Non-violence has always seemed a bit passive, as if it isn’t effective enough to eliminate violence. But perhaps that’s the point – we shouldn’t want to kill off anything and that includes violence itself. Instead we should accept that one lives alongside the other. It’s the nature of the planet. Alongside disease there’s an immune system; the disease is the attacker, the other the defender. During one of Nature’s violent gales the stalk of wheat bends but doesn’t break. It’s built for wind - the tension on the stalk brings about the strength the stalk needs. This is the tension between opposites, the push-me-pull-you of our own thoughts.
Non-violence confronts and then withdraws. It dances with violence. It lets the violence-based world make its impact, all the sooner to burn itself out. Then a period of non-violence starts, to make a different sort of impact. At this point in time, after the violence of the twentieth century, we’re in transition, clinging to violence because it’s been passed-down to us, as a method for getting things done. Now, in a new era, non-violent values are beginning to solve some of our problems. But, like veganism itself, these values still make small impact. For most people they go largely untested. So for non-violence enthusiasts, patience is golden, especially in helping us to come to terms with the violence in the world. If non-violence is to be the modus operandi of our new age, it would seem fairly urgent to recognise how violent we are personally. Non-violence: we shouldn’t run with it before we can walk with it; we shouldn’t preach it before we can practise it.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Planning for the far future
Needless to say, animals are different to us. No hubris, no superiority and (mainly amongst wild animals) innate understanding about how dangerous humans can be. Their senses are impeccable. But they can’t judge everything about us because we are so very different to them. Unlike animals, we are aware of a future and we try to plan for it and improve things, and with that comes the violence of maintaining our position of dominance over nature and especially over animals. That’s what has brought us unstuck. The damage we’ve done has come from trying to improve things by wit, strength and cruelty. We’ve never learnt to ‘be content with our lot’. And now, at the eleventh hour, our manipulation and bullying have brought us to the brink of catastrophe. Now, some of us want to turn in a completely different direction. But it’s like steering an ocean liner 180 degrees. It has so much momentum that to swing it round is a slow process. So we have to see far ahead, beyond our own lifetime, to future generations of responsibility-takers who, we might hope, will be warriors of non-violence. For us here, today, our job is to set the ground work and try to solve the eternal conundrum – when is dynamic too aggressive and when is non-violence too ineffective?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Harmlessness
Our aim should be to encourage confidence in the things we say. And for that we need non-violence in our voice and as the basis of everything else about our daily life, our eating and shopping, thinking and talking. We need to be assertive, we don’t need to be indecisive but we need to be open to suggestion from ‘outside’ even when it contradicts us. If we once become closed off we lose whatever advantage we may have had. The Animal Rights movement doesn’t have a good track record on effective communication because we aren’t too good at the complete non-violent approach. Is this because we say we hate violence but still allow it into our lives? Those of us who are the noisiest about our dislike of violence often don’t notice the ways we practise it. To make matters worse if we doubt non-violence itself, we’ll move forward far too slowly in winning people over. If we merely observe veganism in our eating habits but aren’t so very different to our omnivorous friends in other respects, we won’t be taken seriously.
We need to be sure about non-violence. We certainly give it a tick of approval when we become vegan, so we need to try it to feel right about it; that it’s neither weak, nor leading to submissiveness. This is where we need non-speciesism to show us the values animals represent to us and how they do things differently to us. Their disposition is something we can all learn from.
Animals sense things! They smell things a thousand times better than we do and often have an uncanny understanding of us, as our cats and dogs at home show us in their approach to us. They don’t work everything out before they do it. Their non-violence shows up because they are not judgmental.
When they know us, they tell us truths about ourselves that we can’t rely on humans to tell us. They can give us an accurate appraisal of how we are doing in our progress towards non-violence, since they are masters of it when it comes to spotting a peaceful person. They are drawn towards them. They are attracted to an affectionate nature because, to them, it denotes trustworthiness. To cats and dogs and many other animals we get close to, this is value number one. Having suffered so badly from human violence throughout the ages, animals, wild or domestic, have become arbiters of good taste in the matter of harmlessness.
We need to be sure about non-violence. We certainly give it a tick of approval when we become vegan, so we need to try it to feel right about it; that it’s neither weak, nor leading to submissiveness. This is where we need non-speciesism to show us the values animals represent to us and how they do things differently to us. Their disposition is something we can all learn from.
