others never have. When one thinks about something like diet, it’s natural to consider it a completely personal or spiritual choice, but Yourofsky disagrees. He uses data in an easy-to-understand way to advocate for a vegan and cruelty-free world.

All this being said, Yourofsky is not some ivy-league academic, doctor, or professor. However, he fills the role of public intellectual in a way that is far more valuable: he uses his life experience, combined with his communication-based education, to teach something of great value and importance to those willing--and even those who are skeptical--to listen. No audience member is too resistant for Yourofsky. He will talk to anyone in any place, and use the skills and information he’s acquired to attempt to change their minds. Mack talks about the importance of life experiences in a public intellectual, and he articulates that it is more important to consider the things that a public intellectual is doing than to focus on who he or she is in a social and academic hierarchy (Mack). Yourofsky is not some wealthy man sitting in a velvet housecoat and pondering animal rights in the abstract. He goes beyond mere thought, and into the world of action, which is especially important if a public intellectual truly believes in their moral purpose. This means that, instead of being a high class academic, a public intellectual can be someone like Yourofsky, who lives what he lectures.

Another key point brought to life in Mack’s essay, “The Decline of the Public Intellectual?” is that public intellectuals are here in our culture to act as social critics. They see problem with the way that things are, and provide insights on how to change them. If Yourofsky is not a social critic, then I don’t think anyone can ever be considered one. In Yourofsky’s case, he took issue with the way that the food and drug industry treats animals, and the way that people blindly consume them by means of tradition, habit, convenience and taste (Marie). What I think is the most important part of Yourofsky’s role as a public intellectual, is that he is not sitting on a high horse and looking down at the masses, as Mack illustrates the role of so many false public intellectuals in his essay. Yourofsky makes a point to say that he was not raised a vegan or animal rights activist. In an interview with YouTube’s Bite Size Vegan, Yourofsky says his story began when his step-dad, who used to be a clown in the circus, took him behind the scenes when he was in his early 20s. When Yourofsky saw the chained and dazed elephants, he was confused and upset. To get a better idea of the way that we treat animals in captivity, he then visited a slaughterhouse religiously for several weeks, hours at a time. He wanted to study the way that things were done there, and was not quick to change his then omnivorous diet without “proof.” By doing this, he is not only making a meaningful connection to the people that he is lecturing, but also showing them that they do not have to stay stagnant in there ways. It is the epitome of “If I can do it, so can you.”

This is not the only way he gains people’s attention. If it was, I don’t think he would be the type of public intellectual I consider him to be. I most likely wouldn’t even know who he is. The video I discovered Yourofsky in was titled “The Best Speech You Will Ever Hear.” Now that’s a speaker who caught someone’s attention and made an impact in his or her life. Some people who lecture about veganism try to play upon people’s love of animals, and try to combat the arguments around veganism with science alone. That may work for some, but there is no real reason for the people in the lecture hall to pay attention, let alone reevaluate their long-practiced eating habits. Yourofsky uses behind-the-scenes footage of slaughterhouses and farms, but then he takes it one step further: he uses provocative ideas to catch people off-guard and bring them into the world of veganism for the sake of curiosity. One of his more controversial comparisons is between the Holocaust and animal slaughter. He likens slaughterhouses to concentration camps, and says that humans have simply chosen “different victims.” This may just be controversial word choice for the sake of shock factor, but I honestly believe that he uses it to incite interest and further inquiry. A person listening to him may say, “How dare he compare this to a national tragedy like the Holocaust? There’s no way they could be similar.” Next, they may pay more attention to what he has to say, or even do their own outside research. The role of a public intellectual is to passionately share their views and social criticisms with the world by any means they see necessary. Yourofsky is doing this by creating a conversation between himself and those he lectures: he makes a seemingly radical claim to his skeptical listeners, then goes on to prove his point. He’s starting a conversation. There’s a little spark of an idea being lit in their minds. It’s a perfect model for creating a more aware and questioning public, and that is Yourofsky’s number one concern. These “crazy” statements get Yourofsky noticed on social platforms and as a lecturer. These are the statements that get him talked about, and if he’s being talked about, then veganism is being talked about. The one worry many vegans share, however, is that maybe his grandiose claims gain him more insulted enemies than allies. This becomes especially true when dealing with the very large and always very sensitive subject of religion.

Religion, as Mack states, makes an individual feel a part of a whole. It gives a one the idea that he or she is not alone, and outlines the values by which he or she and his or her peers live their lives (Mack). I definitely believe that religion has worked its way into the political sphere of animal rights and cruelty-free legislation. I mean, if you look at the Old Testament analytically, it states: “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Bible Gateway). This verse literally implies that the animals are our property to do with as we wish, when in reality most all animals have been on this earth lifetimes before we were, and have just as much, if not more claim to freedom here. Later, Genesis tells us that Cain brought fruit as a tribute to God, meanwhile Abel, his brother, brought “fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock” (Bible Gateway). God appreciated Abel and his gift, but not Cain’s. So, according to the Bible, God likes it when we kill animals in his name, but not when we use other forms of food to honor him. With this sort of mindset, and the obvious Roman Catholic leanings that our government was predicated on, it’s not hard to see that animal cruelty was grossly over-looked for some time.

