Judgemental talk backfiring

1821:

When we are discussing things, you and I, how much do I value good feeling between us? Do I try to defuse things when I sense things getting out of hand? How do I pull back in time? How do I let any bad feelings blow over, especially within that vital microsecond, before things go too far?

Surely it comes back to not judging another person’s values, despite the fact that they believe they have the right to attack the very animals you spend so much time defending. It comes down to resisting the temptation to become antagonistic towards someone because of the attitudes they have. When things begin to get out of hand, we should observe a code of conduct; by having such a strong belief in non-violence, vegans should surely avoid inadvertently touching the most raw nerve in an adversary. And when it comes the other way around, when we're being cornered, it’s important that we don’t get hypersensitive. It's up to vegans to set the highest standards both in food choices and in behaviour with others.

Communications on this subject of Animal Rights is fraught with dangers. As soon as we feel entitled to get our point across no matter what, we will surely fail. As soon as we go for broke, show we're not scared of getting rough, we run the risk of losing mutual respect or even whole friendships, over our differences of opinion.

I’ve found that ‘going for broke’ never wins the argument. So, it comes down to this - do I really think that the issue of Animal Rights is more important than staying on friendly terms with someone? Perhaps I’ll argue that I must be true to my role as animal-advocate – I must rigorously defend them under all circumstances. But what if this approach is doomed to failure, because the collective mindset is so well established? To the omnivore it sounds as though we are saying, "Eat what I eat or we can't be friends". Put that way, it sounds as though we're keen to make enemies of omnivores, rather than trying to educate them.

Maybe vegans shouldn't be trying to win arguments, since there mostly IS no argument, nor any disagreement being reached, nor any real discussion of issues. It never quite gets that far. Better perhaps to establish that, as vegans, we are following a non-violence policy. This can impress and even win over the most hostile adversary, because this value is applicable not only to the food we eat but the non-judgemental basis of one's relationships.

If we come across as clear, fair and confident without becoming personal, it makes us seem less scary. It makes us approachable. It allows a person to put up a counter argument without the fear of being shot down.

More is achieved by showing mutual respect than anything else. As an example of non-violent principles, vegans can show humility by not being easily sucked into a fight, even though it means leaving our true feelings on this subject undeclared.

But, you might say, is this honest? If we have strong views surely we shouldn’t be afraid to lay them on the line. And why should defending a position strenuously have to go pear-shaped anyway? Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, is stimulating in itself. Surely we are mature enough to break through barriers of politeness in order to uproot old fashioned attitudes? Surely a frisson of tension makes an issue come alive, even if that makes us feel uncomfortable?

This ‘Animal Rights’ subject is a classic divider, even between close friends. The vulcanologist never knows when or how big the volcanic eruption is going to be before it happens. Similarly, we never know exactly what will set another person off, or precisely what issues are too sensitive for them?

What’s important here is surely not about our own human sensitivities being bruised, but the possibility of ‘blowing it’. Let’s not forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals currently on Death Row. Surely our own sensitivities pale into insignificance when compared to the suffering of domesticated animals. Surely passion outweighs politeness - a little bit of aggression is excusable in order to demonstrate our outrage? Isn't it time to move on from being Mr Nice Guy?

         

But this is all about perception. The emotion behind whatever words we use is the thing that's noticed. If it's aggressive, it's ugly - so we are seen to be ugly and our arguments therefore dodgy. Passionate advocacy can only coexist with non-violence when the emotion of non-violence is present. And then only if we have an invitation to speak freely should we confront others' attitudes and values, and even then we should moderate the confronting emotion out of respect for others’ feelings.