Animals sense things! They smell things a thousand times better than we do and often have an uncanny understanding of us, as our cats and dogs at home show us in their approach to us. They don’t work everything out before they do it. Their non-violence shows up because they are not judgmental.
When they know us, they tell us truths about ourselves that we can’t rely on humans to tell us. They can give us an accurate appraisal of how we are doing in our progress towards non-violence, since they are masters of it when it comes to spotting a peaceful person. They are drawn towards them. They are attracted to an affectionate nature because, to them, it denotes trustworthiness. To cats and dogs and many other animals we get close to, this is value number one. Having suffered so badly from human violence throughout the ages, animals, wild or domestic, have become arbiters of good taste in the matter of harmlessness.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Straight talking
When we’re giving our opinion or giving out information we should come across as genuine but also to pay attention to how we sound. Given the potential for this subject to ignite passions we should be straight talking but leave lots of space for other people’s opinions.
It’s likely that some of us amateur communicators don’t see ourselves as others see us. We talk as if people want to take our side, whereas most people simply want information from us. We have to be careful with details and facts. Behind everything we say there must be a backup, for example, all animal products may be unhealthy and cruel but behind this must a reference to support the association between these products and certain ailments. The same with the cruelty argument - behind the cruelty we need to give details of animals treatment: the sow stall, the cage, the biology of a cow’s lactation, what actually happens when animals go to an abattoir. It’s the story that counts. It’s the story and the verifiable facts behind our stories that convinces. Background knowledge also gives us the confidence to speak out.
Whatever we say is likely to contradict what people have been led to believe but our conclusions are likely to be provocative - we’re commenting on and questioning the morals of ordinary consumers who won’t take kindly to what we say. No one feels too comfortable agreeing that they’ve made mistakes regarding the healthiness of their foods let alone hearing us talk when there’s a moral principle at stake, which makes them already feel guilty.
To a certain extent people will accept what we say about nutrition on the basis that they can go away and check the details out for themselves, but the cruelty side is more difficult to escape from. It’s something already known about and already swept under the carpet. Animal advocates who are ‘straight talking’ about issues concerning animal torture and public compliance, are dealing with delicate matters. If we want people to listen to this we need to show them we’ve done our homework and that we are trying to be objective. We need to come across sincerely and entirely non-violently.
If we are promoting veganism in public, personal sincerity is essential. If we look a bit fake, however wise we sound, people will turn away. Things may even turn nasty. If we are talking how things should be done beautifully, we mustn’t sound ugly! If we show any hardness our words will seem empty. Value-judgments and heated disagreements are guaranteed to lose us support. Instead of trying to convert people in the old fashioned, tub-thumping way, we need to listen, and be unafraid of opposite opinions. Until that is established we can’t get to first base, to a position to offer our own solutions. In the absence of balanced conversation and fair debate we lose sight of the issues and the very point of debate.
It’s likely that some of us amateur communicators don’t see ourselves as others see us. We talk as if people want to take our side, whereas most people simply want information from us. We have to be careful with details and facts. Behind everything we say there must be a backup, for example, all animal products may be unhealthy and cruel but behind this must a reference to support the association between these products and certain ailments. The same with the cruelty argument - behind the cruelty we need to give details of animals treatment: the sow stall, the cage, the biology of a cow’s lactation, what actually happens when animals go to an abattoir. It’s the story that counts. It’s the story and the verifiable facts behind our stories that convinces. Background knowledge also gives us the confidence to speak out.
Whatever we say is likely to contradict what people have been led to believe but our conclusions are likely to be provocative - we’re commenting on and questioning the morals of ordinary consumers who won’t take kindly to what we say. No one feels too comfortable agreeing that they’ve made mistakes regarding the healthiness of their foods let alone hearing us talk when there’s a moral principle at stake, which makes them already feel guilty.
To a certain extent people will accept what we say about nutrition on the basis that they can go away and check the details out for themselves, but the cruelty side is more difficult to escape from. It’s something already known about and already swept under the carpet. Animal advocates who are ‘straight talking’ about issues concerning animal torture and public compliance, are dealing with delicate matters. If we want people to listen to this we need to show them we’ve done our homework and that we are trying to be objective. We need to come across sincerely and entirely non-violently.
If we are promoting veganism in public, personal sincerity is essential. If we look a bit fake, however wise we sound, people will turn away. Things may even turn nasty. If we are talking how things should be done beautifully, we mustn’t sound ugly! If we show any hardness our words will seem empty. Value-judgments and heated disagreements are guaranteed to lose us support. Instead of trying to convert people in the old fashioned, tub-thumping way, we need to listen, and be unafraid of opposite opinions. Until that is established we can’t get to first base, to a position to offer our own solutions. In the absence of balanced conversation and fair debate we lose sight of the issues and the very point of debate.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Straight talking
When we’re giving our opinion or giving out information we should come across as genuine but also to pay attention to how we sound. Given the potential for this subject to ignite passions we should be straight talking but leave lots of space for other people’s opinions.
It’s likely that some of us amateur communicators don’t see ourselves as others see us. We talk as if people want to take our side, whereas most people simply want information from us. We have to be careful with details and facts. Behind everything we say there must be a backup, for example, all animal products may be unhealthy and cruel but behind this must a reference to support the association between these products and certain ailments. The same with the cruelty argument - behind the cruelty we need to give details of animals treatment: the sow stall, the cage, the biology of a cow’s lactation, what actually happens when animals go to an abattoir. It’s the story that counts. It’s the story and the verifiable facts behind our stories that convinces. Background knowledge also gives us the confidence to speak out.
Whatever we say is likely to contradict what people have been led to believe but our conclusions are likely to be provocative - we’re commenting on and questioning the morals of ordinary consumers who won’t take kindly to what we say. No one feels too comfortable agreeing that they’ve made mistakes regarding the healthiness of their foods let alone hearing us talk when there’s a moral principle at stake, which makes them already feel guilty.
To a certain extent people will accept what we say about nutrition on the basis that they can go away and check the details out for themselves, but the cruelty side is more difficult to escape from. It’s something already known about and already swept under the carpet. Animal advocates who are ‘straight talking’ about issues concerning animal torture and public compliance, are dealing with delicate matters. If we want people to listen to this we need to show them we’ve done our homework and that we are trying to be objective. We need to come across sincerely and entirely non-violently.
If we are promoting veganism in public, personal sincerity is essential. If we look a bit fake, however wise we sound, people will turn away. Things may even turn nasty. If we are talking how things should be done beautifully, we mustn’t sound ugly! If we show any hardness our words will seem empty. Value-judgments and heated disagreements are guaranteed to lose us support. Instead of trying to convert people in the old fashioned, tub-thumping way, we need to listen, and be unafraid of opposite opinions. Until that is established we can’t get to first base, to a position to offer our own solutions. In the absence of balanced conversation and fair debate we lose sight of the issues and the very point of debate.
It’s likely that some of us amateur communicators don’t see ourselves as others see us. We talk as if people want to take our side, whereas most people simply want information from us. We have to be careful with details and facts. Behind everything we say there must be a backup, for example, all animal products may be unhealthy and cruel but behind this must a reference to support the association between these products and certain ailments. The same with the cruelty argument - behind the cruelty we need to give details of animals treatment: the sow stall, the cage, the biology of a cow’s lactation, what actually happens when animals go to an abattoir. It’s the story that counts. It’s the story and the verifiable facts behind our stories that convinces. Background knowledge also gives us the confidence to speak out.
Whatever we say is likely to contradict what people have been led to believe but our conclusions are likely to be provocative - we’re commenting on and questioning the morals of ordinary consumers who won’t take kindly to what we say. No one feels too comfortable agreeing that they’ve made mistakes regarding the healthiness of their foods let alone hearing us talk when there’s a moral principle at stake, which makes them already feel guilty.
To a certain extent people will accept what we say about nutrition on the basis that they can go away and check the details out for themselves, but the cruelty side is more difficult to escape from. It’s something already known about and already swept under the carpet. Animal advocates who are ‘straight talking’ about issues concerning animal torture and public compliance, are dealing with delicate matters. If we want people to listen to this we need to show them we’ve done our homework and that we are trying to be objective. We need to come across sincerely and entirely non-violently.
If we are promoting veganism in public, personal sincerity is essential. If we look a bit fake, however wise we sound, people will turn away. Things may even turn nasty. If we are talking how things should be done beautifully, we mustn’t sound ugly! If we show any hardness our words will seem empty. Value-judgments and heated disagreements are guaranteed to lose us support. Instead of trying to convert people in the old fashioned, tub-thumping way, we need to listen, and be unafraid of opposite opinions. Until that is established we can’t get to first base, to a position to offer our own solutions. In the absence of balanced conversation and fair debate we lose sight of the issues and the very point of debate.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Talking to people about veganism
Why are we so keen to talk about all this? Talk about new ideas, altered attitudes and changing habit patterns? Perhaps it’s not as facile as wanting something new to chatter about but more a genuine wish to implant a sense of optimism in others. "Optimistic veganism" is a light on the future. We’ve discovered a jewel and simply want to share our good fortune with others.
If we can see the potential in this idea, it’s likely we’ll be busting to talk about it. We figure ‘once seen never forgotten’. But instead of this jewel being widely admired, something unexpected happens. We hit a hurdle. A barrier drops and we don’t understand why. No one actually wants to know about it.
Maybe this is our first taste of rejection over a point of principle, the first time we’ve been cold-shouldered. This rejection feels real because of the energy it sucks out of us. It hurts and it’s intended to hurt or at least bring us up with a jolt. Almost everything will be thrown at us, not only in words but in unspoken feelings of disapproval, in order to bring us back into the fold of how things have always been done (‘anything to bring you home’). At bottom, it’s a suspicion the majority have about minorities - that not only are they deluded but are less clear in what they are saying than they realise. There’s a suspicion that animal rightists who speak about kindness to animals, are often not really kind people at all - people who can only show love towards "creatures" but not to their fellow humans. Whether this is true or not, the rejection or misunderstanding vegans often feel make them feel a bit desperate. They try all the harder to come across as sincere people. People who have thought hard about something important and setting aside self interest have come to some difficult conclusions. And ultimately that is not such a bad thing, to have to go through being misjudged by others, toughening us up for the struggles that lie ahead of us.
Vegans may have to deal with this the best way they can, and wait for others to catch up. This matter of being utterly sincere, living by principle, not having ulterior motives, all that is something we want to establish. It is, after all, central to our credibility. And eventually our effectiveness.
If we can see the potential in this idea, it’s likely we’ll be busting to talk about it. We figure ‘once seen never forgotten’. But instead of this jewel being widely admired, something unexpected happens. We hit a hurdle. A barrier drops and we don’t understand why. No one actually wants to know about it.
Maybe this is our first taste of rejection over a point of principle, the first time we’ve been cold-shouldered. This rejection feels real because of the energy it sucks out of us. It hurts and it’s intended to hurt or at least bring us up with a jolt. Almost everything will be thrown at us, not only in words but in unspoken feelings of disapproval, in order to bring us back into the fold of how things have always been done (‘anything to bring you home’). At bottom, it’s a suspicion the majority have about minorities - that not only are they deluded but are less clear in what they are saying than they realise. There’s a suspicion that animal rightists who speak about kindness to animals, are often not really kind people at all - people who can only show love towards "creatures" but not to their fellow humans. Whether this is true or not, the rejection or misunderstanding vegans often feel make them feel a bit desperate. They try all the harder to come across as sincere people. People who have thought hard about something important and setting aside self interest have come to some difficult conclusions. And ultimately that is not such a bad thing, to have to go through being misjudged by others, toughening us up for the struggles that lie ahead of us.
Vegans may have to deal with this the best way they can, and wait for others to catch up. This matter of being utterly sincere, living by principle, not having ulterior motives, all that is something we want to establish. It is, after all, central to our credibility. And eventually our effectiveness.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Promoting vegan, continued ...
“Vegan”. An idea. A new attitude. Does switching from one attitude to another, one diet to another, mean a long and painful transition or something shorter, even as enjoyable as falling in love? Progressing into it depends on how much we want it, how we come upon it and if we are coerced into it. But assuming we were free agents, inspired by the idea, and we took up the ‘good idea’ of going vegan, and went from idealistic theory to comfortable habit - that is one huge journey. We can remember where we started it and how it ended up; it started as a very conscious change and eventually became jsu something we just ‘do’, unselfconsciously.
