Thursday, October 6, 2016

On being a bit over the top

1810: 

When I was still buying unethical products, I knew that I was collaborating in the very thing I wanted to see changed. Ideally, I wanted to promote sustainable systems; I wanted to show my concern for the planet as well as the animals; I wanted to ease my conscience; I wanted to see myself for who I thought I was, namely a non-violent person. I wanted to conduct myself with dignity, not by being mild or passive but by way of dignified outrage! For that, some big change was needed. And so I changed my omnivorous habits, and I was going to change everyone else's. Oh yes!!
         
My approach to animal abuse was direct. It was the only way I knew that might work, namely to protest against the violence to animals. Surely that’s unarguable? But no one seemed to want to talk about it. It was very frustrating. I would get quite aggressive towards non-vegans. I was almost proud to act without restraint. I became intense in order to get my point across. I thought it was okay to be pushy, since it was for a good cause. I had a duty to be forceful. I didn’t realise at the time how close that was to ‘fighting violence with violence’.
         
Animal Rights activists believe we have won significant welfare reforms for animals by being non-compromising and sometimes outrageous. By using this approach we’ve brought issues to public attention and ended many of the worst abuses of animals. But it hasn’t convinced the majority of consumers to change their eating habits. They may have caught our dirty looks but they haven’t felt the opprobrium of anyone else. They haven’t felt the urge or the responsibility to change their daily habits. The collective conscience hasn’t been tweaked. And all the time the consumer continues to provide the Animal Industries with financial support, nothing will change. So much for me changing the world!! Why hasn’t it worked?
         
This is what I think has happened – many people have had a similar negative experience with an animal activist. They’ve heard us talking passionately but found it hard to identify with us.  On an emotional level, people want to disagree with our arguments not just because they love their animal foods but because they can’t identify with the sort of person who can get that angry. One might want to listen to a passionate advocate but it’s like listening to great music on a radio which is picking up a lot of static interference. It’s an uncomfortable experience, it jars on the nerves, and you just want it to stop.
         
Over the past thirty odd years, since the birth of Animal Liberation, we’ve unfortunately built an aggro, ‘in-yer-face’ image. I speak for myself when I say that I’ve handed people a golden opportunity to dislike me and therefore dislike what I’m saying. I’ve lessened, not increased, my chances of being able to discuss important issues concerning animals. A low key, informative chat with me is unlikely. I’ve seemed like a person who is only interested in others agreeing with me. When I’m around there’s little chance to state your own opinion.
         
In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to convert that there’s not enough attention given to education. As a spokesperson-for-the-cause I look exactly like the wrong person for Animal Rights education, especially if my arguments are powerful. Perhaps I need to believe that the animals’ story would touch the hearts of people without my prodding. Perhaps I don’t have enough faith in ‘vegan’ being attractive, or Animal Rights being exciting enough. My message sounds hard and uncompromising. It’s off-putting. And as for the issues themselves, well, the consumer has enough to think about already, so they might consign ‘animal issues’ to the back burner or the too-hard-basket. And consign the likes of me to wherever it is they prefer me to be - out of sight and out of mind.


No comments: