985:
When I was still buying unethical products, I was
collaborating in the very thing I wanted to see changed. I wanted to promote sustainable systems; I
wanted to show my concern for the planet as well as the animals; I wanted to
ease my conscience; I wanted to see myself for who I thought I was, namely a non-violent
person. I wanted to conduct myself with
dignity, not by being mild or passive but by way of dignified outrage!
My approach to animal abuse was direct. It was the only way I knew that might work,
namely to protest against the violence to animals. Surely that’s unarguable? But no one seemed to want to talk about it. It was very frustrating. I would get quite aggressive towards
non-vegans. I was almost proud to act without restraint. I became intense in order to get my point
across. I thought it was okay to be
pushy, since it was for a good cause. I
had a duty to be forceful. I didn’t
realise at the time how close that was to ‘fighting violence with violence’.
Animal rights activists believe we have won significant
welfare reforms for animals by being non-compromising and sometimes outrageous.
By using this approach we’ve brought
issues to public attention and ended many of the worst abuses of animals. But it hasn’t convinced the majority of
consumers to change their eating habits. They may have caught our dirty looks but they haven’t
felt the opprobrium of anyone else. They
haven’t felt the urge or the responsibility to change their daily habits. The collective conscience hasn’t been tweaked.
And all the time the consumer is providing
the Animal Industries with financial support, nothing can change.
Why hasn’t it worked?
This is what I think has happened – many people have had a
similar experience with an animal activist. They’ve heard them talking passionately but found
it hard to identify with them. On an emotional
level people want to disagree with our arguments not just because they love
their animal foods but because they can’t identify with the sort of person who
can get that angry. One might
want to listen but it’s like listening to great music on a radio which is
picking up a lot of static interference. It’s an uncomfortable experience, it jars on
the nerves, and you just want it to stop.
Over the past thirty odd years, since the birth of Animal
Liberation, we’ve unfortunately built an aggro, ‘in-yer-face’ image. I speak for myself when I say that I’ve handed
people a golden opportunity to dislike me and therefore dislike what I’m saying.
I’ve lessened, not increased, my chances
of being able to discuss important issues concerning animals. A low key, informative chat with me is unlikely.
I’ve seemed like a person who is only
interested in others agreeing with me. When
I’m around there’s little chance to state your own opinion.
In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to
convert that there’s not enough attention given to education. As a spokesperson-for-the-cause I look like exactly
the wrong person for Animal Rights education, especially if my arguments are
powerful. Perhaps I need to believe that
the animals’ story would touch the hearts of people without my prodding. Perhaps I don’t have enough faith in ‘vegan’ being
attractive, or Animal Rights being exciting enough. My message sounds hard and uncompromising. It’s off-putting. And as for the issues themselves, well, the
consumer has enough to think about already, so they might consign ‘animal
issues’ to the back burner or the too-hard-basket.
No comments:
Post a Comment