Direct action

Having a soft voice, making suggestions, what is this? Softly spoken doesn’t get heard. Maybe we want a more macho approach, perhaps something more confronting. It is, after all, animal torture we’re talking about here, not some inconsequential matter. This is serious stuff. But is there another side to all this?.
Personally, I may need to prove I’m a serious animal activist. And maybe I’m hardwired to act bravely and that means being confrontational and virtually forcing animal rights onto people. It’s like shaking someone awake in a flame filled room. In the natural course of events humans get involved in one another’s lives. We fight for right, or rights. Ever since we won the right to free speech we’ve enjoyed confrontation and then, putting our money where our mouth, we act. We might engage in direct action. It works most effectively in groups, so a group raid on a local battery hen farm is daring and exciting and rescues animals (from their hell-prison). That sort of activity really feels like serious activism. The direct action of The Animal Liberation Front is well known. Activists are aligned by common purpose (they aren’t connected to a central group but work in local cells). They’re willing to break into and if necessary destroy property to save animals from intensive farming or research operations. They risk liberty to make their point. They save animals and document the conditions they find them in. They promise to ‘act directly’, without causing anyone any injury. But who can say what happens next, after everything has been planned? What happens in the heat of the raid? The danger here is not being caught or being punished but for one person to do something that can be made to look bad by the media. This is the main danger in direct action, where no one can guarantee how another activist will react in a group. If direct action was simply about being brave. But it isn’t, because everything we do, representing the interests of peaceful creatures, needs to be underlines by a strong commitment to non-violence. If we insist of playing the ‘confrontation card’ we could have a public relations nightmare on our hands. After the media have manipulated the story to meet their own needs the activist can be shown as a criminal or even a ‘terrorist’.
Direct activists risk heavy terms of imprisonment to rescue animals. They perform a great service to those animals they rescue. I respect their guts. I know I’m not brave enough to join them (and me, assuming the grand role of writing about all this instead!!!). Direct Activists act directly because that’s their way of communicating how they feel - that all animals have a right to a life. Surely at the cost of a few broken doors and locks it’s a small price to pay for the exposure of something so profoundly wrong in our society?. Isn’t it just a demonstration of truth? Surely in these cases, some collateral property damage is justified, especially since there’s no physical harm to anyone*?. But that’s the danger. It’s precisely because this can’t be guaranteed that we need to rethink the ‘confrontational approach’. How neat life would be if we could be sure all direct action was guaranteed to be non-violent and all rescued animals given sanctuary. Then, surely, no harm is done except to the profits of an egregious industry?

Direct action v. direct communication

If we want people to change we need to drop our confrontational approach and start up direct communication. We should know by now that people who aren’t vegan are free to remain so. They (know they) have the right not to be confronted. They don’t have to put up with being disapproved of if they haven’t broken any law. As vegans, we need to think how we can talk about animal rights and veganism in a civilised manner.
Talking about Animal Rights, in a non-threatening way, is an art. When at first we find no one wants to listen we think it’s our duty to bleat on regardless. Today, for many reasons, this subject is taboo. In polite company it is de rigueur NOT to speak about “the animals”. That might be infuriating but our response as communicators doesn’t have to be reactive. If someone does eat animal products, then whatever we have to say about animals is inevitably guilt inducing. I heard someone say the other day, in impolite company, never to “trust a fucking bean eater”. It’s easy to laugh at the boldness of this response, but to some it would make them angry.
Making judgements about non-vegans is a communication problem. If, as activists, we use sloganeering and propaganda to hammer home our points, people suspect they’re being judged. Spoken to by someone who seems disgusted at all meat-eaters, and assuming they are incapable of conducting a civilised conversation … about animals. As vegans we might have become so hardened towards carnivores that we have virtually no chance of discussing this subject rationally, without a ruction. Such a huge gulf exists, philosophically, between vegans and non-vegans. And in speaking together there are so many things to get across, ideas, feelings, beliefs. The divergence of views is so great that it’s not obvious how to bridge the gulf. I think there’s a short cut.

I think we can reach ‘them’ by direct communication, by starting with mutual respect, speaking as equals. Then imagewise, if we seem to be delivering a lofty message, we need to show humility. We know how strong our arguments are so we need to keep our feet on the ground. We might need a disposition of the animals we are advocating for. Perhaps we should act in the spirit of their patron saint - aspiring (in Saint Francis’ words) “to be the least in the house of God”.
Communicating this way might feel naked at first like loving your enemy too much. But perhaps it’s more like attracting attention, calling across a valley without sounding impatient or desperate, simply telling it how it is. Eventually each of us must decide whether we are speaking truth or just making a lot of noise. We have a voice so why not use it softly, to make suggestions rather than use it to issue instructions.

Communicating Animal Rights

When vegans talk about going vegan we are suggesting nothing less than a major lifestyle change - a rest of our life eating a plant-based diet, wearing plant-based or synthetic clothing and using cruelty-free products. The reasoning behind all this is obvious and for most established vegans it gets easier as time goes on. The benefits are many, especially after researching it and finding the food perfectly safe and healthy. Collectively, if everyone knew that most of the world’s greatest problems would be averted. That’s why we, as vegans, are willing to go to great lengths to communicate.
In our attempts to communicate we shouldn’t even hint at judgement (making moral judgements about other people) because of the damage it does. “You should be vegan” is almost guaranteeing antipathy. It’s like bungy jumping, because I’ve done it do I expect you to believe me, that it’s a really great experience? As vegans we have to remember that being cholesterol free and cruelty free feels good but to take that first step, even psychologically, it’s a big step. Even bigger if we are yet to be convinced about safety issues.
Because this health worry is both a reason and an excuse, we can’t be certain enough to make any judgements about people’s decision not to change to a vegan diet. Our uncertainty also reminds us why judging people in general is a waste of time, which could be better spent on the business in hand.
Our only focus should be on our thoughts for the animals because every one of them is standing there, right now, in captivity, waiting for their life pass. They have nothing to wait for but the day of their execution.
Advocating for our silent clients’ rights means speaking like lawyers. We need the facts at hand, about animals’ living conditions and mutilations, etc., in case we need to mention it. We need to know the environmental angle and the connection between our Western food supply and the global food shortage. But firstly and mostly we need to have in our heads the main facts about food.
In a conversation about veganism the first thing one usually gets talking about is food. Non-vegans would think it absurd to be vegan and yet be ignorant of the nutrition side of things. We have to be ready to field questions about animal derived protein, iron, calcium, vitamin B12, fats, sugars, etc. and explain how plant origin food (the vegan diet) is safe and beneficial. Once we can ‘cover’ the safety angle then we can talk about animals and what humans are doing to them. Only then can we expect people to take their the first step into this wonderful world that is largely inspired by ethics.

Freewill

Friday 29th August

We need to strike a balance between letting people make up their own minds and giving them the information they need to make informed choices. Animal cruelty and human health are probably the most vital elements in persuading us to make intelligent shopping choices. When people understand the reason for change, not to alleviate guilt but to be constructive, they see what veganism is all about. If change is entirely voluntary it’s more likely to remain for the long term. If anything is forced, change might not be sustained. Even if the animals are eventually freed and the environment saved, unless it happens in the right spirit we will eventually revert back to abusive habits. Especially when things get difficult.
Freewill is central to most people when they choose what to eat. Even if vegans know the danger of eating certain foods, we can only suggest change not force it, or manipulate it, because that undermines freewill. We have to let each person make up his or her own mind, and let them make any changes when it feels right for them, which brings us back to how we say things. Vegans have to make their ideas both convincing and enticing.

