1810:
When I was still buying
unethical products, I knew that I was collaborating in the very thing I wanted
to see changed. Ideally, 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! For that, some big change was
needed. And so I changed my omnivorous habits, and I was going to change
everyone else's. Oh yes!!
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 continues to provide the Animal Industries with financial support,
nothing will change. So much for me changing the world!! Why hasn’t it worked?
This is what I think has
happened – many people have had a similar negative experience with an animal
activist. They’ve heard us talking passionately but found it hard to identify
with us. 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 to a passionate advocate 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 exactly like 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. And consign the likes of me
to wherever it is they prefer me to be - out of sight and out of mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment