Holding onto the egalitarian ideal is never going to be easy but here in Australia, with our natural flair for rethinking things to fit into our mongrel character, we’ve made certain break throughs. One of them seems to be that within our multicultural society we have built a mutually-benefiting and symbiotic relationship with each other. To some extent it allows us to coexist in an atmosphere of acceptance of opposites. We exploit the advantages and protest the disadvantages in a rough and ready way. It’s a society where it works on a human to human level.
It’s somewhat different when animals are brought into the picture, where they are simply part of an exploitation culture, with no chance for them to be part of a symbiosis. In this respect Australians are the same as others – we don’t take their interests into account in any way whatsoever. Even if we wanted it, there’s no chance of having a symbiotic relationship with them because we can’t gain their consent. So, in theory, animals and humans could be mutually beneficial, but it’s a million miles from any relationship we have with them today. It’s always us exploiting and allowing no advantage to the animals themselves. Even the apiarist finding and transporting a hive of bees to good feeding grounds is not doing it for the bees neither are they willingly giving up the honey to the apiarist.
As soon as we act to bring about symbiosis and we start to think ‘egalitarian’ everything changes. Speciesism and all the other exploitative attitudes fade away allowing us to accept non-separation as an ideal and therefore non-violence. This must be the aim of animal liberation, to bring about an attitude of equality between humans and the animals they have exploited in the past, atoning for the crimes of past generations by promoting sanctuary for all animals who are presently in captivity.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
The egalitarian principle
In Australia we have fertile ground for developing and extending the egalitarian principle. Ever since the beginning of Western occupation, our treatment of indigenous people notwithstanding, this has been a strong unifying thread amongst new arrivals. As émigrés and refugees often from harsher countries, most of us or our forebears have had to pull together and develop a national identity that is, at its heart, egalitarian. A ‘fair go’, Jack’s as good as his master, toleration of minorities, accepting new attitudes, etc. In Australia we are in a prime position to show the rest of the world how this can be done. But it’s not as much a multicultural toleration of cultural differences as it is an example of a general humanitarianism. It starts out as a respect for each other – our having very little class system or intellectual stratification in our society – and from there it can extend to animals . . . for why would we arbitrarily exclude other sentient species from an equality that we advocate for ourselves? It is after all based on a principle of showing goodwill towards those with less advantage, a standing up for the oppressed
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Is it too risky to back veganism?
The big break through on animal rights will probably come when we begin to be taken as seriously as global warming and global food shortages, because each one of those issues need answers which have strong altruistic components. But there’s always going to be a doubt about the chance of repairing things and then a further doubt about animal rights having anything to do with any final solutions. The connections haven’t yet been made between these three vital issue areas. There’s a further doubt about the ability of humans to take on such a radical diet change. And that isn’t helped by a general view amongst people that what vegans are saying is too weird, and that, as a solution to world problems, it seems implausible. On top of all this the cure seems worse than the complaint – taking on a plant-based diet seems very inconvenient. Veganism seems too risky a prospect to back.
Perhaps vegans have to stand up against all this doubt and put forward their message nonetheless. In other words we have to hang in there even though there’s no easy way to say what we have to say. This ethic of not-touching-animals is a tough one to present, but it’s impossible to water it down or make vegan principles more digestible. If veganism is to be seen as attractive it is for the way it represents the bigger picture and not because it gives us an easy answer.
For vegans, the complete picture we are advocating is not only a change of diet but a change of attitude on a number of levels. From food choices right down to the need to level status, not just between each other but between species. Does this seem too much to pile on the plate?
Perhaps vegans have to stand up against all this doubt and put forward their message nonetheless. In other words we have to hang in there even though there’s no easy way to say what we have to say. This ethic of not-touching-animals is a tough one to present, but it’s impossible to water it down or make vegan principles more digestible. If veganism is to be seen as attractive it is for the way it represents the bigger picture and not because it gives us an easy answer.
For vegans, the complete picture we are advocating is not only a change of diet but a change of attitude on a number of levels. From food choices right down to the need to level status, not just between each other but between species. Does this seem too much to pile on the plate?
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Public speaking events
It’s a different approach when we’re public speaking. We have a whole block of time where we are being expected to speak and entertain. The idea of a public address is to inform and have visual aids to help get information across. But we should also be setting ourselves up to be knocked down, to take questions that put us on the spot. If we are addressing a group, as opposed to having a casual conversation with someone, we are speaking to a subject on invitation, in detail. Specifically we are there to air a whole raft of ideas on the subject we’ve been asked to speak about. It’s a good idea to have a simple programme of what is going to be covered in the talk, handed out before the talk takes place.
When public speaking we are attempting to reach two types: those who want to hear and those who don’t or at least who don’t necessarily agree with us. We owe the first group the best we can offer, but the second group is the main challenge. They usually help us realise our shortcomings because they might want to pose difficult questions to catch us out. For our part, we must make sure we’ve done our homework and can justify what we are saying. But just as important, our arguments should be able to spark their imagination and ultimately swing them around. What we’re not there to do is to try to make them feel guilty about health issues or for supporting factory farms, we’re trying to paint a picture of a bright future ahead, where animals aren’t being exploited and where we might enjoy a plant-based diet. Up beat raher than confronting. Obviously we have to believe in our own arguments but we must also promote them optimistically … and have our facts and references at hand, talk with some authority about health issues, ethics, farming, the environmental angle, world hunger and vivisection, give directions to useful web sites and books, etc – all this, so that no one can accuse us of being too emotional, uninformed or unprofessional. Or indeed uninteresting or not useful. A talk should be worth giving up ones time to attend.
A talk shouldn’t last more than 20-30 minutes, and the same amount of time should be made available for questions and comments from the floor – some want to ask questions but some quite validly want to make comments. A timer is useful for keeping to the set times announced at the outset, so that everyone knows when it’s all going to finish. A really good idea is to have something to eat and drink afterwards so that, for those who do want to stay a bit longer, they can have an informal meeting. It’s often a time to catch up with friends. It’s also a great opportunity to introduce some tasty vegan snacks and have available further information for those interested - books, booklets and fact sheets, even DVDs and merchandise. But may I suggest that if it’s all kept as far as possible free-to-attend and have only a donation box available to cover any costs, then the event won’t look like a money-grubbing exercise. Our motives, for going to the trouble to set up and run this sort of event should appear to be pure.
When public speaking we are attempting to reach two types: those who want to hear and those who don’t or at least who don’t necessarily agree with us. We owe the first group the best we can offer, but the second group is the main challenge. They usually help us realise our shortcomings because they might want to pose difficult questions to catch us out. For our part, we must make sure we’ve done our homework and can justify what we are saying. But just as important, our arguments should be able to spark their imagination and ultimately swing them around. What we’re not there to do is to try to make them feel guilty about health issues or for supporting factory farms, we’re trying to paint a picture of a bright future ahead, where animals aren’t being exploited and where we might enjoy a plant-based diet. Up beat raher than confronting. Obviously we have to believe in our own arguments but we must also promote them optimistically … and have our facts and references at hand, talk with some authority about health issues, ethics, farming, the environmental angle, world hunger and vivisection, give directions to useful web sites and books, etc – all this, so that no one can accuse us of being too emotional, uninformed or unprofessional. Or indeed uninteresting or not useful. A talk should be worth giving up ones time to attend.
A talk shouldn’t last more than 20-30 minutes, and the same amount of time should be made available for questions and comments from the floor – some want to ask questions but some quite validly want to make comments. A timer is useful for keeping to the set times announced at the outset, so that everyone knows when it’s all going to finish. A really good idea is to have something to eat and drink afterwards so that, for those who do want to stay a bit longer, they can have an informal meeting. It’s often a time to catch up with friends. It’s also a great opportunity to introduce some tasty vegan snacks and have available further information for those interested - books, booklets and fact sheets, even DVDs and merchandise. But may I suggest that if it’s all kept as far as possible free-to-attend and have only a donation box available to cover any costs, then the event won’t look like a money-grubbing exercise. Our motives, for going to the trouble to set up and run this sort of event should appear to be pure.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Putting people at ease
If vegans do have the chance to speak about animal rights, the fewer words we use the easier it is to simply exchange information and ideas. If we can move on, from making our listeners feel uncomfortable each time we bring this subject up, the sooner we can win a reputation for being sensitive. In other words, if we show respect for people listening to us and then continue to open up doors for them to walk through, we’ll be bringing them deeper into the issues almost without them noticing. That may stop them wanting to retreat half way through what we are saying. Our job isn’t to make up their minds for them but to let them take in what we say which, afterwards, helps them come to their own conclusions. If we can ease their suspicion of us, our advocacy can be of great service to them. Bottom line: it’s the way we talk about these difficult issues that counts, that helps us educate more effectively.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Animals as individuals
Vegans are at peace with pigs and cows. When we see them or come into casual contact with them, there’s no embarrassment. When we see a beautiful hen pecking on the ground we don’t feel guilty. We may feel ashamed on behalf of our fellow humans who abuse them, but we know we can’t be responsible for their actions. Of course this doesn’t stop us feeling angry, that people have animals on their plate, but what can we do? We can’t dismiss the whole of humanity or feel angry all the time. The people we are in contact with are our friends, kids, parents, partners, neighbours. All we can do is suggest they go cruelty-free shopping, because this is where it starts, and where, by way of incremental change, they will be able to step away from animal produce. By changing shopping habits, by making one small gesture each day and expanding on it, anyone can make a transition.
If we, as animal advocates, who try to lead a cruelty-free life, want others to do the same as we do, we need to sell it. Like any other product, it needs to be made attractive. We’re appealing to people’s higher instincts, to see for themselves that this new habit is ultimately attractive on its own account.
If we introduce it that way then, like anything intrinsically interesting, it doesn’t need to be pushed. The introduction of the subject is all a matter of good timing - of waiting, and then dropping the suggestion into the conversation when we get a green light. Once there’s an interest in finding out what we have to say then the pressure is off. We only need to talk through the issues without coming on too strong or going on too long. The curious might still be wary because they probably realise how confronting this is for them. They might be wanting to learn but be afraid of being overwhelmed. They may have the best intentions but not enough confidence to make the jump. The more practical information we can make available to them the better.
If we, as animal advocates, who try to lead a cruelty-free life, want others to do the same as we do, we need to sell it. Like any other product, it needs to be made attractive. We’re appealing to people’s higher instincts, to see for themselves that this new habit is ultimately attractive on its own account.
If we introduce it that way then, like anything intrinsically interesting, it doesn’t need to be pushed. The introduction of the subject is all a matter of good timing - of waiting, and then dropping the suggestion into the conversation when we get a green light. Once there’s an interest in finding out what we have to say then the pressure is off. We only need to talk through the issues without coming on too strong or going on too long. The curious might still be wary because they probably realise how confronting this is for them. They might be wanting to learn but be afraid of being overwhelmed. They may have the best intentions but not enough confidence to make the jump. The more practical information we can make available to them the better.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Species equality
There is no sense of equality between the species. Humans are speciesist. This is how things are, but not to vegans, who no longer depend on the usefulness of animals and who can therefore respect them as individuals; we see them as irreplaceable and therefore don’t exploit them. Whereas non vegans see them as part of an amorphous mass, and the more you cut them down the more they replace themselves. In our world animals are either companions and honoured friends or they’re dinner or they’re resources or they’re pests to be eradicated. We are at our most diabolical in our treatment of the ‘edible animals’. Where our ‘keeping’ a dog as a pet is a relatively benign activity, when we eat a cow it is not at all a benign activity. The cow is neither a loved companion animal nor does she have the dignity of being wildlife. Farm animals are almost man-made and purpose built. In no sense at all do we have a true relationship with them, since we regard ourselves to be superior to them in every way.
This is why vegans get so upset about animals. If this separation attitude could be changed then immediately animal slavery would stop, and then everything else comes tumbling down; the hubris, the superiority, the exploitation and the suffering. In its place comes a normal, loving feeling towards our cousins, the animals.
This is why vegans get so upset about animals. If this separation attitude could be changed then immediately animal slavery would stop, and then everything else comes tumbling down; the hubris, the superiority, the exploitation and the suffering. In its place comes a normal, loving feeling towards our cousins, the animals.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Veganism as a new idea
Vegans seem preposterous to the ‘outside world’, as if we are making radical changes to our lives in order to alienate the very people we are close to. Vegan ‘behaviour’ seems to be either the height of bad manners or a play for attention, as if vegans want to be radical for its own sake. People try to rubbish the idea for its sheer madness, and cite the negative health consequences for vegans to emphasise that it’s taking things too far. They may also consider the welfare of farm animals too unimportant. Of course, nothing makes vegans more frustrated than when they hear things like this, and will feel they’ve nothing to lose by putting their case more aggressively … which makes the adversary dig their heels in harder, and so the chasm widens until there’s no chance of a meaningful dialogue. So, how could we play it instead? I’d suggest we try to remain equals, me no better than you just because I’m this or you’re that. We may have differing beliefs and values separating us, one from the other, but it’s all very subjective.
We can notice it more easily when it happens between cultures, where racism emerges. For example, it’s probably true that within the Western culture especially, we grow up believing we’re a bit special. That some are more superior than others, genetically superior to blacks or the people from poorer nations, or special for being cleverer or better looking. Within cultures it spills over into ethics, making me better than you because I’m vegan or I’m a responsible environmentalist, etc. We even ask ourselves how can we seriously tolerate people who are so obviously less advanced.
If we are going to make things better for our world, firstly all of that attitude has got to be dumped. If we thought of one another as equals we’d never allow ourselves to look down on others or put up with being looked down upon. And then it is logical that we’d extend this same feeling to other species . . . and that’s where vegans are coming from. We consider animals just as worthy of respect as humans and just as entitled as we are, to a life. Ideally we’d feel an equality with animals, not just for the animals we know, like dogs and cats, but for cows and chickens and wild animals, and in fact any creature with sentience, simply in order to minimise our violence towards them. By holding onto this standard of ‘equality’ we can maintain our humanity, which in turn will give us back a feeling of well being.
We can notice it more easily when it happens between cultures, where racism emerges. For example, it’s probably true that within the Western culture especially, we grow up believing we’re a bit special. That some are more superior than others, genetically superior to blacks or the people from poorer nations, or special for being cleverer or better looking. Within cultures it spills over into ethics, making me better than you because I’m vegan or I’m a responsible environmentalist, etc. We even ask ourselves how can we seriously tolerate people who are so obviously less advanced.
If we are going to make things better for our world, firstly all of that attitude has got to be dumped. If we thought of one another as equals we’d never allow ourselves to look down on others or put up with being looked down upon. And then it is logical that we’d extend this same feeling to other species . . . and that’s where vegans are coming from. We consider animals just as worthy of respect as humans and just as entitled as we are, to a life. Ideally we’d feel an equality with animals, not just for the animals we know, like dogs and cats, but for cows and chickens and wild animals, and in fact any creature with sentience, simply in order to minimise our violence towards them. By holding onto this standard of ‘equality’ we can maintain our humanity, which in turn will give us back a feeling of well being.
The superficial consumer
The best time to consider our own attitudes to animals is when we are shopping. Mostly we insist on getting what we want, emulating that carefree hedonism of the richer classes, buying almost anything that takes our fancy. As we attempt to ‘live life to the full’ we might force ourselves to ignore ethics, environment and health. When decisions involve buying ‘animal’, we might consider our responsibility but we usually avoid thinking in depth about animal issues.
Our superficiality leads us into all sorts of dangers. More than ever before. Seventy years ago people would have been horrified at the thought of putting their hens into tiny cages for their whole life. It would have been considered diabolical, and yet today we accept it. We eat eggs and think nothing of it. It is one of those things we can’t look at too deeply for fear of questioning our own inhumanity. No one wants to be reminded of this. And on that superficial level of thinking, where animal rights questions arise, if they arise at all, the principle of veganism has to appear ridiculous.
Our superficiality leads us into all sorts of dangers. More than ever before. Seventy years ago people would have been horrified at the thought of putting their hens into tiny cages for their whole life. It would have been considered diabolical, and yet today we accept it. We eat eggs and think nothing of it. It is one of those things we can’t look at too deeply for fear of questioning our own inhumanity. No one wants to be reminded of this. And on that superficial level of thinking, where animal rights questions arise, if they arise at all, the principle of veganism has to appear ridiculous.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Connecting, not abusing
To attack the non-vegan is a mistake. We have to set the standard, and somehow the image of a vegan being an attack machine has to be changed. Communication between people of differing viewpoints is a high priority. Attack is easy and gives a sugar-hit to stave off frustration and the feeling of being alone (in a world full of unthinking and uncaring people), but we need to learn how to make connections with people.
Perhaps at the back of any frustrated activist’s mind is a reluctance to get down to the business of learning how to connect with people, who seem to be opposed. A passionate promotion of animal rights might not be the only answer to successfully hitting home. Vegans might eventually get tired of promoting and persuading and trying to educate people who don’t want to listen. It’s often just easier or more exciting to go to a demo and feel you’ve done something. But what good does it do to win a few newspaper headlines one day and for the whole effort to evaporate when people have forgotten the news report the next day? Demonstrations might tweak the conscience but they don’t address the issues deeply enough to touch the hearts of others. And eventually many millions need to be deeply touched if they are to be brought on side. We can’t afford to miss any opportunity to win people over. We only lose potential supporters when we abuse them. Far better to invite them to go food shopping with us.
Perhaps at the back of any frustrated activist’s mind is a reluctance to get down to the business of learning how to connect with people, who seem to be opposed. A passionate promotion of animal rights might not be the only answer to successfully hitting home. Vegans might eventually get tired of promoting and persuading and trying to educate people who don’t want to listen. It’s often just easier or more exciting to go to a demo and feel you’ve done something. But what good does it do to win a few newspaper headlines one day and for the whole effort to evaporate when people have forgotten the news report the next day? Demonstrations might tweak the conscience but they don’t address the issues deeply enough to touch the hearts of others. And eventually many millions need to be deeply touched if they are to be brought on side. We can’t afford to miss any opportunity to win people over. We only lose potential supporters when we abuse them. Far better to invite them to go food shopping with us.
Friday, September 19, 2008
The big issues
Vegans want to strike a blow for compassion, and we are willing to deny ourselves things for that. We know where we stand on the big issue of animal slavery even though it’s opposite to how the majority believe, and we realise why people (who would like to agree) don’t agree because it logically leads to going vegan, and that for many people is a scary idea. Vegans have faced their fears on that score, to enable themselves to advocate for animals. Vegans who are abolitionist oppose the use of animals under any circumstances.
Everyone agrees slavery is a terrible thing but because of the scariness of becoming vegan most people can’t let their horror of slavery apply to animals, not the ones they eat anyway. They have to rationalise it that: they’ve been brought up with animal foods and noble theories about animal slavery must give way to conventional eating habits. Convenience must outweigh ethics.
This is where vegans and non-vegans part company. And often it’s the reason we don’t feel at one with the omnivore who, apart from food items, also buys clothing and other commodities that are animal based or tested. It’s why vegans feel separate from those who aren’t vegan, and once that separation is apparent it puts us one rung up (or down) the ladder, and that gives us a bad look. But it often doesn’t rest there. It’s because we itch to discuss this subject, when others would prefer we didn’t, that vegans seem to be spoiling for a fight or wanting to cause embarrassment. If an argument starts up it can easily and quickly become intimidating. How can any non-vegan know, if the subject arises, that things won’t turn nasty? From a vegan’s point of view, if the subject comes up, we feel justified in ‘speaking up’, our reasoning being - why let anyone get away with opinions that we passionately disagree with, why not make it clear where one stands?
It’s a trap for all concerned. For example you visit someone’s house. Food is offered out of hospitality. It is refused. The reason is given, a response is made. The non-vegan thinks they can brush matters under the carpet, change the subject or say something that will appease. The vegan decides to bludgeon their way through by suggesting a whole attitude change to animal food. And if we (as a vegan) seem a bit rude, we hope our rudeness will be outweighed by an admiration for having the courage of our convictions, etc. Each party underestimates the strength of opinion of the other and each underestimates the willingness of the other to accommodate differing views. The non-vegan thinks that because they do what almost everyone else does, they are protected from being condemned. They have no idea how badly they are thought of for lacking enough moral fibre to make a stand. The vegan likewise has no idea how their pushy approach offends. The problem is that vegans think hard about something that matters to them whilst non-vegans think almost nothing at all about the very same matters. Obviously the world is a very wicked place today but there are so many issues crowding out our conscience that we have to ask which issues are more important than others? Which are the major decisions we should be making to rescue any of the terrible situations facing humanity and the planet? Which decisions should we be making when we behave in questionable ways. If we travel by air it’s our carbon footprint; if we ignore the plight of suffering people it’s our selfishness. We are faced with our own behaviour all the time, and at the first whiff of criticism, it’s likely we resent it and dig our heels in. It’s twice as likely we’ll refuse to change. We’ll simply try to avoid the critic. And when someone is avoiding a vegan for fear of confrontation then it soon becomes obvious. From a vegan’s point of view, when they are avoided they want to hit back by attacking the “meatheads”. Is this why we don't seem to get anywhere today?
Everyone agrees slavery is a terrible thing but because of the scariness of becoming vegan most people can’t let their horror of slavery apply to animals, not the ones they eat anyway. They have to rationalise it that: they’ve been brought up with animal foods and noble theories about animal slavery must give way to conventional eating habits. Convenience must outweigh ethics.
This is where vegans and non-vegans part company. And often it’s the reason we don’t feel at one with the omnivore who, apart from food items, also buys clothing and other commodities that are animal based or tested. It’s why vegans feel separate from those who aren’t vegan, and once that separation is apparent it puts us one rung up (or down) the ladder, and that gives us a bad look. But it often doesn’t rest there. It’s because we itch to discuss this subject, when others would prefer we didn’t, that vegans seem to be spoiling for a fight or wanting to cause embarrassment. If an argument starts up it can easily and quickly become intimidating. How can any non-vegan know, if the subject arises, that things won’t turn nasty? From a vegan’s point of view, if the subject comes up, we feel justified in ‘speaking up’, our reasoning being - why let anyone get away with opinions that we passionately disagree with, why not make it clear where one stands?
It’s a trap for all concerned. For example you visit someone’s house. Food is offered out of hospitality. It is refused. The reason is given, a response is made. The non-vegan thinks they can brush matters under the carpet, change the subject or say something that will appease. The vegan decides to bludgeon their way through by suggesting a whole attitude change to animal food. And if we (as a vegan) seem a bit rude, we hope our rudeness will be outweighed by an admiration for having the courage of our convictions, etc. Each party underestimates the strength of opinion of the other and each underestimates the willingness of the other to accommodate differing views. The non-vegan thinks that because they do what almost everyone else does, they are protected from being condemned. They have no idea how badly they are thought of for lacking enough moral fibre to make a stand. The vegan likewise has no idea how their pushy approach offends. The problem is that vegans think hard about something that matters to them whilst non-vegans think almost nothing at all about the very same matters. Obviously the world is a very wicked place today but there are so many issues crowding out our conscience that we have to ask which issues are more important than others? Which are the major decisions we should be making to rescue any of the terrible situations facing humanity and the planet? Which decisions should we be making when we behave in questionable ways. If we travel by air it’s our carbon footprint; if we ignore the plight of suffering people it’s our selfishness. We are faced with our own behaviour all the time, and at the first whiff of criticism, it’s likely we resent it and dig our heels in. It’s twice as likely we’ll refuse to change. We’ll simply try to avoid the critic. And when someone is avoiding a vegan for fear of confrontation then it soon becomes obvious. From a vegan’s point of view, when they are avoided they want to hit back by attacking the “meatheads”. Is this why we don't seem to get anywhere today?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Energy maximisation
Maybe as vegans we are convinced about our arguments concerning animal slavery but that doesn’t necessarily mean we can take on the task of convincing others, especially since such David and Goliath odds are stacked against us.
So what do we do? We can fret. We can feel our ineffectiveness. We can lose motivation, feel tired, get depressed, etc. We can try to steal energy from our day to day commitments and use it for ‘activism’ but then something suffers in our own life, relationships become stretched, there’s never enough time to do anything well. We can be torn between doing more for animal rights and spending less time with the family or family comes first …
The original idea that inspired us eventually makes a call on our energy and puts pressure on our other commitments. Even keeping up our vegan diet or vegan lifestyle demands extra energy. In other words vegans take on extra responsibilities and for these they need emotional energy fed by reading inspiring books or visiting places where they handle animals, doing yoga, whatever it is that fires us up and keeps us passionate. Wherever we find the energy there’s this impulse to be going on with the work in hand, despite all the pressures slowing us down.
If we let our personal life suffer in any way we know things will go wrong all round, so it’s a matter of getting the energy balance right. We know the cause is important but spending a lot of energy on it? How do we find that energy? Certainly vegan food is high powered stuff, we aren’t slowed by stodge. And the significance of the issues themselves helps to boost energy. But burn-out amongst animal activists is a reality.
So if energy is a problem it may be our attitude to energy itself that needs to be looked at. Maybe we should consider energy not like a finite resource, like how much petrol we have in the tank, but a self perpetuating force, as if a certain type of energy once released acts to generate more energy; a type of energy that expands the more it is expended. Let’s say that animal rights activities can give us this sort of impetus. We know it works that way with acts of kindness, where there’s a big investment and a beneficial feeling about it. We’re often surprised by how little depletion takes place when we’re giving our all to something we feel passionate about. It defies logic - the more used, the more replaced, but it may be that …
… As soon as we begin to let go of self interest and start to think, in this case about the care of animals, the stronger we feel. Doing the right thing, generating energy - could it be that simple? Could it be that when energy is released for the ‘greater-good’ that we make energy, and set off a chain reaction? When we serve it, it serves us? Could it be that when we begin to take an interest in a forest, an animal, a human, when we start advocating for them and not for ourselves, that the energy to do it seems to appear from nowhere? And does the opposite happen, where self-first drains energy? More greed, more need? If so, it puts a new spin on things. However hard pressed we are with our personal lives it may be that we will always still have time and energy for a cause.
So what do we do? We can fret. We can feel our ineffectiveness. We can lose motivation, feel tired, get depressed, etc. We can try to steal energy from our day to day commitments and use it for ‘activism’ but then something suffers in our own life, relationships become stretched, there’s never enough time to do anything well. We can be torn between doing more for animal rights and spending less time with the family or family comes first …
The original idea that inspired us eventually makes a call on our energy and puts pressure on our other commitments. Even keeping up our vegan diet or vegan lifestyle demands extra energy. In other words vegans take on extra responsibilities and for these they need emotional energy fed by reading inspiring books or visiting places where they handle animals, doing yoga, whatever it is that fires us up and keeps us passionate. Wherever we find the energy there’s this impulse to be going on with the work in hand, despite all the pressures slowing us down.
If we let our personal life suffer in any way we know things will go wrong all round, so it’s a matter of getting the energy balance right. We know the cause is important but spending a lot of energy on it? How do we find that energy? Certainly vegan food is high powered stuff, we aren’t slowed by stodge. And the significance of the issues themselves helps to boost energy. But burn-out amongst animal activists is a reality.
So if energy is a problem it may be our attitude to energy itself that needs to be looked at. Maybe we should consider energy not like a finite resource, like how much petrol we have in the tank, but a self perpetuating force, as if a certain type of energy once released acts to generate more energy; a type of energy that expands the more it is expended. Let’s say that animal rights activities can give us this sort of impetus. We know it works that way with acts of kindness, where there’s a big investment and a beneficial feeling about it. We’re often surprised by how little depletion takes place when we’re giving our all to something we feel passionate about. It defies logic - the more used, the more replaced, but it may be that …
… As soon as we begin to let go of self interest and start to think, in this case about the care of animals, the stronger we feel. Doing the right thing, generating energy - could it be that simple? Could it be that when energy is released for the ‘greater-good’ that we make energy, and set off a chain reaction? When we serve it, it serves us? Could it be that when we begin to take an interest in a forest, an animal, a human, when we start advocating for them and not for ourselves, that the energy to do it seems to appear from nowhere? And does the opposite happen, where self-first drains energy? More greed, more need? If so, it puts a new spin on things. However hard pressed we are with our personal lives it may be that we will always still have time and energy for a cause.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
After the Debate
After the talking is over we might have to agree to disagree. And then move on. Work to be done, repairs to be carried out, time over for talking. But whatever we are doing we always have to come back to getting ideas across, the temptation to try a new way of convincing people of the ‘bleedin obvious’, that vegan principle is universally relevant and important. If vegans are trying to establish veganism in the popular mindset we must be looking at how humans reason things out, whether it’s about animal rights, damage to the planet or starving children. We do have some pretty impressive arguments, we just need to know how they can best be packaged, so that they’ll make sense to those who are appearing to be too obstinate to listen.
We use reason to float our ideas but our effectiveness depends on how we communicate and how much store we seem to be setting on remaining friendly, in an atmosphere of provocation. It shows a lot about our character if we can rub along together and take up positions in opposition to one another but refuse to take umbrage; always regarding opposition as a positive challenge. Opposition doesn’t have to mean an assault. As long as we keep the focus on repair we can delve deep into issues concerning food, animals, health, planet, non-violence … and if we’ve been talking together constructively, it doesn’t matter if there’s been lot of disagreement.
We use reason to float our ideas but our effectiveness depends on how we communicate and how much store we seem to be setting on remaining friendly, in an atmosphere of provocation. It shows a lot about our character if we can rub along together and take up positions in opposition to one another but refuse to take umbrage; always regarding opposition as a positive challenge. Opposition doesn’t have to mean an assault. As long as we keep the focus on repair we can delve deep into issues concerning food, animals, health, planet, non-violence … and if we’ve been talking together constructively, it doesn’t matter if there’s been lot of disagreement.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Debate
It’s hard to get a debate going on animal rights. Even harder to keep one going. We may be busting to tell people everything we know about the horrors of animal abuse but others hold strong views too, so we need to respect the sovereignty of opinion. Even if we reckon it’s a patently wrong opinion, all opinion-holders should be able to say their piece. Otherwise we lose the freedom of speech.
There should be clear channels for airing views without fear of being attacked or cut down before we’ve said our piece. If, for example, we’re debating the use of animals, we are bound to touch on animal products, which means there will be some heavy disagreement. Whether we are discussing with friends or with an audience, there’s no point in wasting a good opportunity by becoming defensive whenever we’re not on common ground. If we get aggro about our views we cause people to dig in their heels and argue against us, just to save face.
There should be clear channels for airing views without fear of being attacked or cut down before we’ve said our piece. If, for example, we’re debating the use of animals, we are bound to touch on animal products, which means there will be some heavy disagreement. Whether we are discussing with friends or with an audience, there’s no point in wasting a good opportunity by becoming defensive whenever we’re not on common ground. If we get aggro about our views we cause people to dig in their heels and argue against us, just to save face.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Setting the stage
There’s so much waste and cruelty and so much done against the greater good, that it makes some people despair. For others it quickens the importance of the work that has to be done before things get worse. And that work, the repair of rivers, forests and habitats, as well as the repair of our attitudes to animals, needs a mature, environmentally-aware set of vegan principles to power it. Veganism represents an attitude change which can inspire this sort of repair, by using a non-violent approach to repair. Vegans are in a position to play an important part in restoration work, having cleaned up their act by shaking off their ‘shadow’ … as far as respecting the natural order of things and reversing the speciesism of their fellow humans. Hopefully we’ve learnt to be at-one-with-others by representing non-violence in action. If we’ve done that then vegans are in a position to help bring about a transition to a peaceful future.
If in the future there were to be peace, we’d see the beauty of animals, intend them no harm, and we would come to veganism in a flash. If we were truly at peace with the world we’d even be close to the people who hold different views from us.
But we aren’t at peace yet, which means vegans have to be the first to set an example of peace, by taking on a self discipline that unfortunately, for the present, keeps us separated from others. That’s hard for everyone concerned but especially for vegans themselves. However, there are compensations. We do enjoy a freedom others don’t have and we should make the most of it to work to build a new type of human community.
Vegans and the society in which we live (being in it but not of it) are obviously trying to live as non-violent members of society. Our aim should be to encourage no ‘dislike’, so that we can explore anything without being afraid. We may disagree with others about important issues and yet still like whoever we are talking to. And give the appearance of liking them too, by not having to win every argument – our aim shouldn’t be to put them right or fight tooth and nail to prove we are right but help to maintain a creative flow of ideas and views. Within any dialogue, however we follow up on points being raised by others, we should be leading towards making our own point … by having a direction in what we want to say … maybe not getting anywhere near that point but having that aim nonetheless. Then others will see we have an agenda and that we mean business, yet not ready to sacrifice everything to make our point. However serious our aim is, it doesn’t have to be so serious that it could bring about a feeling of dislike. If there is any animosity, the game is over in an instant, and that disliking will cloud everything that has gone before.
If I am having any sort of serious discussion, I can alter the atmosphere just by raising the tone of my voice, to indicate if I’ve lost patience or am ready to show more interest. We are all adept at showing likeableness or revealing that we have ‘another side’. And if my nasty side comes through I can kiss goodbye to any good will. Once that appears I’m no longer listened to. It doesn’t matter how intelligent my arguments might be, as soon as I’m no longer liked or respected, every word I utter will fall on deaf ears. And if, as an opinion-holder, I’m disliked my opinion will be disliked too; a person might come to dislike veganism on the basis of disliking the vegan who introduced the idea, hence the bathwater is thrown out with the baby.
If in the future there were to be peace, we’d see the beauty of animals, intend them no harm, and we would come to veganism in a flash. If we were truly at peace with the world we’d even be close to the people who hold different views from us.
But we aren’t at peace yet, which means vegans have to be the first to set an example of peace, by taking on a self discipline that unfortunately, for the present, keeps us separated from others. That’s hard for everyone concerned but especially for vegans themselves. However, there are compensations. We do enjoy a freedom others don’t have and we should make the most of it to work to build a new type of human community.
Vegans and the society in which we live (being in it but not of it) are obviously trying to live as non-violent members of society. Our aim should be to encourage no ‘dislike’, so that we can explore anything without being afraid. We may disagree with others about important issues and yet still like whoever we are talking to. And give the appearance of liking them too, by not having to win every argument – our aim shouldn’t be to put them right or fight tooth and nail to prove we are right but help to maintain a creative flow of ideas and views. Within any dialogue, however we follow up on points being raised by others, we should be leading towards making our own point … by having a direction in what we want to say … maybe not getting anywhere near that point but having that aim nonetheless. Then others will see we have an agenda and that we mean business, yet not ready to sacrifice everything to make our point. However serious our aim is, it doesn’t have to be so serious that it could bring about a feeling of dislike. If there is any animosity, the game is over in an instant, and that disliking will cloud everything that has gone before.
If I am having any sort of serious discussion, I can alter the atmosphere just by raising the tone of my voice, to indicate if I’ve lost patience or am ready to show more interest. We are all adept at showing likeableness or revealing that we have ‘another side’. And if my nasty side comes through I can kiss goodbye to any good will. Once that appears I’m no longer listened to. It doesn’t matter how intelligent my arguments might be, as soon as I’m no longer liked or respected, every word I utter will fall on deaf ears. And if, as an opinion-holder, I’m disliked my opinion will be disliked too; a person might come to dislike veganism on the basis of disliking the vegan who introduced the idea, hence the bathwater is thrown out with the baby.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The shadow
We might be having a casual conversation about animal rights. No one’s used to talking about such things so we’ll duck and dive around the issues with nothing said quite directly, with feelings often hidden or snide remarks being made, all attempting to say things that we believe but which could be unwelcome and sour the atmosphere between us. I mention all this as a prelude to the quote that follows, from Will Tuttle’s book The World Peace Diet. (http://worldpeacediet.org). It describes, on page 222, ‘the shadow’ (in Jungian terms) being “our cruelty and violence towards animals”. What Will Tuttle says we might not like, and so we might want to rubbish it, because if we don’t then we might have to agree and that would lead to a big lifestyle change.
Tuttle:
“Children who are violated and abused will, when they become adults, tend to violate and abuse their children in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that rolls through the generations. We address it by trying to stop the child abuse, and fail to see the deeper dynamic. This human cycle of violence will not stop until we stop the underlying violence, the remorseless violence we commit against animals for food. We teach this behaviour and this insensitivity to all our children in a subtle, unintentional, but powerful form of culturally approved child abuse. Our actions condition our consciousness; therefore forcing our children to eat animal foods wounds them deeply. It requires them to disconnect from the food on their plates, from their feelings, from animals and nature, and sets up conditions of disease and psychological armouring. The wounds persist and are passed on to the next generation.
Compelling our children to eat animal foods gives birth to the “hurt people hurt people” syndrome. Hurt people hurt animals without compunction in daily food rituals. We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be? We carry the violence, in our blood, and in our consciousness. Covering it up and ignoring it doesn’t make it disappear. The more we pretend to hide it, the more, like a shadow, it clings to us and haunts us. The human cycle of violence is the ongoing projection of this shadow.
The Shadow
“In Jungian terms, our culture’s enormous, intractable, overriding shadow is the cruelty and violence towards animals it requires, practises, eats and meticulously hides and denies. … The shadow archetype represents those aspects of ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge, the part of ourselves that we have disowned. To itself, the shadow is what the self is not, and in this case it is our own cruelty and violence that we deny and repress. We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people. We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein. Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture.
“As Jungian psychotherapy emphasizes, the shadow will be heard! This is why we eventually do to ourselves what we do to animals. The shadow is a vital and undeniable force that cannot, in the end, be repressed. The tremendous psychological forces required to confine, mutilate, and kill millions of animals every day, and to keep the whole bloody slaughter repressed and invisible, work in two ways. One way is to numb, desensitize, and armour us, which decreases our intelligence and ability to make connections. The other is to force us to act out exactly what we are repressing. This is done through projection. We create an acceptable target to loathe for being violent, cruel, and tyrannical – the very qualities that we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves – and then we attack it. With this understanding of the immense violence toward animals that we keep hidden and the implacable shadow this creates, the existence of 50,000 nuclear warheads becomes comprehensible. Our “never-ending” war against terrorism becomes not just comprehensible but inevitable, as does our appalling destruction of ecosystems, the rampant exploitation of the world’s poor, and the suicide, addiction, and disease that ravage countless human lives.
“The shadow is the self that does the dirty work for us so we can remain good and acceptable in our own eyes. The more we repress and disconnect, the more inner disturbance we will carry that we must project on an outer evil force, an enemy or scapegoat of some kind, against whom we can direct our denied violence. We will see these enemies as the essence of evil and despise them, for they represent aspects of our self that we cannot face. In our quest to eliminate them we are driven to build the most hideous weapons imaginable, developing them throughout the centuries so that today we have the capacity to destroy all of humanity hundreds of times over. This is not just something in our past, like the generations of inquisitions, crusades, and wars. We eat more animals, project more enemies, and create more weapons than ever before. Every minute 20,000 land animals are killed in United States slaughterhouses and the Pentagon spends $760,000 (every minute). This huge expenditure on maintaining and developing systems to harm and destroy other people is a particularly egregious manifestation of the tragic suppression of intelligence caused by eating animal foods. “ Will Tuttle (reprinted with permmission)
Tuttle:
“Children who are violated and abused will, when they become adults, tend to violate and abuse their children in a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that rolls through the generations. We address it by trying to stop the child abuse, and fail to see the deeper dynamic. This human cycle of violence will not stop until we stop the underlying violence, the remorseless violence we commit against animals for food. We teach this behaviour and this insensitivity to all our children in a subtle, unintentional, but powerful form of culturally approved child abuse. Our actions condition our consciousness; therefore forcing our children to eat animal foods wounds them deeply. It requires them to disconnect from the food on their plates, from their feelings, from animals and nature, and sets up conditions of disease and psychological armouring. The wounds persist and are passed on to the next generation.
Compelling our children to eat animal foods gives birth to the “hurt people hurt people” syndrome. Hurt people hurt animals without compunction in daily food rituals. We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be? We carry the violence, in our blood, and in our consciousness. Covering it up and ignoring it doesn’t make it disappear. The more we pretend to hide it, the more, like a shadow, it clings to us and haunts us. The human cycle of violence is the ongoing projection of this shadow.
The Shadow
“In Jungian terms, our culture’s enormous, intractable, overriding shadow is the cruelty and violence towards animals it requires, practises, eats and meticulously hides and denies. … The shadow archetype represents those aspects of ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge, the part of ourselves that we have disowned. To itself, the shadow is what the self is not, and in this case it is our own cruelty and violence that we deny and repress. We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people. We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein. Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture.
“As Jungian psychotherapy emphasizes, the shadow will be heard! This is why we eventually do to ourselves what we do to animals. The shadow is a vital and undeniable force that cannot, in the end, be repressed. The tremendous psychological forces required to confine, mutilate, and kill millions of animals every day, and to keep the whole bloody slaughter repressed and invisible, work in two ways. One way is to numb, desensitize, and armour us, which decreases our intelligence and ability to make connections. The other is to force us to act out exactly what we are repressing. This is done through projection. We create an acceptable target to loathe for being violent, cruel, and tyrannical – the very qualities that we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves – and then we attack it. With this understanding of the immense violence toward animals that we keep hidden and the implacable shadow this creates, the existence of 50,000 nuclear warheads becomes comprehensible. Our “never-ending” war against terrorism becomes not just comprehensible but inevitable, as does our appalling destruction of ecosystems, the rampant exploitation of the world’s poor, and the suicide, addiction, and disease that ravage countless human lives.
“The shadow is the self that does the dirty work for us so we can remain good and acceptable in our own eyes. The more we repress and disconnect, the more inner disturbance we will carry that we must project on an outer evil force, an enemy or scapegoat of some kind, against whom we can direct our denied violence. We will see these enemies as the essence of evil and despise them, for they represent aspects of our self that we cannot face. In our quest to eliminate them we are driven to build the most hideous weapons imaginable, developing them throughout the centuries so that today we have the capacity to destroy all of humanity hundreds of times over. This is not just something in our past, like the generations of inquisitions, crusades, and wars. We eat more animals, project more enemies, and create more weapons than ever before. Every minute 20,000 land animals are killed in United States slaughterhouses and the Pentagon spends $760,000 (every minute). This huge expenditure on maintaining and developing systems to harm and destroy other people is a particularly egregious manifestation of the tragic suppression of intelligence caused by eating animal foods. “ Will Tuttle (reprinted with permmission)
Friday, September 12, 2008
Vegan
"Vegan" conjures up the idea of difficulty, so it’s dishonest to say becoming vegan is easy. Our listeners aren’t fools – they can see veganism isn’t complicated to understand but is probably quite hard to carry out. It is based on a set of principles (so simple a small child could understand it) but that it means a lot of giving-up of things. Familiar and favourite food for example. Mainly food but not only food. There are clothing items, shoes made of leather, entertainments using animals, cosmetics tested on animals, and there are also the social factors involved in becoming a vegan. We have to be able to handle being regarded as social misfits. But to put it all in proportion, we have to remember that it’s a mighty principle we are promoting. We can put up with the pain of being misunderstood, especially when we think of the advantages of a clear conscience, a healthy body and a somewhat clearer mind and faster brain. Admittedly it’s a discipline and therefore we have to work at it, but we are undoubtedly contributing not only to the ‘greater-good’ but to a better carbon footprint. And the plant-based diet we adopt, if taken up by large numbers of people, would lead to the eradication of world hunger, since the plant food currently being grown to feed animals could be fed to humans. But the greatest advantage of veganism is in the significance of its disassociation with animal cruelty. Whatever hardships vegans might have to put up with, nothing compares with the suffering of the animals. So nothing is as important as boycotting products and sparing the animals. That is what ultimately cements vegan resolve and makes ultimate sense out of what we are saying.
But veganism isn’t a breeze. It’s still difficult for people who want to be vegan, especially if they have a mental block about how to get past addictions to certain of their favourite foods and most especially if there is a nagging belief that a plant-based diet might be unsafe. All the more reason then that we, as vegans, should realise where most people are at and why what we are saying may be frightening. And if we say it aggressively it can be both shocking and insulting too. For example, the slogan “Meat is Murder” is really saying “You are a murderer” and for that reason alone vegans need to ease up on the invective. Accusing people of this is just about as attacking as anything one can say. Is it valid to attack like this? How careful should we be with our words? And why be careful? Is it valid to point out the nasty side of human nature, even though we know people will turn away from us when we do?
If it is valid, then what exactly is this aspect of human nature we are trying to draw people’s attention to? For all of us, vegan and non-vegan, it might be what is known as 'our shadow'; the part of us we want to hide. Not the gentle, generous side but the hard, mean-hearted side.
Vegans say things that shock and the reaction is predictable. As soon as veganism is mentioned (as the penny drops that ‘animal rights’ is the subject and not health or diet) a defence shield goes up. If we are going to talk about animals rights, we have to decide beforehand how far to go, by gauging when to pull back and when to press forward. We don’t know where someone’s breaking point is going to be or if they will be either attracted to a challenge or regard what we say as a personal attack.
But veganism isn’t a breeze. It’s still difficult for people who want to be vegan, especially if they have a mental block about how to get past addictions to certain of their favourite foods and most especially if there is a nagging belief that a plant-based diet might be unsafe. All the more reason then that we, as vegans, should realise where most people are at and why what we are saying may be frightening. And if we say it aggressively it can be both shocking and insulting too. For example, the slogan “Meat is Murder” is really saying “You are a murderer” and for that reason alone vegans need to ease up on the invective. Accusing people of this is just about as attacking as anything one can say. Is it valid to attack like this? How careful should we be with our words? And why be careful? Is it valid to point out the nasty side of human nature, even though we know people will turn away from us when we do?
If it is valid, then what exactly is this aspect of human nature we are trying to draw people’s attention to? For all of us, vegan and non-vegan, it might be what is known as 'our shadow'; the part of us we want to hide. Not the gentle, generous side but the hard, mean-hearted side.
Vegans say things that shock and the reaction is predictable. As soon as veganism is mentioned (as the penny drops that ‘animal rights’ is the subject and not health or diet) a defence shield goes up. If we are going to talk about animals rights, we have to decide beforehand how far to go, by gauging when to pull back and when to press forward. We don’t know where someone’s breaking point is going to be or if they will be either attracted to a challenge or regard what we say as a personal attack.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Target consumers, but don’t bash them
When starting to seriously contemplate veganism, as soon as one considers a whole new attitude towards animals, it immediately affects shopping habits. A young vegan woman I knew once told me that people should think of their beloved cats and dogs at home while they strolled down the aisles of the supermarket – it would help them remember similar animals who are not so well loved, notably the ones living on farms.
As vegans, however we approach others, we must try to touch their hearts. And once we have succeeded in this they must be given the support they need from us, to help them make the transition from meat eating to plant eating. If we fail to reach them, they won’t think they have anyone they can turn to, and they won’t feel strong enough, without support, to fight for anything different even if they wanted to. And many do want to, because they see the trap people have fallen into; they see how desperately those who depend heavily on animals, how they have an attitude problem –refusing to even consider animals as sentient beings.
The people who are employed by the animal industry, who obviously have the greatest interest in it, the killers, packers, processors, producers and retailers, have to be indifferent towards the feelings of the animals to safeguard their livelihoods. They never think of sparing the feelings of animals anymore than wood chippers think of sparing the forest. If their business fails they will personally be ruined. It is widely thought that the country would be too – that if the animal industries became discredited there would be enormous repercussions to the economy of the nation. For anyone convinced of this, any talk of cruelty to animals must be quashed, ethics mustn’t be allowed to enter into it and farm doors must be kept firmly shut from the public gaze. Since animal farming is still legal and by way of customer loyalty it remains in a numbers-strong position, the industry is still secure. Secure enough, especially when helped along by tame scientists who tell people that “we must eat meat” and spiritual leaders who say that what farmers and vivisectors do to animals is essential and therefore not morally wrong. The customer is sucked in by all this. So many customers that they represent some 95% of all adults in every country of the world. There’s an urgent need for vegans to target the customers of the animal industries, to help reverse their desensitisation and challenge the industry’s misinformation. We never know when a person is ready to make the move, so we need to be ready to be there for them, rather than being ready to bash them.
As vegans, however we approach others, we must try to touch their hearts. And once we have succeeded in this they must be given the support they need from us, to help them make the transition from meat eating to plant eating. If we fail to reach them, they won’t think they have anyone they can turn to, and they won’t feel strong enough, without support, to fight for anything different even if they wanted to. And many do want to, because they see the trap people have fallen into; they see how desperately those who depend heavily on animals, how they have an attitude problem –refusing to even consider animals as sentient beings.
The people who are employed by the animal industry, who obviously have the greatest interest in it, the killers, packers, processors, producers and retailers, have to be indifferent towards the feelings of the animals to safeguard their livelihoods. They never think of sparing the feelings of animals anymore than wood chippers think of sparing the forest. If their business fails they will personally be ruined. It is widely thought that the country would be too – that if the animal industries became discredited there would be enormous repercussions to the economy of the nation. For anyone convinced of this, any talk of cruelty to animals must be quashed, ethics mustn’t be allowed to enter into it and farm doors must be kept firmly shut from the public gaze. Since animal farming is still legal and by way of customer loyalty it remains in a numbers-strong position, the industry is still secure. Secure enough, especially when helped along by tame scientists who tell people that “we must eat meat” and spiritual leaders who say that what farmers and vivisectors do to animals is essential and therefore not morally wrong. The customer is sucked in by all this. So many customers that they represent some 95% of all adults in every country of the world. There’s an urgent need for vegans to target the customers of the animal industries, to help reverse their desensitisation and challenge the industry’s misinformation. We never know when a person is ready to make the move, so we need to be ready to be there for them, rather than being ready to bash them.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Growing up
Now this is just my opinion, but ever since I got involved with the animal rights movement I’ve had this feeling that not all of us were nice people. We were hot on the trail of the criminals who hurt animals, we were outraged but we weren’t being gentle people. Now that may not be true of some activists but many of my own contemporaries aren’t always open to arguments if they contradict the no-use-animal principle. It’s great that this principle was so firmly established, but now in order to communicate it, the activist should try to come across as mature, clear, firm but gentle, and most of all have about us a sense of fairness. We mustn’t be seen to be taking advantage of the logic of our arguments because no one likes a smart-alec. Instead we should drive slowly along the approach roads, trying not to force people into the ditch. We should set the scene, allowing them enough space to weigh the evidence and be their own judge and jury.
