Article 11. Patience and Non-Violence

[From a set of articles from ‘The Place of Non-Violence and Altruism in Animal Rights’ from 2007.]

Being assertive is close to being aggressive is close to violence. There are other, less energy-consuming ways to be effective. For example - In the world of politics, we only need to practise civil disobedience to effectively make our point. There’s no need for confrontation or swearing or hurling abuse. In the theatre, one gets more impact with satire than with a bitter tirade. At home, a general stir-up is better than a family feud. If violence is always hovering like a bad smell, urging us to make threats or persuade people against their will, then non-violence is just about the only thing which will rescue us. When it’s strongly present it advocates patience and promises great power. We all have access to reasoned argument even though debating opportunities are still rare.
What is the main issue here, for Vegan Animal Activists? Is it about being non-violent or is it about not eating animals? These two issues should go hand in hand but they often don’t, because activists have a sense of urgency that overrides patience and non-violence. Yet non-violence is a more thorough way to bring about Animal Rights. It is achieved by attraction and through fashion. If Animal Rights becomes "fashionable", laws will follow ... but only when people are ‘cool’ enough to want badly enough the outlawing of animal exploitation. Non-violence allows us to take the heat off bad habits and thoughtlessness so we can focus on our own native intelligence. It’s our intelligence that lets us ask what we should do. It’s intelligence that shows us how we can reduce any run-away global problem, eg. global warming. Soon enough it will be our intelligence that’s showing us how to stop ‘animal warming’. And to pose the obvious question - how can I best promote Animal Rights?
This brings us back to non-violence, where no one need be afraid of us (vegans) and therefore not be afraid of what we might have to say, about non-violent food choices. In our conversations we should never go in for the kill for exactly the same reasons our food doesn’t (go in for the kill), however tempting. The cruelty of imprisoning and executing helpless animals is something a non-violent person would never want to be party to. It isn’t a matter of safety or health; it’s a matter of the hardening of our hearts and the blinding in our eyes. A very high price to pay for the dubious pleasure of enjoying eating animal foods.
We probably, by now, know that plant foods are nutritious. We may also know that our food-needs can be completely met by plant products because of the example set by millions of vegetarians and vegans around the world. That realisation undermines any justification for abattoirs and suggests the possibility of being able to lead a totally non-violent life. But because we know this and can apply it to our diet and wardrobe, is that where we stop? Hopefully not. A vegan might not want to go beyond food and clothing for fear of broadening the issues too far and becoming overwhelmed by the hugeness of the task. It may seem that there are too many changes to be made. But this change isn’t a race to see who gets there first. There are many issues to consider and each one relates to all the others. Global warming, animal factories, relationship breakdowns, malnutrition; they seem to be unrelated and yet somewhere down the track they are destined to meet.
If we want to see where the meeting point is, we need look no further than the embracing of non-violence. It’s a revolution in attitude, of which Animal Rights is but a part. Until one important idea meets another important idea, until we become sophisticated in our ideas, we won’t ever be able to understand what all the fuss is about. Non-violence seems to be a catch-all. When animal activists become involved in non-violent action, they see the connection between animals and humans, the environment and third world poverty. They realise that the connection between them all concerns the fostering of ‘peaceful relationship’. Our relationships, like our foods, must become cruelty-free.
Unless we are under age or dependent on others to provide our food and clothing, it is our responsibility to make our own choices. They can’t be left to anyone else. We have to decide either to develop a hard nose or a soft heart. That central choice is relevant to just about everything we do. It’s our choice and it’s a private matter. But however soft hearted we are, say over the matter of animals, at some stage we’ll be asking if we are also soft hearted about people - especially when we’re trying to recruit them. However important we think a matter is, can we discuss things without getting heated? Can we remain friends with people who disagree with us? Can we be sure our non-violence is stable? Can we be effective without wandering into the minefield of proselytising and exhortation?
The reason for being dynamic in the first place, is that life is about creating tension, stirring ourselves into action and bringing issues into focus. We might feel passionately about cruelty to animals and keen on being vegetarian, but as soon as we declare this (or let it be known that we think others should be vegetarians too) we are answerable for what we say and the way we say it. We might think we can tackle anything, including negative reaction, but we can never be sure if others can. If we are taking the initiative (for raising the subject) then we also have responsibility not to load on the shame, because there’s nothing like being accused of unethical behaviour to bring about a negative reaction. This one subject, amongst only a few others, is an extremely sensitive one. We don’t only need to look out for volatile reactions, but also for that particular reaction that associates what we do with who we are. When we criticise behaviour, we are really being critical of the person as well, and from their point of view this always feels threatening. Whatever we might say in public, we should think non-violence before we speak.
We mustn’t try to snare people or try to get them where we want them; in order to more effectively inflict guilt, fear and shame; in order to persuade them to our way of thinking. This approach has a whiff of aggression. When we’re on the receiving end we might have a premonition that cruelty is about to be inflicted upon us. For some animal activists, the handling of subjects, so heavily charged with significant issues, provides us with the excuse to "go over the top". When the subject matter is charged with passion, what follows almost bristles with inevitability, as if the decisive verbal blow has been rehearsed. Most people slam the door on Jehovah’s Witnesses before they’ve said a word. They’ve been premeditated. When animal activists try to use similar preaching-tactics we meet the same fate and unfortunately "queer the pitch" for others, who would never contemplate using such methods.
So is there a less direct way to talk about animal issues without World War Three erupting? ... not so indirect that we don’t say what we mean, or so gentle that we can be easily brushed off? How can we be gentle AND dynamic at the same time? Maybe by the use of mischief? Hey, there’s nothing wrong with a little mischief. It always brightens the party, surely?