One of Yourofsky’s more controversial viewpoints, and one that I believe can be related back to Stephen Mack’s essays, is his view on the connection between veganism and religion that directly opposes the point I made above. In fact, he says that if you believe in God at all, then you should be vegan. He was interviewed on a fellow vegan’s YouTube channel about the relationship between Christianity and veganism. In response, he said,

“If you claim you believe in God, and murder God’s animals, you’re not worshipping God. […] I believe in God. I’ll proudly say it. I don’t believe in the organized religious God people have made up. I see God in trees. I see God in cows. […] Sadly, religious people see all God’s creations and they want to do is kill them. […] Religious people got it backwards completely. God’s not in the book. God does not exist on paper. He’s not in the book— close the fucking book and walk outside.” (Veganism & Religion I Gary Yourofsky).

What Yourofsky said in the interview may be really offensive to some deeply religious people who rely on the Bible to live their everyday life, but I believe he does have a point. God created the world that we live in, and if we want to do him any sort of respect, we need to respect his creations. Later, Yourofsky mentions that he doesn’t care what God people believe in, or if they believe in any God at all. The only thing he says that he pays attention to is a person’s actions. I believe this ties back into the work of a public intellectual. Their role is to be agents of change in people’s minds, and by making these points, and criticizing a social norm such as religious belief, Gary Yourofsky is fulfilling that role.

Now, the relationship between religion and politics (and yes, I think that considering his actions and record, Yourofsky has turned the topic of veganism into an almost political debate) has never been clear-cut. The two have been intertwined and melded ever since our country began. But I truly believe that Yourofsky main goal is to provoke people to really think about what they used to accept blindly, and to be more conscious of how their actions affect the world around them. In his perfect world, everyone would be vegan.

That may seem like a hefty order, especially considering the Standard American Diet, which typically includes a lot of animal products and cruelty. He’s sparks controversy with his blunt speech and radical actions. In fact, he’s been legally banned from five countries due to animal activism that he took part in. He routinely frees animals from captivity, even traveling around the world to do so. This is where I have some criticism of Yourofsky. If one aspires to be a public intellectual and serve a moral purpose, one should be aware of the weight of one’s actions. Some may look at the quasi-criminal actions Yourofsky has taken, and discount him entirely as a moral person. In fact, if one does not look closely at the situation, it may appear that Yourofsky is quite a hypocrite: he claims he wants peace and love for all living beings, but acts in aggressive and illegal ways in order to attain his goal. However, there are people who praise Yourofsky’s willingness to suffer the consequences of these actions, and there have even been cases of government officials getting involved to try and honor him. In Michigan, Donald Perkins and a team of attorneys worked on a resolution in Yourofsky’s name. He was quoted, saying:

"We recognize that throughout this nation's history, other individuals, acting from conscience have similarly violated certain laws and ordinances. In our own time, these same principles of nonviolent disobedience to unjust laws have been applied by such individuals as the Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., both of whom were—as was Michigan's Gary Yourofsky—sentenced to jail for their actions" (EVEN).

I think that most people will agree that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi are some of the most notable and respected public intellectuals and social activists. They stood for peaceful protest for equal rights, humanity for all livings things and civil disobedience. I argue that that is exactly what Gary Yourofsky is doing in his own way and for his own moral purpose. Yourofsky has even chained his own neck to his car when it was parked in protest in front of the Detroit Animal Control Center, as well as other feats of fearlessness where Yourofsky put the well-being of animals above his own (ADAPTT). I think that the time has come for the same energy that was put into human rights to be put into animal rights. After all, we are much more closely related to animal kind than most would like to believe. Some humans contain 96% similar DNA to chimpanzees (Lovgren). If we are in the business of getting equal rights for all, it is only right that animals be included. Yourofsky is of a similar opinion. To go about this, however, requires a certain degree of finesse—finesse that Yourofsky can sometimes lack. He is a man of strong ideas and even stronger values, but there are times that his opinions have alienated him from potential advocates for his cause.

So where is the line? What constitutes a criminal versus a social activist? I think that Yourofsky’s enthusiasm and willingness to work on education makes him more the latter than the prior. He does not have to do thousands of lectures, podcasts, radio and television interviews in order to free animals from captivity. That alone is not his goal. He wants to transform people into conscious, questioning and active members of society, and recognize when injustice is being done. Yourofsky’s videos are some of the most powerful evidence of animal cruelty I, personally, have ever seen. He bleeds passion for his cause and that comes through in every word he speaks through a camera or microphone. He willingly puts himself out there and debates with interviewers on live television. Gary Yourofsky has devoted his life to spreading knowledge about his moral purpose, and moves people to tears when they hear him speak. If you’re skeptical, I highly encourage you to check out his videos and interviews which are linked in this article. We, as a society, like to villainize people who are “too” outspoken about the wrong they see around them. History is a testament to this. Let us not make the same mistake with Gary Yourofsky.

Works Cited

ADAPTT. “About Gary Yourofsky." ADAPTT :: Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow. ADAPTT, 03 Feb. 2017. Web.

Eugene Veg Education Network. "EVEN Interview with Gary YourofskyVegan Lifestyle Articles From All-Creatures.org." AllCreatures.org. Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation, Oct. 2015. Web.

Lovgren, Stefan. "Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 31 Aug. 2005. Web.

Mack, Stephen. "The Supposed Decline of the Public Intellectual." The New Democratic Review. N.p., 24 Aug. 2016. Web.

Mack, Stephen. "Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual." The New Democratic Review. N.p., 14 Aug. 2007. Web.

Marie, Laura. "“Best Speech You Will Ever Hear” – Gary Yourofsky (Full Transcript) – Meat, Dairy and

Egg Industry." Laura Marie TV. WordPress, 22 Jan. 2014. Web.

Veganism & Religion I Gary Yourofsky. Prod. BIte SIze Vegan. Perf. Bite Size Vegan, Gary Yourofsky. YouTube, 19 Jan. 2015. Web.