Blunt instruments

1561: 

The idea of Animal Liberation's rescuing and liberating animals is right.  What we’re trying to communicate about the horrors of the animals’ lives in captivity is right.  And it may seem 'right' to condemn those people who still continue supporting the animal industries.  But does it work?  Just about everyone in the community is involved in committing the same crime, mainly as customers of these industries.  For that reason alone, not many of them will feel constrained to take ‘animal liberation’ too seriously.

         

We do have an added problem, in that we, as a movement, aren’t very consistent.  I think, in the future, we will have to be.  Many 'liberationists' are owners of carnivorous-animals, so they’re visiting the meat counter just as do meat-eaters themselves.  But that aside, what we condemn in others, for disregarding the feelings of farm animals, we do because, to some extent, it makes us feel good. For being in the 'right'.  And, whether we are consistent or not, any of our attempts to condemn or be a value-judge will never work. The meat eating community comprises such a majority of people that they know that can’t be bullied into giving up their meat.  And because there’s no hesitation about what they do and what they eat or wear, it’s possible that they might even get a kick our of the outrage of vegans.

         

We sometimes have only ourselves to blame.  Some vegans are like bullies, and even amongst each other, we can notice within ourselves a tendency towards being vegan-police-types.  Even to the point of criticising each other’s inconsistencies.  Perhaps, at first sight, my judging of others, about details of lifestyle, is an excuse for making a general judgement of a whole lot of other traits in that person. "You don't think deeply enough, you are selfish, you have a cruel streak", etc. It's so unproductive.

None of us likes to be judged and most of us respond badly to it. So, overall, the blunt instrument of judgement, real or perceived, works against our best aims. If we make use of judgement we can’t, in my opinion, be effective advocates for animals.

         

I’ve found over the years that for all my judging and condemning it’s never worked. My point is that any amount of outrage, especially from a small group of people, is ineffective. It’s just too easy for (the big group of) people to ignore it and remain blissfully untouched by their minority judges.

         

If we condemn the unethical use of animals, without the support of the law or the majority of ordinary people, our protests and judgements will appear to be ineffective and powerless. The best way to be effective is surely to encourage people to think and discuss, without insisting they agree with our views, and of course by never becoming defensive about our own views. Yes, we need to state our case clearly but then we need to stand back and see what happens, and try to understand why people are responding the way they do. Our movement needs more dispassionate research into attitude, and then we might be in a better position to realise what we’re up against and what will work in changing Society’s attitude. The same understanding is needed for arsonists and terrorists who are acting violently because they don’t understand how to be understood.