993:
When we are discussing things, you and I, how much do I
value good feeling between us? Do I try
to defuse things when I sense things getting out of hand? How do I pull back in time? How do I let any bad feelings blow over,
especially within that vital microsecond, before things go too far?
Do I even care?
Surely it comes back to not judging another person’s values.
It comes down to resisting the
temptation to become antagonistic towards someone because of the attitudes they
have. For me, when things begin to get
out of hand, by having a grounding in non-violence I avoid inadvertently
touching a raw nerve in my adversary. And
when it comes the other way around, when I’m being cornered, it’s important
that I don’t appear hypersensitive.
Communications on this subject of Animal Rights is fraught
with dangers. As soon as I feel entitled
to get my point across no matter what,
I will surely fail. As soon as I go for
broke, show I’m not scared of getting rough or getting into a fight, I run the
risk of losing friendly feelings or even the whole friendship, over this
difference of opinion.
I’ve found that ‘going for broke’ never wins the argument
and usually haemorrhages a person’s respect for me. So, it comes down to this - do I really think
that the issue of Animal Rights is more important than staying on friendly
terms with someone?
Perhaps I’ll argue that I must be true to my role as
animal-advocate – I must rigorously defend them under all circumstances. But what if this approach is doomed to
failure? Maybe we aren’t trying to win
the argument as much as we are firstly trying to win the heart, by convincing
our opponents that, bottom line, we are sworn to a non-violence policy. This can impress and even win over the most
hostile adversary, because of this value. It makes me less scary. It makes me approachable. It allows a person to put up an argument
without the fear of being shot down.
More is achieved by showing mutual respect than anything
else. We can even show a little
humility, and by remembering the value of non-violence we won’t be so easily
sucked into a fight, even though it means leaving my feelings on this subject
undeclared.
But just wait a moment. Is this honest? If I have strong views surely I shouldn’t
pretend otherwise? And why should
defending a position strenuously have to go pear-shaped anyway? Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between
two points of view, is stimulating, breaking through barriers of politeness,
providing enough heady atmosphere to uproot stale attitudes? Surely a frisson of tension means the issue is
alive, even if does seem uncomfortable?
This ‘Animal Rights’ subject is a classic divider, even
between close friends. The vulcanologist
never knows when or how big the volcanic eruption is going to be before it
happens. Similarly, we never know
exactly what will set another person off, or precisely what issues are too
sensitive for them?
What’s important here is surely not about our own human
sensitivities being bruised, but the possibility of ‘blowing it’. Let’s not forget just how important this
subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals currently
living down on Auschwitz Farm. Surely
our own sensitivities pale into insignificance when compared to the suffering
of domesticated animals. If we feel
strongly about this, surely passion must outweigh politeness. Isn’t a little bit of violence-in-our-talk
excusable in order to demonstrate our outrage. I want to move away from being Mr Nice Guy.
But this isn’t about conception but perception. I think passionate advocacy can coexist with
non-violence, and that our non-violent side is more robust than our violent
side.
If there is interest in what we say, it’s like having an
invitation to speak freely. And then we
moderate that according to our respect for others’ feelings. If I ever try to break in without an okay it’s
just gate crashing, and whatever I do have to say will be less important than
my aggro approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment