A delicate balance

It’s a delicate balance, for advocates, to seem laid back and yet to be talking seriously. The laid back part of us wants to say, “I’m willing to listen” because being laid back looks like confidence, meaning we’re sure of our facts and not worried about counter-arguments. By listening to what others have to say we create calm, even amongst ‘hostiles’. Once we stop listening and try the animal rights spiel instead, if we then sound righteous and opinionated most will want to turn off … or there’s a stoush, then abuse, then dislike and then a dislike of what we are saying. For the majority, who routinely use animal foods and by-products, it’s relatively easy to put animal issues out of mind. Safety in numbers. Normally no one challenges. Until a vegan activist comes along. Then what happens? Once they open their mouth, if the vegan becomes pushy and evangelical people are put off for ever - “Once bitten twice shy”, they say. “Avoid vegans”.
Between animal advocates and animal eaters there’s always going to be tension. Life itself is based on tension. Tension is good. But it shouldn’t become emotionally-charged tension. It shouldn’t get personal. Now, since vegans are usually the ones wanting to bring the subject up in conversation it’s up to us to set the standards. It’s we who create the atmosphere by talking about values. We’re the ones who can strike terror into people when we mention values, especially the BIG ones like compassion, kindness, respect, love, etc. And along the lines of practising what we preach we have to be value-consistent, otherwise we are what we accuse others of being - inconsistent.
By being at-one with the people we talk to we show we care about how they are feeling. If we use any of the negatives, like inducing guilt and shame, it isn’t helpful. Talking about the positives may take some time, to get our ideas across, during which time our values are going to be on show. So how we come across is important. In the past advocacy was like a bare knuckle fight, all high emotion, outrage and anger. Today we’re dealing with much more sophisticated people. We merely need a cool hand and a convincing argument. When we use high emotion in our arguments it looks as if we haven’t done our homework properly, as if we are hoping to win our arguments by use of aggression. If we don’t want to lose credibility, the equable approach is safe because it never looks like proselytising.