Blunt Instruments

1254: 

The idea of Animal Liberation, rescuing and liberating animals, is right.  That's what we’re trying to communicate, about the horrors of the animals’ lives in captivity, is right.  And it may seem right to condemn those people who still continue supporting the animal industries.  But does it work?  

Just about everyone in the community is involved as customers of these industries, and for that reason alone not many of them will feel constrained to take ‘liberation’ too seriously.

         

We do have an added problem, in that we, as a movement, aren’t very consistent.  I think in the future we will have to be.   As I’ve already mentioned, many liberationists are 'owners' of carnivorous-animals, so they’re visiting the meat counter just as meat-eaters do themselves.  But that aside, what we condemn in others for disregarding farm animals, we do because, to some extent, it makes us feel good, for being ‘right’.  And, whether we are consistent or not, condemnation and value judgement was never going to work anyway.  The meat-eating community will not to be bullied into giving up their meat, and they might even enjoy the outrage of vegans.

         

Some vegans are like bullies, and even amongst one another there’s a tendency towards being vegan-police-types, criticising one another’s inconsistencies.  Perhaps, at first sight, that’s how I might come across, for seeming to condemn inconsistencies amongst fellow vegans (who buy meat for their cats and dogs).  But it’s not the detail of our various judgements but judgement in general, which is so unproductive.  None of us likes to be judged and most of us respond badly to it.  So, overall, the blunt instrument of judgement, real or perceived, works against our best aims.  If we make use of judgement we can’t, in my opinion, be effective advocates for animals.

         

Over the years, I’ve found that all my judging and condemning has never worked.  My point is that any amount of outrage, especially from a small group of people, is ineffective.  It’s just too easy for (the big group of) people to ignore it and remain blissfully unscathed by their (small group of) judges.

         

If we condemn the unethical use of animals, without the support of the law or the majority of ordinary people, our protests and judgements will appear to be simply the ravings of weirdoes, which is sublimely ignorable.  The best way to be effective is surely to encourage people to think and discuss, without insisting that they agree with our views.  We shouldn't get defensive about our views.  Yes, we need to state our case clearly but then we need to stand back and see what happens, and try to understand why people are responding the way they do.  Our movement needs more dispassionate research into attitude.  Then, we might be in a better position to realise what we’re up against and what will work in changing Society’s attitude.