Article 13. Dynamic Harmlessness

Our main dynamic doesn’t have to be mischievous (although it could be mistaken as such). It’s more likely to be the confident assurance of a person with a strong case to argue. That sounds mischievous, especially if it’s an omnivore being ‘mischief-ed’ by a vegan.
For the very best reasons that game might not be appropriate. It might need to be modified, sometimes. Sometimes what we say might benefit from NOT being overstated. But whether what we say is dramatic or underplayed, our arguments almost inevitably have the potential to stir juices. As long as our energetic, passionate and dynamic side is based on non-violence, we are safe. An animal activist is as strongly committed to non-violence as to defending the rights of animals. That sort of activist will have a moment-by-moment checking system going - to avoid aggro because we know how sensitive to aggro omnivores can be. This system checks all the time. It should never be not-running, since it guards us from dipping into warfare at the first sign of threat. It tolerates. It observes the violence in others and doesn’t get violent about it. All our communications, including body language home in on others’ interests, so our theme, whatever it is, should always be interesting. If it’s not, no one’s listening.
This subject we want to talk about, if there is interest in what we have to say, we’re in luck! It’s like being invited to sing when you have a good voice and a few songs up your sleeve. If, as vegans, we get an invitation to say what we want to say (to speak freely) that very freedom allows things to rise to the surface naturally. (No pushing, no subtle directing, going with the flow). It’s all an act of faith, that if the subject is meant to arise it will.
Often people pick up a note of interest, from something we do or say, and because it seems unguarded, not devious, even vulnerable then it’s intriguing. Animal Rights and all the world which stems from it is not exactly uninteresting, even if you feel hostile to it. It is not a dull subject. Interest here is mixed with trepidation, disgust, fascination, all mixed up together. If they dare, they might put out a feeler. And that signals to us that we can mention something (on our subject). But here’s the tricky bit - do we literally drop our agenda and appreciate the possibility of something arising? Or deliberately mention “Animal Rights” and see what happens?
What vegans might like to consider is this - that they beware of bringing up the subject of Animal Rights at every conceivable moment. Whilst knowing that we are ever ready to respond appropriately when interest is shown. Appropriate can mena almost anything if the invite is there and we know our own vibration isn’t a confronting or judging one.
All this is possible. However it rather depends on YOU giving ME an invitation to make my point.
Now, you may know me, and you may have resolved never to stray anywhere near this subject for fear of an ear-bashing. But maybe you know me as the sort of vegan who doesn’t want to speak about it.
These vegans just wants to be accepted for their views. They aren’t so interested in proselytising animal issues. It’s enough just to feel as though I was doing something to save the animals (by being vegan). This is the private vegan rather than the public one.
Perhaps I’m the sort of vegan who thinks, “I wouldn’t be human if I didn’t want others to recognise me for what I stand for. Not for others to agree with me or admire me, but just to recognise that this is me as peace-maker. Now that’s reasonable enough isn’t it?”. Our quest for recognition from others is a two edged sword. We need it and in the needing show it and that’s felt as an expectation-to-be-resisted by any omnivore.
To expect recognition from people might be a very hard ask. Usually a person’s reaction to veganism is neither logical nor kind – nor for that matter unkind. There is simply a "non-response". A signal to say: “What might be important to you is not important to me, and therefore not worth talking about or responding to”. So for peace-makers, what is represented by our own ‘veganism’ as ‘wonderful, brave and future-making’ is, to others, not something even worth noticing. Ouch!. That’s hardly very encouraging for us, as vegans!
If there’s no kudos for a peace-maker in this society where’s our encouragement going to come from? I’d suggest - perhaps from within, just where the whole sensitivity-to-animals arose in the first place. Perhaps we need to tap into our sense of caring (in this case for the animals) and tap into anything else that’s non-violent - our imagination, our faith, our creativity - tap into whatever we have and into whatever it takes, to feel okay about being vegan.
It’s not being vegan that’s the problem, it’s the omnivore’s dismissal of it and therefore of us.
We have to replace what we don’t get from others by something we can draw on in our self, from the one true powerhouse of energy seated in our own imagination. And that’s my point here.
Maybe the catastrophe of our age is really only a crisis of "unimaginativeness". We don’t work things out for ourselves. Instead, we’re in the habit of doing what the others do. They eat animals, I eat animals. They don’t question, I don’t question ... but by not questioning or by not using our imagination there’ll be no creativity.
And so we miss out on pursuing our best altruistic aims.