That’s how it may have gone in our own private lives, but almost certainly it is going to be more complex when it comes to swinging others around. To be successful at that is almost as important, for many of us, as it was to become vegan ourselves. Meat eaters seem so obstinate, they just won’t budge. We see that people are just carrying on regardless as if asleep, and every time we see that a wave of despair sweeps over us, because, it saps our energy.
Perhaps we should realise what we are dealing with here - this one idea can transform our species, get us all back on track, give humanity a chance to become healthy, creative, benign and friendly. It could make us far more non-violent. Imagine the worth of that! Taking that into consideration, then any amount of hard work and patience on our part, any amount of exasperation, would seem a mere nothing.
Here’s the parallel scenario: how it might go with me - the aim is to establish a vegan lifestyle into my own life. I’d start my day by doing certain new things and not doing certain old things, forming new habits, making deliberate, assured changes. This, on the private side, is what I want for myself. But when all that is in place, then maybe I want to get political. I feel an urgency and want to speed things up ‘for the world’. I want to break down barriers. I want to keep a ‘high’ so I don’t lose my advantage. I want to promote veganism, start a revolution in my corner of the world. It’s as if I’ve been transformed from a wannabe vegan to vegan warrior, ready to take on the world.
And yet this isn’t reality. We’re not hardened politicians with a tough reputation, ripping into our adversaries in the bear pit, we’re just ordinary people talking with other ordinary people, like ourselves, about issues. Our ‘adversaries’ are sensitive free-willed beings, who will decide things for themselves, no matter what we say or how forcibly we say it. Once we start actively advocating animal rights, it’s hard not to get pushy. We forget how easy it is for people to simply walk away from us, in their feelings anyway. However good we think an idea is, it shouldn’t be forced onto others. Any uninvited contributions we make can be seen as intrusions into other peoples’ private space, especially when we call their morality into question - “You still eat meat?” … our good idea is ‘fired’ at people (aiming at their values) and they, sensing something uncomfortable, are put off. Perhaps they swear off both the good idea and us - for ever. And none of us would want that. That’s anti-promotion.
That’s how it may have gone in our own private lives, but almost certainly it is going to be more complex when it comes to swinging others around. To be successful at that is almost as important, for many of us, as it was to become vegan ourselves. Meat eaters seem so obstinate, they just won’t budge. We see that people are just carrying on regardless as if asleep, and every time we see that a wave of despair sweeps over us, because, it saps our energy.
Perhaps we should realise what we are dealing with here - this one idea can transform our species, get us all back on track, give humanity a chance to become healthy, creative, benign and friendly. It could make us far more non-violent. Imagine the worth of that! Taking that into consideration, then any amount of hard work and patience on our part, any amount of exasperation, would seem a mere nothing.
Here’s the parallel scenario: how it might go with me - the aim is to establish a vegan lifestyle into my own life. I’d start my day by doing certain new things and not doing certain old things, forming new habits, making deliberate, assured changes. This, on the private side, is what I want for myself. But when all that is in place, then maybe I want to get political. I feel an urgency and want to speed things up ‘for the world’. I want to break down barriers. I want to keep a ‘high’ so I don’t lose my advantage. I want to promote veganism, start a revolution in my corner of the world. It’s as if I’ve been transformed from a wannabe vegan to vegan warrior, ready to take on the world.
And yet this isn’t reality. We’re not hardened politicians with a tough reputation, ripping into our adversaries in the bear pit, we’re just ordinary people talking with other ordinary people, like ourselves, about issues. Our ‘adversaries’ are sensitive free-willed beings, who will decide things for themselves, no matter what we say or how forcibly we say it. Once we start actively advocating animal rights, it’s hard not to get pushy. We forget how easy it is for people to simply walk away from us, in their feelings anyway. However good we think an idea is, it shouldn’t be forced onto others. Any uninvited contributions we make can be seen as intrusions into other peoples’ private space, especially when we call their morality into question - “You still eat meat?” … our good idea is ‘fired’ at people (aiming at their values) and they, sensing something uncomfortable, are put off. Perhaps they swear off both the good idea and us - for ever. And none of us would want that. That’s anti-promotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)