Animal Rights

769: 

I wonder about what would be the least unfriendly way to open up this subject, knowing that it isn’t the subject of choice for most people. Things would be entirely different if it were ANY other subject.

So let’s say we’re discussing another subject - the kids’ recent bad behaviour. And say, I suggest, “This behaviour is due to eating ‘violent’ food ... or fast food or sugary food; food which manifests violence or frustration. And then I go on to suggest The Vegan Diet, that it gives kids the best opportunities in life, gives them something to work for, gives them good energy and gives them a great body image. THIS is what vegan food does, for anyone”.

What have I done here? I’ve gone from ‘kids-behaving-badly’ to ‘vegans and animal-food’. I’ve basically changed the subject, and I’d probably do the same, with anything I felt passionate about. Perhaps I’d do it if I were talking about war, bringing the same cure-all into almost any subject, by suggesting the power of a vegan’s ‘harmlessness principle’. If you talk about the environment I can point to the damage animal rearing does, growing crops to feed animals to feed humans. Whatever you come up with I can counter, vegan-wise, which, I attest, proves all the best reasons to go vegan. I can drive almost any conversation around to these entry points.

But should I?

You and I are talking, about you-know-what. Instead of you submissively taking-in my ideas and considering them, it’s likely your defences will go up. You notice what I’m trying to do. You read the sub text of what I’m saying, to establish the next line of conversation, about ‘Animals’ and ‘Your attitude towards them’. I’ve strayed into something that is nothing short of personal criticism, since I’m saying that the problems of the world won’t be solved until they’ve been seen through vegan eyes. And however you interpret that sort of message, it’s likely you won’t like it, and you’ll be wanting me to leave. And in future, hoping you don’t meet me again.

So what can any of us Animal Rights advocates do? To sidestep our predictability, to steer around misunderstandings? If we vegans always bring conversations around to this subject, it’s because most of us think we should. Most of us try to wake others ‘up’ ... if only for the animals’ sake. Some people would consider that approach, namely my interference in their private life, intolerable.

A person’s attitude-to-animals is a fixed star which can’t be reached or altered. But for those of us who see things differently (and the worst of these are the rabid, evangelical, proselytising, wannabe-vegan preachers like myself), yes, we do face problems concerning our approach.

For those with an in-yer-face style of approach, in the end, we’ll be intolerable. But if we got our act together it could go the other way, where we’re in a future society where it’s politically incorrect to denigrate plant-eaters (known as ‘veganaphobic behaviour’). And by that time, omnivores will have been brought to account - one element missing: no more animals being used (as slaves for humans). The prospect of that surely  excuses some of our intolerability.

I, and all of us, have the right to speak, but that’s no guarantee you’ll let me in, and my greatest risk is that you’ll shut me out. Animal activists have to set their own standards of behaviour, here. But after that, it’s all to do with the entertainment business. We have to learn, as a stand-up comic learns, how to test the audience, how to spontaneously follow your nose, even if it’s just one person we’re speaking with.

I think this works: I attempt to be half entertaining and half educating, because most people respond quite well to that mix. I try to be useful but, more importantly, interesting. But even so, the line of this subject is predictable and a dud, interest-wise. I might try to seduce your interest but that doesn’t mean I’ll get you thinking, not about animals, anyway. We would be better off encouraging you to think about one question to ask, next time we meet.

I suppose our job, as animal activists, is to do battle, but without any moral-judgement attached. It isn’t that sort of battle. More, it’s about showing fair on a level playing field, where no one is righter than the other. Moreover, it’s not about scoring points. It isn’t a very familiar situation for any of us to find ourselves in, inside such a potentially important conversation. What we do have to struggle with is that old perception about vegans, that you think I’m after converts and I know I’m not. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking this way. I simply want to get people thinking for themselves.