If we expect them to respect our views we should respect their freedom to express their opinion. The sort of changes we want to see happen can only come about when free-willed individuals decide for themselves that it’s time to change. I believe that change happens when a good idea sparks excitement not guilt. Guilt may shift us at first but it usually dissipates, whereas inspiration resonates with something deep inside us, and it continues firing up new thoughts and fresh feelings. Something that inspires us is something we can identify with. And alongside, it lets us identify with the idea’s presenter; veganism, if approved of, reflects on the vegan who presents it. For that reason vegans have to be careful not to come across as people with good arguments but ugly personalities, which stop people identifying with us, and therefore with what we say. If we can hold their interest and leave them with something to think about, they won’t be so ready to run away. And then we’re half way to winning them over.
If we expect them to respect our views we should respect their freedom to express their opinion. The sort of changes we want to see happen can only come about when free-willed individuals decide for themselves that it’s time to change. I believe that change happens when a good idea sparks excitement not guilt. Guilt may shift us at first but it usually dissipates, whereas inspiration resonates with something deep inside us, and it continues firing up new thoughts and fresh feelings. Something that inspires us is something we can identify with. And alongside, it lets us identify with the idea’s presenter; veganism, if approved of, reflects on the vegan who presents it. For that reason vegans have to be careful not to come across as people with good arguments but ugly personalities, which stop people identifying with us, and therefore with what we say. If we can hold their interest and leave them with something to think about, they won’t be so ready to run away. And then we’re half way to winning them over.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Dialogue between grown ups
To get a good dialogue going it needs ground rules. Before we can be taken seriously our adversaries need to be sure that we’re fair minded, enough to give them a chance to say their piece, after which they’ll let us, or be obliged to let us, say our piece.
If there’s any personal disapproval in the air it will get in the way. By keeping our arguments away from the personal we’ll be able to show we aren’t afraid of opposition and then we can make space for debate to take place. And if we ever get to debate this subject properly, then we’ll have achieved a lot for animal rights. This issue of animal rights is potentially explosive. It’s confronting. But, for vegans and animal advocates, it’s exciting too, since it deals with potentials and break throughs. For us (and of course potentially for anyone else) it’s liberating and profoundly inspiring. For us a debate is something to value. It’s our chance to state our case. It’s another matter entirely for meat eaters. For them debate is more difficult because they don’t have so much to back up their case.
But for quite different reasons, debate is not easy for vegans either, because they have a lot of bottled up anger that needs to be kept under control. If we were more mature as people, then both meat-eaters and vegans alike would be able to communicate better. But we aren’t. And since vegans are the ones who want the dialogue to take place, it’s our job to take the initiative; to act like grown ups and set the standard of behaviour.
If there’s any personal disapproval in the air it will get in the way. By keeping our arguments away from the personal we’ll be able to show we aren’t afraid of opposition and then we can make space for debate to take place. And if we ever get to debate this subject properly, then we’ll have achieved a lot for animal rights. This issue of animal rights is potentially explosive. It’s confronting. But, for vegans and animal advocates, it’s exciting too, since it deals with potentials and break throughs. For us (and of course potentially for anyone else) it’s liberating and profoundly inspiring. For us a debate is something to value. It’s our chance to state our case. It’s another matter entirely for meat eaters. For them debate is more difficult because they don’t have so much to back up their case.
But for quite different reasons, debate is not easy for vegans either, because they have a lot of bottled up anger that needs to be kept under control. If we were more mature as people, then both meat-eaters and vegans alike would be able to communicate better. But we aren’t. And since vegans are the ones who want the dialogue to take place, it’s our job to take the initiative; to act like grown ups and set the standard of behaviour.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Listening to opposite views
By adopting an overall non-violent approach we don’t weaken our connection with people or weaken our consideration of animals. We emphasise the way we intend to operate and the spirit of any reform that comes about. The underlying principle of non-violence is guardianship and that means encouraging a feeling of responsibility towards the animals in our care. It also implies that we are kind with one another and patient enough to allow people to change at their own rate and within their own capacity. Certainly change is urgent, certainly the horrors of animal farming must be stopped as quickly as possible but nothing can be hurried when we are dealing with free-willed people with firmly held opinions. That is what humans have fought so hard to get and what we now have plenty of. But it has let us slip into irresponsibility. If we want to alter people’s views about animals we certainly have a hard fight on our hands but it isn’t the sort of fight that requires us to be aggressive. It’s one that establishes connections with people, without rushing them. We have to listen, even to opposite views from those who still believe in their right to eat or exploit animals. It’s our biggest test: to show we can listen without feeling threatened or without violent reaction.
If we can get that straight, then we can go that extra step and resist the temptation to make personal value judgements. By not aggressively defending what we believe, we stand a chance of getting through to even the most obstinate people. If we attack, there’s going to be counter attack … and then no one is listening to anybody.
If we can get that straight, then we can go that extra step and resist the temptation to make personal value judgements. By not aggressively defending what we believe, we stand a chance of getting through to even the most obstinate people. If we attack, there’s going to be counter attack … and then no one is listening to anybody.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Old opinions revisited
. We try to make our arguments non-judgemental and present them non-violently, with those who are yet-to-be-convinced. But people aren’t accustomed to moral matters being delivered in a mild mannered way; important issues aren’t usually put forward that include both sides of the argument. In today’s world we don’t believe we can get ideas across unless we speak polemically. Propaganda, spin, indoctrination, they’re all unattractive but on an emotional level thought to be quite effective. When we’re selling an ethical idea, we don’t usually adopt a reasoned approach. Instead we find fault, then exaggerate it and go in aggressively in order to force people to think about what they are doing. But in matters of personal morality, especially concerning our use of animals, people hate being told what to do so they dig their heels in. And once that happens we’ve already failed.
To prevent this happening we might need to bend over backwards (to show that we realise how difficult these issues are for people) by presenting the pros and cons of ‘the argument’, aiming to have our arguments critically assessed. With animal rights we aren’t looking for plain agreement, we’re wanting to get people to think about issues and arrive at their own conclusions. Often, in the flush of agreement with an idea, we act and then, later on, forget the reasons we had for agreeing. It’s like coming out of a movie feeling pumped by the whole emotional impact of what we’ve seen, and then later on, as the details fade, we can’t remember quite why we were so carried away. With new opinions, if we don’t examine and digest them thoroughly enough, the power of them fades too quickly and we revert back to our earlier opinions.
If animal liberationists can inspire change we need that change to be permanent, and that means arguments have to be introduced carefully, that is non-violently and non-accusingly, so that they come across clearly and stick in the memory. We should promote liberation for what it is, not just welfare reform or incremental stages of granting rights or fiddling with our omnivorous diets but as a clear cut abolitionist attitude from which all other arguments flow. It’s much the same as the great opinion change that took place, that ended human slavery. It was always about outright abolition, so there would be no sliding back into old habits.
To prevent this happening we might need to bend over backwards (to show that we realise how difficult these issues are for people) by presenting the pros and cons of ‘the argument’, aiming to have our arguments critically assessed. With animal rights we aren’t looking for plain agreement, we’re wanting to get people to think about issues and arrive at their own conclusions. Often, in the flush of agreement with an idea, we act and then, later on, forget the reasons we had for agreeing. It’s like coming out of a movie feeling pumped by the whole emotional impact of what we’ve seen, and then later on, as the details fade, we can’t remember quite why we were so carried away. With new opinions, if we don’t examine and digest them thoroughly enough, the power of them fades too quickly and we revert back to our earlier opinions.
If animal liberationists can inspire change we need that change to be permanent, and that means arguments have to be introduced carefully, that is non-violently and non-accusingly, so that they come across clearly and stick in the memory. We should promote liberation for what it is, not just welfare reform or incremental stages of granting rights or fiddling with our omnivorous diets but as a clear cut abolitionist attitude from which all other arguments flow. It’s much the same as the great opinion change that took place, that ended human slavery. It was always about outright abolition, so there would be no sliding back into old habits.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Animal Rights via Non-Violence
Vegans tell people about double standards and inconsistencies in buying food made from animals (“You say you love animals but you eat them”). Telling people this isn’t easy because it doesn’t go down too well. (No surprises there!) And being unpopular brings out the worst in all of us, vegans included. Vegans don’t want to be disliked. It seems so unfair, it makes us angry and aggressive towards people who disparage our ideals. But that’s how it goes. We feel badly done by, our adversaries feel morally attacked.
What I think happens is that we vegans feel a lot of compassion for animals and less compassion for animal eaters, so we can’t help broadcasting hostility, like this:
“You eat meat? Wow! That is so uncool”. Obviously a hostile statement and most of us wouldn’t be so up front, so perhaps we’d say “it’s your choice” but say it with just as much judgement in our voice. We might not want to get a bad reaction, but who would? If we sound too weak it won’t register. So we tend to speak a little too directly, say exactly what we mean to maximise our impact and to give the impression that our view is very important to us. But we run the risk of offending. We lose friends this way.
What ever we say on this matter, it’s bound to shock, and we are either dismissed or counterattacked, depending on how we put it. So how do we say something strongly without inviting such an overreaction, and making any further discussion impossible?
If we think before we speak, we might realise the power of understatement. No fireworks, just a statement that sinks in and gets thought about but one that obviously isn’t being hammered home. The whole process of ‘changing a person’s mind’ isn’t a simple, quick or easy thing to do. It’s likely that we’re dealing with a mind made up, a powerful mind, even an informed mind. The only way in is if we don’t use any force at all. We have to work out ways of approaching this subject without cornering people. We need to establish perceptions first, to show we’re aware of them - they eat animals and don’t think it is important; we regard animals as our friends and we don’t eat our friends. That means we are worlds apart in our views, but somehow we must get close enough to exchange views without exchanging blows. How do we interact in a completely non-violent way?
What I think happens is that we vegans feel a lot of compassion for animals and less compassion for animal eaters, so we can’t help broadcasting hostility, like this:
“You eat meat? Wow! That is so uncool”. Obviously a hostile statement and most of us wouldn’t be so up front, so perhaps we’d say “it’s your choice” but say it with just as much judgement in our voice. We might not want to get a bad reaction, but who would? If we sound too weak it won’t register. So we tend to speak a little too directly, say exactly what we mean to maximise our impact and to give the impression that our view is very important to us. But we run the risk of offending. We lose friends this way.
What ever we say on this matter, it’s bound to shock, and we are either dismissed or counterattacked, depending on how we put it. So how do we say something strongly without inviting such an overreaction, and making any further discussion impossible?
If we think before we speak, we might realise the power of understatement. No fireworks, just a statement that sinks in and gets thought about but one that obviously isn’t being hammered home. The whole process of ‘changing a person’s mind’ isn’t a simple, quick or easy thing to do. It’s likely that we’re dealing with a mind made up, a powerful mind, even an informed mind. The only way in is if we don’t use any force at all. We have to work out ways of approaching this subject without cornering people. We need to establish perceptions first, to show we’re aware of them - they eat animals and don’t think it is important; we regard animals as our friends and we don’t eat our friends. That means we are worlds apart in our views, but somehow we must get close enough to exchange views without exchanging blows. How do we interact in a completely non-violent way?
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Out of sight
Will Tuttle has written a book The World Peace Diet. http://worldpeacediet.org. In it, on page 222, he says:
“We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people. We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein. Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture”.
This is a picture of humans with their hands tied. He says, on page 221, “We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be?”
Humans are by nature kind people. Most of us would be completely incapable of deliberately making an animal suffer. But we are by nature duplicitous. We let a proxy do what we can’t do. And somehow we reconcile these two opposites and come out smelling like roses.
This ability to accept ‘out of sight out of mind’ says a lot about us. We say that what our eyes don’t see our heart won’t grieve over, so whenever we buy animal products we see nothing wrong happening - when we’re out shopping we visualise buying a familiar product. We know the packaging. We reach for it, and as soon as we touch it it’s as good as taken, and eaten – all to be repeated whenever we want more of the same. There’s a never ending supply. The replacement immediately fills the empty space left on the shelf. If it’s a battery egg or a leg of a lamb, we buy it because we want it. We refuse to be concerned about how it was produced. We buy it because it is irresistible. We are not necessarily in favour of cruelty to animals but we do notice that whenever animal welfare reforms are made, prices go up. That one factor makes us less enthusiastic for any further reform of farming practice. In the end money talks. Economics supersedes ethics. When choosing what to buy, it is nearly always personal convenience and self-interest that determines our decisions. When we want something, we will always decide to buy it despite having a strong ethical reason not to.
“We tell ourselves that we are good, just, upright, kind and gentle people. We just happen to enjoy eating animals, which is okay because they were put here for us to use and we need the protein. Yet the extreme cruelty and violence underlying our meals is undeniable, and so our collective shadow looms larger and more menacing the more we deny its existence, sabotaging our efforts to grow spiritually and to collectively evolve a more awakened culture”.
This is a picture of humans with their hands tied. He says, on page 221, “We will always be violent toward each other as long as we are violent toward animals – how could we not be?”
Humans are by nature kind people. Most of us would be completely incapable of deliberately making an animal suffer. But we are by nature duplicitous. We let a proxy do what we can’t do. And somehow we reconcile these two opposites and come out smelling like roses.
This ability to accept ‘out of sight out of mind’ says a lot about us. We say that what our eyes don’t see our heart won’t grieve over, so whenever we buy animal products we see nothing wrong happening - when we’re out shopping we visualise buying a familiar product. We know the packaging. We reach for it, and as soon as we touch it it’s as good as taken, and eaten – all to be repeated whenever we want more of the same. There’s a never ending supply. The replacement immediately fills the empty space left on the shelf. If it’s a battery egg or a leg of a lamb, we buy it because we want it. We refuse to be concerned about how it was produced. We buy it because it is irresistible. We are not necessarily in favour of cruelty to animals but we do notice that whenever animal welfare reforms are made, prices go up. That one factor makes us less enthusiastic for any further reform of farming practice. In the end money talks. Economics supersedes ethics. When choosing what to buy, it is nearly always personal convenience and self-interest that determines our decisions. When we want something, we will always decide to buy it despite having a strong ethical reason not to.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Animals must not matter
Everyone says they want a peaceful world. Few are ready to act to bring it about and of those who are, few link peace with food choices. Even amongst the most educated very few believe animal rights will start the ball rolling towards the end of violence in our world.
To vegans, however, it seems obvious. The only way to bring about lasting peace is to associate many of our life-comforts with human violence, especially when it comes to food. For meat eaters, the brutal killing of animals means animals must not matter and this is not an easy precept to hold down, yet it’s an essential one for the human predators of animals.
Unlike any other predator, whose food supplies are limited, there is abundant choice for humans, but we pretend we have to eat meat and animal products despite knowing instinctively that they’re poisoning us. Further, we engage the double standard of being nice people who are nevertheless too cowardly to kill the animals we eat; we let someone else do the job for us.
Even if this were our only inconsistency, it would weaken us too much to let us save our world, but you’d think if there was the slightest chance to save our world by becoming stronger willed, we’d do it. However, we are too hooked on our foods and lifestyle to change - it seems too great a personal sacrifice and therefore, although we could be a great asset for this planet, we remain its greatest curse. Our unwillingness to sacrifice a few of our comforts and our obstinacy to listen to sense, ties us to the abattoir and dooms us to inevitable self-destruction. All the time animals remain property, all the time we keep the slaughter houses open, there can’t be any peace and humans will have to remain impotent to bring about a sustainable future.
To vegans, however, it seems obvious. The only way to bring about lasting peace is to associate many of our life-comforts with human violence, especially when it comes to food. For meat eaters, the brutal killing of animals means animals must not matter and this is not an easy precept to hold down, yet it’s an essential one for the human predators of animals.
Unlike any other predator, whose food supplies are limited, there is abundant choice for humans, but we pretend we have to eat meat and animal products despite knowing instinctively that they’re poisoning us. Further, we engage the double standard of being nice people who are nevertheless too cowardly to kill the animals we eat; we let someone else do the job for us.
Even if this were our only inconsistency, it would weaken us too much to let us save our world, but you’d think if there was the slightest chance to save our world by becoming stronger willed, we’d do it. However, we are too hooked on our foods and lifestyle to change - it seems too great a personal sacrifice and therefore, although we could be a great asset for this planet, we remain its greatest curse. Our unwillingness to sacrifice a few of our comforts and our obstinacy to listen to sense, ties us to the abattoir and dooms us to inevitable self-destruction. All the time animals remain property, all the time we keep the slaughter houses open, there can’t be any peace and humans will have to remain impotent to bring about a sustainable future.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Meanwhile back at the ranch ...
Animals are getting killed in their billions whilst the consumer is led to believe animal products are vital for good health. Everything is done to make things easy for the consumer; products are made easily available at shops, there are bright colours to attract and yummy tastes to whet the appetite. It’s all very attractive and tempting. But the consumer isn’t completely blind. Those who are more discerning sense the tide is turning – that meat eating is becoming as unfashionable as cigarette smoking and that we are coming to the end of the speciesist era. To date, most consumers haven’t seriously considered changing their eating habits and perhaps they will hold out till they are personally too afraid for their own health or for the future of the planet, or until their conscience pricks too badly. But so far most people, especially older people, are nowhere near being vegetarian let alone vegan. Which means that hope must rest with the better informed young and those with a compassionate bent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)