The Animal Rights position

If we want to advocate for animals then we must be committed to vegan eating, clothing and commodities. If that isn’t in place we won’t be taken seriously, but once that is secure and we also appear to be healthy, then people are likely to consider our diet to be not such a bad idea.
But however convincing we are, there are always going to be those who hold onto old attitudes in order to avoid making a radical diet change. Among them are people who insist vegan food isn’t safe and who want to discover dangers in the diet so they can be convinced that vegans are foolish to eat that way, or that they have dubious motives, or that our compassion is not genuine or that we are lying about what is happening to the animals. If they can dismiss us, it makes us no better than them, and then what we say can be dismissed. But there are lots of people who just don’t care about animals or diets or ethics, who are deliberately ignorant or they’re presently make a living out of animals. It’s in their interest to influence people to buy animal products and ignore animal rights … and so it goes on. As challenging as that might be, we can’t waste too much time trying persuade the unpersuadable. We need to move on without everyone’s approval.
If the cause of animal rights isn’t recognised as urgent and essential it will always be left on the backburner. Our job as vegans is to keep the issues alive to influence consumers to make vital shopping choices each day. Alongside this we need to encourage a wide variety of cruelty-free commodities onto the market. If many people operate product boycotts they will be effective in encouraging businesses to reinvent themselves to accommodate a new market demand.

Public Speaking 3

(This blog is twice as long as usual)

Having done quite a few of these ‘gigs’, may I offer a few nuts and bolts of public speaking, on this trickiest of all subjects?
Ostensibly we might have been invited to speak, but in order to speak freely and say what we want to say fully, we need to get past the defence barriers. It’s like applying for permission to open up some taboo areas. Now, talking about abattoirs and meat eating is relatively straight forward (many in the audience are likely to be vegetarian or interested in trying) but as soon as we start to talk about dairy cows we seem to be attacking their chocolate, ice creams or the milk in their coffee, so we need to preface what we are going to say, by explaining why by products are involved with cruelty. Most people know very little about what happens on the dairy farm and even less about the biological process by which milk is produced and the ethical implications of that. But in very general terms it’s essential to state that dairy products are not good nutritionally. Since almost everyone uses milk products we need to moved gently, not in what we say but in how we say it. We have to pay attention to the tone in our voice, and the humour and self-deprecation in it. If we get that right most of the audience will like us enough to let us say what we want to say, even about ‘dairy misconceptions’. In my experience an audience will continue listening only as long as they like you!! We need to keep our voice even, almost neutral, if only to draw out questions and encourage discussion. That means looking into the audience (all the time) to spot anyone wanting to say something.
Speaker to audience or face to face is so potentially powerful that body language is everything. Our voice is a main connector so it mustn’t ever be shrill, but we also connect by body language and most importantly we must maintain eye contact all the time (which rules out making frequent downward references to notes. Although it’s possible to make hand-held cards to remind us of the route our talk while committing the main thread of the talk to memory).
We’re not all Bill Clinton, ace professional speaker, we’re simply expected to be honest, interesting and useful. Since we are taking people’s time and probably testing their patience too our material has to be well prepared and well presented, but again I emphasise the need to be liked. A speaker is trying to win acceptance from the audience while delivering information. An audience often likes a little outrage and challenge because they know this event is not run of the mill. It’s never meant to be a church sermon, just something to consider. However much agreement at a talk, as soon as it’s over it’s probably back to the eggs and bacon for breakfast. People aren’t usually quickly converted, because essentially we all feel free to eat what we like and think what we like. A vegan’s job is to remind others how much we are concerned for the animals. That concern we have for ‘the other’ reinforces a positive image for us as animal activists. Unlike a book which one can be put down and picked up again later, direct interaction with people who are willing to listen to us (but who might be feeling nasty reactions rising up from within) means we’ve got to show allowance and not be severe. When we’re promoting animal rights it’s best if we keep ourselves out of the way and become almost like a book, like an advisory.
You should never try finger-wagging – I’ve know speakers to lose a finger that way!
We need to show understanding for the other person’s struggle, preferably by referring to how it was for us when we were beginning; how our own change-over period was not that easy; how we made mistakes; how we took backward steps. A speaker who is vulnerable, instead of holier than thou, is more likeable. All this comes across as non-judgement. No one in the audience should ever feel judged by the speaker, therefore we should never ask the audience “who in the audience is already vegan or vegetarian?” No one should try asking this, it in my opinion. It makes us look as though we need to feel superior.
In order to be in touch with the way things are today we should consider this: that the same change-over that we made, perhaps some years before, is possibly harder now, because of the many competing pressures on people to change in so many ways. Self-development is a cause, the environment and social justice are causes, and animal rights is another great cause. Like others it struggles to make impact alongside the other causes. This one is much harder to identify with for most people, making our struggle with it all the harder. Especially when trying to win over our fellow humans to win our best chance to change things for the animals. Hopefully the audience (consumer, customer, meat connoisseur) eventually comes to their senses. They reach a point where they take the principles of veganism and animal rights seriously. Once they arrive at this point then we should do everything we can to show we need them. In fact we need big numbers to create enough momentum for change. We need enough people to put pressure on legislators to pass laws, to bring an end to this abuse of animals. To pull this off veganism needs to be seen to be attractive, significant and a meaningful way to the future. It’s up to today’s practising vegans to earn the sort of respect to become role models.

Public speaking 2

I think it’s important to tell it like it is, not pretend that becoming an activist for animals or taking on a vegan lifestyle is either easy or difficult. Honesty about this particular matter is appreciated – to get an idea about what one might be letting oneself into. Whoever we are talking to, whether it be meat eaters about their shopping choices or farmers about their animals, or teachers or students about veganism, everything we say should eventually come back to our relationship with animals (and everyone of us has a strong connection with them whether by eating them or protecting them). For our part, vegans need to talk about animals as if they were sovereign individuals, as irreplaceable as one of our own. They are equal to us in their deserving a right to a life, just as we believe we are.
Most people don’t think too much about animals until they hear of an event where animal rights is the focus. When they go they show they’re interested. Maybe interested in the yummy vegan food that’s going to there, maybe for some really useful health tips, but amongst them are those who want to be in touch with the spirit of animal liberation. These are the ones who most deserve a good presentation from us.
Here we are. At a public event. We’re talking about animals as if they really mattered. How do we transfer this attitude? Perhaps best by transferring the very same serious, caring feeling over to those who really matter to whom we’re talking. Obviously we never talk down to them. In fact we should be giving them the green light to interrupt, recount their own stories, give their own opinions … if we (so called ‘speaker’) let them participate we make our talk less of a lecture and more of a discussion. And this needn’t continue indefinitely but at least, at some stage in the talk, it gives people listening the impression that the speaker is keen to listen as well. It may be a hall full of people but there needs to be created by the speaker an atmosphere of sitting around the kitchen table – because this is an intimate subject which we all have to learn HOW to speak calmly about, full of contentious issues, a subject crucial to the future, for all of us.

Public speaking

If we are speaking about animal rights in public, we need to establish how the audience is - hostile or warm. We need to be ready to adjust our tone accordingly. They might be friendly at first and then go cold on us if we start to become boring or start haranguing. Or they’ll be hostile at first until we can show we are friendly and with something useful to say, and not there to lecture them.
If we want to win an audience over and hold their interest we need to encourage them think seriously about what we are saying, and to do that we should show we’ve put in a few hours on the job of preparing the talk, perhaps using video, examples, stories, and having a variety of approaches to the message we’re trying to get across. In other words giving the audience a ‘quality product’. Our aim should be not to bore the audience, especially because this is a subject which is difficult and confronting. Our information and ideas should move along at a lick. Importantly, there need to be examples of how we personally have experienced the transition to veganism and animal rights. We lose no face by admitting personal difficulties we might have had. They’re probably not half as bad as those being envisaged by members of the audience.
The content of the talk might consist of information about animal exploitation and information about the implications on practising vegans. This lifestyle is central to those who want to become an advocate for exploited animals.
If we want to hold an audience’s interest, even though the subject is difficult, they need to know how long we are going to talk. By keeping the talk to 20-30 minutes and reminding listeners that questions and comments are going to be asked for, and by keeping a timer ticking to remind ourselves how much time we have left, the talk is never allowed to become an open ended ramble.

Say much but say little

Danger of over-saucing the pudding
Non-vegans represent the vast majority of humans: vegans represent a minuscule percentage. Numbers of vegans are not increasing rapidly enough to make veganism fashionable. Vegans don’t stand out enough as being smarter, kinder, more powerful, more creative or more persuasive than anyone else, not noticeably anyway. We come across almost as conservative and unimaginative as the next person. There’s nothing much, other than appearing more healthy. If we have fewer self-destructive habits or better ethics they don’t stand out enough to catch people’s attention.
If we vegans want others to be drawn to our principles we need to be able to talk inspiringly, that is, use arguments that are watertight. We must be beyond reproach ourselves. We have to be squeaky genuine and we don’t need to go around telling everybody that we are ‘vegan’ either. That’s not because people don’t need to know but because it looks as though we are fishing for compliments or spoiling for a fight. If vegans can play down this side of themselves they’ll be in a better position to have some useful exchanges about ‘the animal question’ without seeming to be people who always have to press their point, like door-knocking evangelists. We must resist the temptation to try to convert people. Unless we are asked to say more we should say little. We shouldn’t volunteer too much information at once. Our answers should be specific to the questions asked. By easing up on the hype we stand a better chance of winning people over.

Genuine

One problem for vegans is that our talking about goodness is dangerous. People think we have tickets on ourselves if we do - there’s nothing worse than a do-gooder. Another problem is one of common perception - that veganism is self punishment to make ourselves look good. So as vegans we have to be careful not to say things which reflect our own wonderfulness.
I remember a famous actor coming to a rehabilitation unit for wayward teenagers, to present them (on behalf of the Actor’s Union) with a new mini-bus. His smile was as warm as toast – but he was passed off by one of the kids as “fake as a Chiko Roll”.
If animal rights advocates want to avoid looking fake when we’re promoting high ideals, we have to earn respect, which means not boasting about vegan principles or criticising people as being ‘unprincipled’. It simply triggers hostility. Annoying though it may be we, as vegans, need to involve ourselves with people, encourage them to talk and listen to what they are saying. If we do that we earn respect. They might want to find out what we’ve got to say. They may not agree with us but they may be willing to give us the benefit of the doubt. They may, if they trust us enough, even listen to us. And, who knows, even try out what we suggest.
If we become unfriendly at any point or appear righteous or phoney, people will use that. In order to find a way to dismiss us they may take the easy option – believe we’re do-gooders who are so dazzled by our reality that we can’t see anyone else’s reality. We shouldn’t give anyone an excuse to rubbish us to make it possible to then rubbish our arguments.

Feeling good

(*Today's blog is twice as long as usual)

By avoiding animal products, by becoming vegan, we feel good too. Vegans usually look good because the diet is so beneficial to the body. But we’ve also crossed a personal Rubicon which makes us feel good, and probably that’s how every vegan feels about their decision – we have good feeling about how the stomach feels and feel good now we’re somehow less dense and perhaps mentally sharper.
This question of good, what is it? Is it self-satisfaction or altruistic intention? Is there an honourableness in empathising and not simply being ‘in it’ for ourselves alone. Or maybe it’s the feeling we get when we’re actively involved in non-violence, or the smooth feeling we get driving a car by getting into the appropriate gear to go up a hill. If our machinery is working we’ll be empathetic and we’ll want to be “nice”. But is that just being the nice guy?
The struggle between image and genuine feeling - if I want to be seen as the nice guy I’ll behave publicly differently to the way I am at home, nice outwardly but a nasty piece of work in my own eyes. Perhaps that distinction doesn’t matter as much as we might think. It may be the split which exists in all of us, questioning our own integrity, undermining our confidence in the nice guy within. Perhaps being good, doing good, being nice is about self enjoyment as much as it is about ‘being there’ for others. And it’s something we just are when we’re having fun or, more seriously, experiencing that ‘honourable-self’ feeling. It’s our own honourableness that we like most about ourselves. And we use it all the time to heal and put spark into our relationships and to help save the planet. Honourable people want to see the best in others, and often in wanting something honourable we create the very reality in our mind for it to become manifest.
This one is easy to screw up. We have certain ‘opposite behaviours’ that are the equivalent of shooting oneself in the foot. Top of the list is looking around for people’s bad points and wanting to be in judgement of them. It‘s enjoying the buzz of condemning.
Take a meat eater. It’s easy for us to condemn them and, at the same time, expiate our own guilts. But by not judging a person for something they do (that we don’t approve of) we make a strike for the greater good. That would mean not feeling angry at ‘it all’, no boasting about any progress we think we’ve made, being nice all round and being anonymous about it. That’s more or less what most of us do anyway in most of our interactions but we often don’t know we do it. But vegans are upping the ante here. We’re advocating a more comprehensive, all- encompassing, nothing-excluded altruism. In a nutshell it’s about being good beyond the confines of human family and human friends. But this sort of altruism isn’t for the feint hearted. It’s as hard not to judge as it is to persuade our mates to try a vegan diet. This avoidance of being destructive and an urge to be working for the greater good is the sustaining force we need to confront the massive resistance.
It’s likely the results of animal work won’t bear fruit during our own lifetime and yet our own seeds need to be sown. Animals rights, for example, might not come about until many of us are dead, but if we want to lay the foundation stones today, it’s not only essential that we do it right now, but to know that if we act now we’ll be building a better future … and in acting for the greater good we’re also acting to ‘feel-good’ about ourselves.
If we actually don’t care about what’s ahead ‘after we’re gone’, (“I won’t be around to see it”), you’d do well to stop reading this blog. You’ll have neither an interest in long term planning nor any interest in the concept of altruism, because it will be meaningless. You might still want a good self-image and for that you might need to seem good. But just seeming good doesn’t guarantee you’re going to like yourself any better or be liked more by others, especially if you go around showing-off your ‘goodness’. No one likes boasting, whereas everyone likes people who come to be ‘genuine’.

The depth of our commitment (to being good) is tested when we aren’t being recognised for what we do. Perpetual anonymity would, for some, be enough to turn them off being good altogether. And I suppose there are some righteous vegans who’re like that when they boast. That insecurity (in all of us) may come from this fear that we’ll never see the results or never be rewarded for the part we play. We’ve all surely gone down that path or we’re on that path or yet have to go down that path, but at the end of it we’ll know our own level of ‘right-ness’ when taking the high moral ground with others. Genuineness avoids the mistaken suspicion others might have of us, that we could have hidden motives.

A simple biscuit

If we don’t give up animal products we condone the violence done to them and therefore disqualify ourselves as true peacemakers. By the one daily action of shopping for and eating of animals we encourage the daily assault on them. That action wastes our best chance for future happiness, for us-personally or us-collectively … and of course for the animals too.
Humans are their jailers but we are also, potentially, their only hope. If we aren’t willing to defend them, their only chance for a natural life is lost. By taking part in the violence against them, by buying slaughterhouse products, we become part of that process. Take for instance the buying of eggs. The seemingly benign egg comes to symbolise the very worst violence imaginable towards a living animal. And that egg hides itself in the ingredients of familiar products that we’re used to buying.
I buy a packet of biscuits, the ingredients of which include egg from caged hens. As a biscuit eater I might not want to know all about the egg-laying hen. I just want to be left in peace to eat and enjoy my biscuit. But whether I know it or not, the fact is my biscuit contains something that can’t be justified I it is to know that biscuit makers don’t go around looking for ethical raw materials. If they make their product with eggs, it’s certain that they come from caged hens.
None of us actually approves of this system but we still buy egg-containing products. In doing this we compromise what we say we believe, namely non-cruelty. Beliefs like this could go to make us good people. To go against this goodness in ourselves, to be seduced by a biscuit, seems pathetic.
To feel okay about global warming we probably need an emissions trading scheme: but if we want to feel good about ourselves in regard to animal cruelty, there’s no system of guilt-trading to make us feel okay. All we can do is stop condoning it by not consuming ‘it’.

Vegan - start

If we decide to do something, to protest, to speak out, to become vegan, the first thing we’ll notice is the effect on our own self esteem. It receives an immediate boost, and obviously that feels good. Going vegan might be something we feel so strongly about that we display it, in the belief that others will notice it in us and want to do likewise. But no, it isn’t necessarily true that if we feel it that they will - if only it were as simple as that. We have to be content with travelling alone, more or less alone anyway. Just becoming vegan is all we can do at first - do it, then start to show it and patiently wait for others to follow suit.
Direct action is effective for rescuing animals from factory farms but there’s no direct action we can carry out on people’s minds. All we can do is to try to convince people of the benefits of making a personal choice and then letting them come around in their own time.
The reason why vegan thinking and vegan eating and vegan clothing are such a break through in human evolution is that we’ve discovered an alternative way of physically surviving. And those who have tried vegan diets know this to be true. We’ve found an improvement in health and well being, that is after being vegan for a while. At first though these experiments may have a few glitches. Our body needs to readjust and, on a social level, our relationships need time to acclimatise. We need to work on various levels simultaneously, until things are running smoothly. It isn’t immediate and it isn’t a complete panacea. It doesn’t necessarily bring us closer to people and it doesn’t immediately open up a strong sense of love or non-separation, but it does install a measure of non-violence into our lives. What we do about animals, and they way we steer clear of animal products, keeps us clear of the nastier side of our nature.

The comforts of carnivores

Over this matter of using animals, many people can’t make the great leap forward, towards herbivorous-ness. Like paedophiles who can’t help themselves and keep on assaulting children, carnivores continue assaulting animals. We can’t control ourselves - we can’t give it away, we can’t reduce our habit and so we take risks with our own ethics, health and our relationship with the natural world. We’re willing, for the sake of keeping our comfort food, to risk our very conscience. None of this animal food is actually necessary on any level whatsoever and none of it un-replaceable with plant-based alternatives, or if clothing synthetic alternatives, and yet we continues with it. Our habit prevents us from being in control of our choices.
This is a heavy price to pay, to keep the conscience quiet. People are willing to follow the crowd and give up personal integrity. We want to feel okay but also want to feel safe. And in the public perception our taking on a vegan diet seems to be risky. So we eat animal foods and hope to ‘get away with it’, healthwise. Ethically it’s not even credible that we can justify what we do to them. So there’s a tendency to ignore this and sink back into the comfortable belief that animals can’t hit back and it must be the natural order of things, that we predate the weaker species.
It’s true that they can’t fight us or pose any danger to us, well, not head on anyway, not in the same way as we attack them … but then, of course it’s not quite that straightforward. Their attack on us may not be intended by them or at all immediate. But it is always there, the danger of the long term, xeno-transplanted effect of consuming their material over a period of time – instinctively we suspect the animals have a sting in their tail. We know they do ‘hit back’, by way of the toxicity of their edible body parts, and the god-knows-how-much adrenaline-infused contaminants entering the muscle tissue at the abattoir, from all the fear and terror generated there.
Animal foods play the part of Montezuma’s revenge - if we eat animals and feel good we’ll keep on eating them, and then it’s likely we’ll end up NOT feeling so good. And I suppose you could say, speaking generally of humans, that this is a just return for all the appalling treatment the animals have undergone on our behalf. The penalty people pay for pretending NOT to know about the animals is largely a matter of ill health. Those who leave it too late to become aware, might one day realise the risk they’ve been taking over many years of their life.
Being largely unaware, until recently, of the dangers of eating animal foods (both ethically and health wise), humans have exploited animals, as an available resource, for hundreds of generations, since the first humans (2 million years ago). We have no written evidence that people ever related to animals in a compassionate, egalitarian or non-violent way. The human species has always been very utilitarian, taking advantage of everything that couldn’t fight back. Since animals have always been easy pickings, we’ve always caught them, kept them captive (and now today caged them), and we use the most scientific methods to efficiently breed them, and then we take what we want from them. And just to prove how much we don’t-give-a-stuff, we then have them killed in specially designed execution chambers so that we can (for chrissakes) EAT them. What sort of relationship between the species is that, one wonders?

The story of the way animals are treated is so sad that most people can’t think about it. And thinking is the key here. It’s the lack of thought and empathy that leads most people to go to the abattoir to buy the foods they want. We neither consider the animal nor how much money is extracted from us by the animal industries.
Every day we risk food-related disease, and rather like lambs to the slaughter we meekly accept our fate, which might very well mean an untimely or ugly death. I suppose the obvious question is why can’t people accept the value of leading a satisfying, guilt-free vegan lifestyle?

Maybe

What makes most people hostile to animal rights? Do they disagree with the humane side of our arguments? Not usually. Is it that humans have an unquenchable violent streak or blood lust? Probably not. Is it innate greed? Is it that humans have a cold nature? Perhaps that’s only something that’s arisen lately. Do we lack concern for animals? Maybe. These days we’re probably so punch drunk with competing concerns that we feel nothing strongly enough to make any powerful decisions, and certainly not ones that could tip our emotional balance, like taking on a vegan lifestyle.
We see ourselves as sophisticated humans, but in truth we are probably rather primitive - we probably operate from a ‘flight or fight’ instinct, based on a combination of believing animal foods to be necessary along with a primal need to maintain our dominant position over animals. Equally primal is a need to maintain a smooth supply of animal foods (in our shops).
Perhaps this self preservation instinct is reinforced every day at mealtimes, and by it reinforcing our social normality too. Maybe to balance the guilt we feel about animals being killed and enslaved on our behalf we justify it by insisting that we should be free. Free to choose what we eat. And over our adult years familiar foods assure a certain level of satisfaction without which we fear we’d become unsettled.
If we can be convinced that animal foods are ‘natural’ then farming (and killing) practices will not be noticed. And likewise, if we fail to notice those deteriorations in our own bodies, brought about by the continual use of animal products, we won’t see how our eating habits conspire against our instinct for good nutrition. Instead of maturing our taste for healthy foods we continue to enjoy our ‘nursery teas’ and rich dinners and snacky treats. Eventually, usually too late, we realise that something we value in ourselves has been spoiled - the vitality and sharpness we once had is on the wane.
We get used to even that. Perhaps we call it ‘the ageing process’. And then, out of this, come other disasters - we lose confidence in ourselves physically, we’re ashamed of ourselves spiritually, we lose sight of the honourable part of ourselves. So, because of our attachment to animal food we allow our hearts to harden. However much we try explaining it away, we always come back to food addictions and our attachment to thousands of familiar eatables which we’ve grown accustomed to over our lifetime. Maybe we’re slaves of human habit just as the animals are slaves of human beings.

Shopping for food

It’s in the shopping aisle we make our biggest decisions – either to stick with the usual food choices or switch to a more ethical eating pattern. This is where we decide how to use our money – to withdraw it from certain products so as not to give oxygen to the producers or to continue sponsoring them, so they can continue supplying us.
When we give in to food seduction, to foods that trigger “biochemical effects not unlike those of addictive drugs” like sugar, chocolate, cheese or meat, we do so without giving it a second thought. We let our taste buds do our decision-making for us - if it’s yummy we eat it. Salivation says it all – we response to that gland. On the way home from the shops, if we savour certain foods, we visualise the meal to come. We look forward to certain dishes for which we’ve just bought the contents.
When we deliberately go cruelty-free shopping it’s another story. We quite consciously replace animal-based foods with plant-based foods (and that also means replacing leather and woollen goods with non-animal footwear and fabrics). Whatever items we choose to boycott it’s pretty much a straight forward, matter – simply give no support to animal-food producers. After that position has been taken up, then it’s just a matter of reading the fine print on the ingredient lists and switching over to alternative products.
If we make a conscious decision NOT to change it’s a decision to keep to a habit pattern which then prevents us from making any genuine contribution to animal rights. If we’d like to express sympathy with these animals we’re faced with an ethical dilemma – either we shop with animal rights in mind or we continue to ‘screw the animals’; we either do the right thing or we do what others do.
What usually happens is that we refuse to even discuss this subject, treating it like a taboo. Who’d have ever thought that one day we’d be confused about food unless we were considering health matters? Who’d have thought that our every-day shopping could put us to such a test?

Taste buds and will power

If we do decide to dip our toes into ‘chillier waters’, by putting soy milk on our corn flakes or cooking with tofu or falafel, our taste buds at first protest. Then we need will power to get over the initial glitches and get used to new tastes … and who hasn’t been there? Who hasn’t, at first, disliked unfamiliar tastes and turned back to more familiar foods? After a life time of cultivating our tastebuds, here we are, trying to re-educate them overnight. We can’t expect them to ‘roll over’ to vegetarian replacements without a struggle. This is where patience is a real virtue.
It’s a short lived struggle usually, surprisingly short, but one wouldn’t know that until one starts. So at first we need will power, something extra to push us on, a self discipline based on a ‘no-touch-animals’ policy, something strong enough to overcome the bright coloured packaging of familiar foods, something strong enough to override memories of favourite foods. We are, after all, up against two million years of meat-eating culture, but on no lesser scale we’re up against the easy associations with foods we’ve shared with our friends. We consider, we conclude, we take steps to put our favourite foods behind us, to put the whole animal-food culture behind us . . . and prepare to take on the new regime as bravely as we dare.
Changes happen. A subtler food experience unfolds. Not so sugary perhaps, nor as salty, nor as blood-soaked, nor as fattening, nor as rich, but instead new flavours, new textures and a whole new culture coming through.

Decisions, decisions

Young people especially are more savvy these days. They find animal rights attractive and convincing, and are drawn to adopt ethical attitudes towards food. Alongside this they don’t want to be poisoned; healthier eating, high energy foods and foods for low body weight are attractive to the young. But for many in this ‘gentler generation’ it’s animal cruelty that really hits home. It’s the clincher. The horror of finding out what happens on today’s animal farms is connected to what food and clothing we are buying, and which need boycotting.
Thinks …would I deliberately eat second rate food? Thinks …would I deliberately hurt animals? Thinks …would I want to support a whole industry that is dedicated to hurting animals and pumping out junk? But this is an intellectual position. It’s not necessarily connected to what we end up doing. Our food and clothing choices are largely a private affair. Food choice is almost sacrosanct and is to be defended at all costs, against outside interference.
Where food of animal origin is concerned we want to forget where it comes from. Food is closely connected to habit, and habits are connected with our own stability. We like foods that are more-ish. We’re attracted to rich, tasty ingredients. In the traditional Western diet, with about 70% of our food items containing animal ingredients, it means there would have to be a lot of boycotting going on. And that makes life difficult. Such a broad boycott requires conviction. It’s easier to give in to our weaker side even when we know we’re helping to hurt animals when we do.
So this sensitive subject of animals and the eating of them sets off explosions in the conscience. Either we don’t give a stuff about animals (and continue buying whatever we feel like) or we care about them and boycott the lot.
Knowing about intensive farming, as most of us do these days, makes us react to information – we either decide to act or we don’t. Core values, learnt from childhood, about rights and wrongs either move us or they don’t. Do we consider our habits, test our food addictions and start to avoid certain things? When we can’t find suitable replacements do we also consider doing without? It’s quite a test!

Pushing the product

As soon as they run an ad on TV, they seem desperate - the animal industries are trying to sell something that has always been staple, like milk, eggs and meat. These products once never needed to be advertised at all. Now they have to use all sort of advertising gimmicks and dress up their products to look convincing, although the bottom line is that they have a powerfully addictive product on their hands.
These days the social acceptability of their products is coming into question. Animal products are on the nose ethically and health wise because conditions on farms are both unhygienic and uncaring. (Pharmaceuticals fare no better, since they are often closely associated with vivisection and ‘prescription pill illnesses’.) All this is becoming a big turn off to many customers.
Most people want to do the right thing. Most of us would like to think well of ourselves and we want to be seen as intelligent and humane, but that clashes with the ugliness of the animal products we’re consuming and the stupidity of letting them make us fat and ill. Our suspicion about them is only heightened by over-the-top advertising. We like to believe in our autonomy and discrimination but, against this impression, we still buy the food we know we shouldn’t buy. We can’t help it, because it’s addictive. It always comes back to our own decisions – we know that no one tells us the truth about these foods and the industry is allowed to push it as hard as they like. If we eat animal foods there a chance we may be dicing with death and dicing with our ethics.
Whenever we buy an animal product we give the nod for the industry to get away with murder, literally. It’s always been so … until recently where the levels of awareness have become far greater. Now there’s a growing number of well qualified scientists pointing out disease associations with animal foods, and this, along with TV footage of the grim conditions on factory farms, has had the effect of making vegetarianism seem more attractive. For instance, in UK amongst young adults, vegetarianism has risen from less than a few percent two decades ago to over 25% now. And in Britain, parts of Europe and USA, veganism isn’t uncommon, and the up-front labelling on food packaging saying “suitable for vegans” is familiar to most shoppers in those countries.
If the writing is on the wall for the animal industries and they’re beginning to feel the pinch, they are showing it in their expensive advertising campaigns. Current and former customers are more likely to see the nervous approach of the ‘industry’ and gravitate towards plant-based products. And that might mean that veganism isn’t so very far from being the fashion, thence to become the norm.

The majority

The minority always seems powerless to convince the free-willed majority to think compassionately, especially about animals used for food and research. The majority loves their familiar foods and believes in the safety of animal tested drugs. The majority prefers to believe that animals must be sacrificed to make food available and life safer. Hence it will not see the bigger picture and certainly not see things from the animals’ point of view. They won’t support the liberationists, and would rather see animal activism as a whacko cult, rather like any disgruntled person’s protests being more like a temper tantrum against a society which they can’t fit into.
Anyone who does debate the issue, putting the case against animal rights, has majority support because most people want to see animal rights arguments put down, the better to maintain the status quo. They want their supplies of ‘normal’ foods and medicines. It’s depressing that so few are in sympathy with vegan principles.
But for vegans there are distinct advantages. The majority, by turning a blind eye to the way animals are treated, also turns its attention away from what the animal rights groups are doing, letting us go about our business, laying the foundations whilst keeping a low profile in the media. Because we go almost unnoticed, we haven’t yet been widely rubbished or ridiculed. No one in the media wants to draw any attention to us or what we are saying because they’re keen not to offend either their advertisers or the consumers. There are very few articles written about farm animals and few interviews with animal activists because the interviewers themselves are unsympathetic. They don’t want to touch this subject for fear of having their own double standards shown up during an interview.
But as the movement grows we can expect things to change. The whole subject of animal use isn’t presently discussed, either around the private dinner table or in the TV studio because animal products represent a vast market and a vast advertising revenue … but slowly and surely the majority customer is wising up. The persuasions of the animal industries are becoming less and less convincing. People are less able to avoid animal rights arguments. That’s all the more reason why activists should come across as reasonable, intelligent and well informed communicators.

Getting through to people

The eternal question for animal rights activists is the problem of touching people’s hearts. It sometimes seems impossible to find a way to make an impression, and as each of our attempts fail we can become more desperate. Scarcely able to conceal our rage the protests we organise can come across as aggressive and even violent, often seeming to have a why-can’t-you-fuckin-well-listen approach. It’s not a good look. People close off to this. What ever goodwill they might have had disappears when they see how ugly we look, shaking our fists and waiving our angry placards. For our part, we feel justified in making strong statements. But in the end it all comes down to perception. Their perception comes from what they see on the surface - the impression of angry people shouting about something. That’s all they see. They don’t get as far as finding out what the activists are protesting about.
Our in-yer-face approach plays right into the hands of our detractors. The authorities are pleased to label us agitators or even, when there’s violence, terrorists. However justified we may feel at the outrageous cruelty perpetrated on animals, if we want to be given the chance to speak the aggressive approach is probably a big mistake. We might mean well by trying to ignite a sense of guilt in people, to stimulate a sense of responsibility and get them to agree with us, but it probably doesn’t work that way, for the majority. We need to be more subtle, less crude, more persuasive and less unattractive. Because we are so few in number we have to find more inspired ways of getting through to people.

Behind closed doors

Some activists break into vivisection laboratories to rescue the animals there. Judging by what they have to do to get in and what they find when they do get inside, their actions seem both commendable and brave. It’s understandable that they not only want to rescue the animals but want to film what they see there. But the general public doesn’t want to know. Our society gives tacit approval for what goes on in these places because, for selfish reasons, people have been led to believe scientists will discover cures for major diseases through animal research. The public like to think of vivisectors as being altruistically driven to rid the world of the scourge of disease, and some may be doing just that. But it can never be justified if innocent creatures are involved. If animals are going to be tortured and sacrificed in the process then any good intention morphs into madness. The scientist talks about their ‘work with animals’, as if they have some sort of cooperation from them, as if the animals are voluntarily putting themselves forward for testing, in their zeal to help the human race with their problems.
If the public are sold on the idea that pharmaceutical safety must involve animal testing, then it is no surprise that they condemn the activist’s direct action and condone what vivisectors do. By giving them the go ahead to use anything (including animals) to fight disease, vivisectors win public approval and lessen any moral constraint on what they do. Details of experiments are very difficult to get hold of. Animal laboratories are closed to the public. And these days the public are not allowed entry into intensive farms or abattoirs either. Obviously in these places there is so much to hide.
It’s not hard to see why animal rights activists get annoyed at the lack of support from the public. Whether it’s the cruelty of farmers or scientists, the need for the liberation of animals still hasn’t registered in most people’s minds. It is infuriating when people don’t respond to the stories they hear about animal treatment, whether in abattoirs or farms or in animal research centres. Their indifference makes them appear both hard hearted and selfish. And worse still, it makes them pretend that nothing bad is happening there.

The monster at work

The reason a vegan might feel angry with the world is because people are so reluctant to change. But there is also a sense of futility in everything we try to do, in expecting our fellow humans to be more conscientious than they actually are. The constant disappointment is that others seem so oblivious to the suffering of animals that they continually pass up the opportunity to change. They continue to eat rubbish foods, continue to get ill and continue to hold violent attitudes. It seems such a waste of personal potential and so, for many of us, it causes us exasperation rather than anger.
Vegans who are active in the animal rights movement invest their free time in a great cause and just when they think they are getting somewhere they find no one is taking a blind bit of notice. Even close friends. And then when the braver activists try to go into the public arena and speak up, they get knocked down, or worse, they’re made to look like fools.
Everything we stand for - the principle of plant-based diets and animal rights and non-violence - is given minimal press coverage and if we try to bring it to public attention we’re prevented. We have to stand by and see misinformation moulding people minds. It’s difficult to see momentum building or any real sign of people questioning what they’re told. Not surprisingly we get nervous for the animals who can only rely on the good nature of humans to save them. The hope is that people will eventually tap into their own good nature. But for the present we can only see them condoning slavery, captivity and killing. It’s practiced by the animal industries but we consumers support it. And involving fewer animals but involving greater cruelty is the vivisection industry. If we could visit factory farms, abattoirs or vivisection labs (which we are not allowed to do) we’d see that with some animals humans can be monsters.
Perhaps it’s easy to see people this way when you think of the live cutting of an animal for scientific research. White coated creatures of one species objectify a living, breathing, feeling creature of another species. It does seem to be monstrous behaviour, experimenting on them as if they had no feelings. When you think of a rabbit, for example, being used to test a shampoo (for eye safety), by restraining its body, taping open its eye lids and then squirting corrosive chemicals into its eye. This action must be just about the most terrifying experience any sentient being could undergo, unable to defend itself or escape. What we see here is an animal being made to experience torture.
Whether the suffering takes place on a vivisector’s slab or on the killing floor at an abattoir, the coldness with which pain and suffering is inflicted by the human is frightening. It’s a terror no sentient creature should ever have to undergo. No human should be capable of devising or carrying out such acts. Nothing can justify it. The perpetrator is not only insane to do it but dangerously insane by influencing others to think it acceptable.

Consistent approach

If we take on a vegan food regime, not only will animals’ lives be saved but the health of human populations will also be saved. By following a vegan diet we act altruistically, perhaps not at first, maybe not initially, but then, as it’s established, eventually the food regime seems very much in our own interest. By acting for the greater good, for animals and for the endangered environment, we save resources used to feed ‘food-animals’ which could be diverted to feeding malnourished humans (it’s bizarre to think that overfed children suffering from obesity can live right alongside children suffering from starvation). As we recognise the absurdity of popular eating habits and we make the necessary adjustments to our own lifestyles, it’s as if we’re leaving behind some big part of the insanity of the modern day world. Thence to start a recovery process.
I don’t think how it all came to be this way is as important as how it can so easily be repaired. Nothing can be left to chance and yet nothing has to be done, but what is done ought to be done well, not perfectly but useably. So, for instance, the loving, protective attitude we have for our own kids, in our own homes, must become the standard-of-protection for other human members of the world outside our family, and that same standard extended to other beings. It’s this consistent approach to life in all its forms, whether son or daughter, cat or dog, pig or cow, or a tree or river. It’s not a matter of exercising willpower or spreading ourselves too thinly, it’s just knowing that we can respond to all the silent cries for help that pass our way. Any cry.
That’s why vegetarians should try to become vegan, because the vegan diet lies at the start of the peace project. And surely it’s a peaceful approach to life that feeds back into our relationships … with everything. To refuse to eat meat but then to exploit animals for their by-products and co-products falls far short of having a consistent approach to the idea of peaceful co-existence. And that’s also why vegans don’t ever need to be warlike with those who don’t agree with us. If we eat and behave consistently we have the best chance for personal happiness and public effectiveness.

Original thinking

If original thinking frightens most people, it’s probably because it means questioning things once thought watertight. And then, as soon as we start to re-examine one thing, a whole lot of other things come into question. This is why the animal question stirs up so much fear – where will it all end if animals are no longer there to be eaten or be used? What will happen if we start to respect them and recognise their individuality? If we give them the same right to an unenslaved life as we grant to our own species, then it will become a crime to assault them in any way.
Many of us do see animals this way. And certainly we wouldn’t condone anyone hurting them in any way whatsoever. Animals are peaceful; they represent perhaps the most benign sentience on the planet. The cow, the chicken, the pig, the goat, the duck, they are all quite harmless. They have a no-damage-no aggression approach to life. For those of us with eyes to see, it’s not difficult to appreciate their inner beauty. Animals appear dignified, perhaps because they aren’t corrupted or guilty of anything, whereas the same can’t be said of humans. Is it possible that we can’t tolerate anything that puts us in a bad light? Or can’t bear the idea that animals are more highly evolved than us, in this respect.
So what do we do? Admit our shortcomings and atone? Not likely! Instead we go to war with them and make their life a misery. We execute them and then EAT them! And to show even greater contempt for them, respected people like research scientists are capable of even worse acts. Our need to abuse animals in order to satisfy some primitive urge in us is not unlike the powerful urge of the sexual predator against vulnerable women and children. It’s a perversion that has been growing amongst humans for two million years.
Because we’ve done so much damage to animals we should instead study and emulate them. For a start we should alter our food and commodity buying habits which exploit the animal population, and then get used to living from plant-based foods, as they do. (Almost all animals we exploit for food are herbivores). And then we should set up safe havens for those animals presently kept captive.

Taking the initiative

As individual vegans we should obviously have a no-touch-animals policy – keeping it simple and understandable. There are overtones here of “humans can’t be trusted around animals”, which is true enough when animals are dollar earners, but it’s best avoided since the common perception is that humans love animals, as indeed they do, some!). Broadly though, unless lovingly we shouldn’t touch animals, in the wild it’s dangerous, companion animals it’s for love, farm animals, that is where the word ‘touch’ means ‘have anything at all to do with”. If we can apply this no touching of animals maxim to ALL animals, from this stems the principle of practical day to day harmlessness, and then from this all the other arguments for attitude change fall automatically into place.
This principle manifests in the foods we eat and the relationships we have with one another. It starts at home, in personal behaviour and the building of personal thought patterns. If we want to be independent thinkers we have to set our own standards. We can’t rely on others to set them for us. No one else is anyway going to make or be responsible for the big decisions in our own lives. For example, no government is ever going to close abattoirs. It would be political suicide if they did. Short of a catastrophe forcing their hand, it is surely never going to happen that way. We need to make changes for ourselves and let others notice them. In other words, let yourself be seen, let others be turned-on by what they see … until there are enough harmlessness-inspired vegans to demand change.
When this happens, who knows when, it will almost certainly be a slap in the face for politicians, academics, spiritual big shots and media, who’ll have missed a golden opportunity to lead, and then it will be for them to admit they were wrong and that the animal thing was all one big dollar earning hoax and that maybe quite a number of war crimes were committed, etc., thence to fall into line with the current trend. Change will happen only when ordinary people begin to think for themselves and gather together to make their feelings felt.

Useful help

Specifically vegans need to offer help, especially to those who want to change yet who might think changing’s too difficult. Our advice should be given with no strings attached. We shouldn’t expect too much in return nor expect to mould opinion.
First up, we need to be concise and interesting, never proselytising or seeming to want to recruit a following. Animal Rights doesn’t need followers, it needs individuals who have come to their own conclusions, who are able to be their own judge and jury. If they consider animal rights and come to similar conclusions in their own minds, and then want to DO something, it’s up to them. Then they may go on to do some useful advocating for animals.
In order that this process is given the best chance to succeed vegans need to be exemplars of non-violence. When we get a chance to speak out for the animals we have to set the example of not trying to clobber our opponents, especially if they provoke us or make it easy for us. We shouldn’t seem eager to bully. Even the most ardent opponent of animal rights should be regarded as a potential colleague, presenting a valuable challenge. Despite opposition (bar the threat of prison or violence) we should try to reach everybody. We’re not merely after thousands of supporters but billions of them, so it’s best not to fall-out with anyone, unnecessarily. We might want quick results but it’s likely to be just a bit longer journey than the within-my-own-lifetime period we are hoping for.

Check the talk

In any conversation on serious issues such as animal rights we should automatically check all the time, to be sure we aren’t becoming too volatile, or that the conversation isn’t becoming too one sided (too much of my stuff and not enough of yours). If a person is left out they’ll feel put-out, like they’re being lectured at.
Conversation needs to be interesting and worthwhile, disagreements notwithstanding. Most of us like to explore the pathways of one another’s thoughts and beliefs and, wherever our discussions take us, in the end we need to leave one another on a positive note. So we can resume at a later date.
For vegans, animal rights may be a deadly serious subject but it has a particular up-side. Veganism is a rock. The pursuit of the dream of an entirely vegan world gives us a great deal of satisfaction and puts meaning into our lives. But to get the most out of ‘talking about it’ we need to get good at it - learn details, become knowledgeable, be informative, and then there’s a chance we can jolt others out of their long held attitudes (their long-held sleep).
For vegans there’s a danger. We argue what is to us an incontrovertible case. Vegan principle. But the trouble is, for people who have stumbled upon veganism and consequently ‘Gone Vegan’, they, that is we, that is me, think were right. But that doesn’t and shouldn’t mean we are right in everything we believe in. We’re surely all of us are learning machines and discovering agents?
If, for dysfunctional reasons, we are still caught up in ego-ey things, it’s likely we’ll want to be seen as special. And special people are right. Right all the time. Vegan’s have sometimes a small problem here, me included. We think we are right. We get careless with our arguments by leaning too heavily on the moral imperative. We think we can shock people into conversations and thence to conversion, with stories about the horror conditions on animal farms and slaughterhouses. And sometimes it tips the scales and gets people thinking. But often the resistance is so fierce when people are not ready for a moral battering, that we need to be able to let it rest and not try to go in even harder or even go on-and-on about it. Then we can live to fight another day.
By not becoming too rabid about our subject we’re more likely to be seen as a selfless advocate, someone who is not in it to win personal kudos but simply to represent the need to protect animals.
However careful we are at presenting as “animal guardians”, it won’t always sit well with everyone, and that can be a tough lesson to learn for vegans. If others don’t understand us we must nevertheless try to both understand them and win their respect for what we are trying to do. We shouldn’t in any discernible way show we expect their immediate agreement with us - to save animals before saving ourselves. They may not agree with us and have good reasons for their own views - a view, already honed and worked-on by us throughout our lives. In our own minds we may have thought, and come to conclusions about certain major issues – like ‘the animals’. My view will not, for instance, be easily altered by certain belief systems that you’ve got. And so it is with meat eaters, and it will be an interesting unfolding in the art of communication, to see the progress of future dialogue - vegan to omnivore.
Looking ahead, it’s VITAL we try to always keep on side with them, even when sorely provoked. “Them” are us, as we all were (excluding child vegans). We, as ‘ex-cons’, need to explain (if we’re allowed) how egalitarian we feel and therefore how reluctant we, as vegans, are to leave them behind.

Embarrassments over dinner

What is the art of talking? Isn’t it something to do with the free flowing, unselfconscious ease with which we toss ideas about? Keeping ideas interesting and entertaining? Perhaps the problem with most animal rights ideas is that they don’t have much ‘toss’ in them and they aren’t meant to entertain. They could well be considered the very opposite of interesting. If vegans are talking about animals they can be embarrassing because they always come back to animal slavery and that points to abolition – it’s pretty much an absolute position. The ideas are not at all fluid. There’s really no middle way. The reason this subject is so contentious is that vegans are on one side of the fence and a massive fence it is too, and non-vegans are on the other side. If we’re vegan it’s likely we’re involved and outraged by the issues whereas non-vegans are pretty much uninterested in the subject.
Animal eaters aren’t usually thinking about it at all. Every time they go food shopping or eat a meal, they pointedly avoid thinking about animals (as beings worthy of consideration). It’s a ‘non-thought’ and is disconnected from conscious daily practice. If there’s a vegan present at dinner time it’s much more difficult to sustain this non-thought when lots of different animal foods are being consumed. The meat eater (non-vegan) can feel judged or feel vulnerable to attack. Who wants that at dinnertime? It’s considered outrageous if vegans make any comment about the food being eaten. They are resented (for bringing into focus what is normally never thought about or spoken about), resented for trying to spoil the enjoyment of eating. Whenever this subject is approached there’s a memory trace formed. Whatever is said, especially in the way it is said, it is probably going to be remembered when next we’re together. Meat eaters don’t like inviting vocal vegans around to meals. In fact there’s no time when the meat eater wants to run the risk of being assaulted by vegan views. So if we are ever discussing animals with omnivores we need to think about the art of talking. The art of discussing animal rights is to keep things lively without getting personal or threatening, so that when we do meet again we’ll still be on speaking terms with each other.

Engaging in conversation

When we suggest to people that they should stop eating animals it is no small thing. We’re proposing a major change in lifestyle and eating habits, implying that animal slavery is morally wrong and animal food is crap food. That’s one powerful statement which non-vegans, being on the defensive, don’t want to hear about. But that’s what vegans do want to talk about.
So, that’s what we are doing, stimulating debate, encouraging others to discuss these issues. Which means we have to be doubly careful that our motives are genuine. If any discussion gets going, we shouldn’t be in it for any self aggrandisement or to score points. We should be trying to engage people on this subject for their benefit alone.
It’s not a win-win game. We aren’t trying to get the first punch in. We don’t want to force a submission. Quite the opposite, we’re trying to listen to people’s genuine concerns and beyond that, to establish how to talk matters through without the use of high emotion. In that way there can be a free flow of ideas and opinions, each one developing out of the other (which is how a stimulating conversation develops whatever the subject is). So, if we’re ‘discussing’ animal rights we are all learning. Which means we’re all benefiting from each other on different levels, helping to understand one another’s way of thinking, refining our own thought processes as we go along. Importantly we’re learning how to listen.
Since it’s not a win-win game and it’s not about watching for mistakes, or getting to that point where we can prove the other person is wrong, and it’s not about pretending to listen just waiting for openings to jump in again with what we want to say. It’s conversation. And on this subject just to converse is valuable in itself. It airs the arguments and tests relationships by getting to know how far we can go with each other.
Even if we’re feeling a bit marginalised, as minority vegans in a sea of omnivores, even when we’re feeling out-gunned by the majority, we still shouldn’t want to crush the opposition view. If we try they’ll simply run away. Vegans have to be not too pushy even when we are given an opportunity to say something irrefutable. It’s so subtle, especially when we’re talking to a friend who might already have a pretty good idea where we’re coming from.
Our normal everyday conversations are usually largely unselfconscious, in as much as we are merely speaking spontaneously. But in ‘serious’ conversations we’re much more likely to have our own agenda, and if we have opposing views to each other (views which act as the stamp of our identity), by expressing them too hard we can easily put a strain on our friendships. And it works in the opposite way too. If we’re afraid to offend friends it might inhibit our freedom of expression, and then we find ourselves walking on egg shells, and nothing useful is achieved. [Which is a bit like parents of adult children having to hold their tongues to minimise strain on relations with over-confident and now-grown-up offspring. If an argument arises and the younger person’s defence barriers go up too quickly, there’s danger. It’s rather the same with talking to anyone uninitiated in issues concerning animal rights or veganism - vegans are likely to find themselves in a delicate position, and we need to know how to defuse a situation before it flares up. I’m only mentioning all this because things can seem to get dangerous quite quickly, when discussing animal rights.

Communicating with a gentle touch

When advocating animal rights, we need to speak up as strongly as we can but with a soft enough body language not to frighten anyone off. One hint of a sneer and we’re done for! Through our face and by the tone of our voice we can show we are NOT there to win arguments, only to engage. By establishing these preliminaries it shows we aren’t evangelists. That we effectively promise no sermonising.
If we can come across as nice people, talking freely and saying almost anything we want, daringly but with a ring of humour, there’s no threat. When we’re not trying to humiliate or frighten anyone, we’re then seen as trustworthy in our signals. We are what we seem. And then we can talk our hearts out! We can show, by the way we handle this subject, that we realise how sensitive it is, by making our point, but as we make points it’s as if we’re scoring points, then we get a competition going, who’s more right, etc. To avoid this, I think one ought to show that we are prepared for differences to come up, and that we can deal with them calmly. Without using emotional explosives. Our job is surely to put people at ease when telling them what it’s all about.
Animal Rights is the most difficult subject. Once we start talking about it people begin to get edgy. It’s not as if we are talking about the weather. This all can get very close to personal in an instant. In the raising of one eyebrow we set off a fuse wire to the full scale explosion we have ahead for them. When we get personal we touch raw nerves, one’s ‘coolness’ depending on the very heart of moral code, by which we all ought to operate.
Animal Rights is very full-on, as subjects go, because of this personal/ego element screaming at the insulting direction vegan-talk takes. We can expect extreme responses. And our adversaries are likely not to be so delicate in their words about us as we’re trying to be about them. They may have had less practice, or be less familiar with ‘the arguments’, or less used to having to be careful about wandering into war zones, renowned for volatility. Experienced or not, they’ll be reluctant to agree to too much because so much more to lose. If they agree, (“so, why aren’t you a vegan then?”). That’s a bombshell!.
I suppose we have to learn to be gentle, no need to be otherwise because, in terms of arguments, we hold the best hand. We have the greatest advantage. We don’t need to rub it in anyone’s face. And this is not about advocating clever strategy, it’s about being concerned for everyone involved in the whole sorry mess. It’s incidental if someone agrees or disagrees with us about animal rights. It’s actually none of our business if someone is still eating animals. Our concern is for them (and of course for the animals they’re eating). We hope they become vegan as quickly as possible. And when they do that they talk things through with others. It may be we have something to add to the quality of people’s lives … but they, for their part, have something of value to us too, by helping us understand how they think. We are, after all initiating the debate and we need a lot of practice. We can’t afford to queer our pitch by not communicating gently