The failure of ‘the push’

932:

If our own self-development is connected with our work for Animal Rights, we’ll want to see some results. We’ll want some evidence that we haven’t been wasting our time. But, in this field, progress is slow.

            Nobody yet knows the clue to communicating this subject successfully. We are, all of us, struggling to find a way to put our arguments, to people who aren’t initially interested. So, how can we shake the sleepy omnivores out of their apathy and complacency? Perhaps by being a bit pushy?

            But the question arises: can we achieve success with only truth on our side? Maybe we need something more than bare truth – perhaps a promise to ‘not-quarrel’ in exchange for a fair hearing. 

            Can we take this on? In the face of so much resistance, don’t many of us think it’s okay to use a little force or moral pressure, to at least show how serious we are?

Some of us reckon to show a little fight in our words because it makes us feel stronger. Some reckon it’s justified to use direct action, to maybe go out and superglue the lock on the door of the butcher’s shop or graffiti the vivisector’s house.

There’s a fine line between violent and non-violent resistance. It’s thought that if we seem too passive, people will find it easier to ignore us, and then nothing will change; if we look tough and brave, we’ll be noticed.

By being part of a direct action group, we might be showing how sincere we are, prepared to do something quite brave. But by destroying property we give ourselves the wrong look – it makes it easy for our adversaries to demonise us.

Where direct action really works is when we might break into a factory farm with a video camera, and then go out to show the evidence to schools or show it on TV news; that’s quite different. That gives people, kids especially, a chance to see what’s really going on. No one can vilify us for that.

We need activists who are brave enough to go under cover, collect evidence. Our arguments rest upon that evidence. However, we must know the extent of the blindness to the truth, out there. Our most determined direct action might not prove to be as successful as we’d like it to be (which is not a reason not to do it). It’s likely that, although people will simply be forced to agree with us about the cruelty, and the appalling conditions animals are forced to live in (since they can’t ignore what we’ve shown them), they’ll soon forget it. It’s likely they’ll not remember for very long what they’ve seen, especially when their favourite foods are at stake.

In theory the ‘pushy’ approach is effective. Horror scenes, from behind closed doors, the results of direct action, is happening there in front of our eyes. It’s shown on the news. People are shaken up. But in practice, even if people see the most convincing footage and hear the most convincing arguments, it usually goes in one ear and out the other. I think the mistake we make, as animal activists, is to believe that once cruelty has been exposed it will be stopped, and from there we’ll make steady progress towards animal liberation; we refuse to believe that other people may be fundamentally different to us.

It’s likely that with such strong traditions and with so many people who have the same eating habits as each other, that anything we can show them will be ignored, in order that they may continue eating the sorts of foods they want to eat. Gathering and showing evidence must be kept up and will eventually be invaluable, since we have truth on our side. But overall, it’s probably best to minimise property damage, contain our anger and hold back on aggression, especially when we’re feeling most brave, if only because it gives them an excuse to see us as some kind of terrorists.