It’s a delicious idea, humanity. It’s within all of us. Our ‘soul’ is its oracle, its ‘speaker’ and manufacturer. We either listen to our ‘soul-talk’ or we don’t, depending on the circumstances. If we engage the ‘soul’ we feel a glow inside … but maybe get overwhelmed. It’s as if we can only feel it as an abstract, as a potential we might not yet be experiencing. Our actions don’t reflect it because they’re driven by fear and the need for personal achievement. This ‘soul’-driven potential, we say, is “too idealistic”. We don’t take it seriously.
For some of us the implications of a humane world are too powerful to behold, and yet … it’s both frightening and dazzling.
If ‘humanity’ is the very essence of human life and if this is our ‘special gift’ to the planet (don’t laugh!!), then why don’t we think-humane. Perhaps we don’t because we know humanity comes with strings attached. The downside of any altruistic (humane) act is that it can be depressing - no rewards and not even any affirmation of what we’ve done.
When we DO something that’s really good there’s often a feeling that we’ve ‘set ourselves up’. We’ve made a rod for our own back. We expect things of ourselves. And if we’re silly enough to boast about it, then we also have to cop others’ expectations of us. Usually the only applause we get is from our most loyal friend, our ‘soul’.
Now Soul has impeccable manners. It defers. It stays in the background. It waits until it is wanted. For any transmigrating entity there isn’t a need to hurry. Maybe in the same way there isn’t any hurry, one dangerously suggests, in our cause? Urgent yes, but a fine line between urging immediate attention and moving hastily.
So far, from our most primitive developments right up to now, as humans’ souls have had a poor showing. (Imagine what the animal killers would say to that!). There’s something about humanity we daren’t face up to. It’s like one of those over-keen traders in the markets of Cairo, whose eye one hardly dares to catch for fear they’ll leap on you and not let you go on without buying something from them. We might not want to catch the eye of the ‘soul’, for fear of it wanting to speak to us, and stretch our imagination to hurting point.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
“Oh, the humanity”
Self development is a wonderful thing when it involves consciousness-raising. It means we’re becoming more deeply aware of our surroundings. As we go through each developmental stage we can feel ourselves growing up. Predominantly it’s the ‘humanity’ we feel and that’s where the real hope lies for humans. We refer to ourselves, rather hypocritically, as ‘humanity’. When the Hindenburg airship burst into flames in 1937 the news commentator famously said what everyone was feeling, “Oh, the humanity”. It was as if on the in-breath people were shocked and on the out-breath expressed compassion for the loss of so much ‘humanity’. People understood what he meant, as if we were human embodiments of ‘humanity’.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Animal Rights
This is a subject (closely involving our food) which is dear to everyone’s heart and yet it’s also a very private subject; it’s tabooed for very good reason. Unlike any other subject (eg. environmental concerns) this one, specifically concerning food made from animals, deals with a daily used consumer item. This is therefore an issue that every person on the planet is involved with. Almost everyone eats animal-based foods. The taboo prevents casual discussion to take place; it keeps it locked away in the ‘unquestioned’ basket.
So, in a nutshell, as advocates-for-animals, our approach through the undergrowth of taboo is as critical as the quality of information we give out. We’re opening up a reluctant subject for inspection. We’re performing a particular surgery here. If we do it well we can both unblock an omnivore’s long-held attitude and further our own personal development as activists.
So, in a nutshell, as advocates-for-animals, our approach through the undergrowth of taboo is as critical as the quality of information we give out. We’re opening up a reluctant subject for inspection. We’re performing a particular surgery here. If we do it well we can both unblock an omnivore’s long-held attitude and further our own personal development as activists.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
"You are inferior"
If I think your views are inferior to mine and if I try to tell you you’re wrong, your hackles rise, maybe mostly because it feels like a criticism of you as a person. If I believe I’m right and you’re wrong it seems like I’m saying I think I’m brighter than you. In a discussion when I win the point I also lose the point, because no true overall advancement has taken place. All we have is a satisfied feeling that we ‘got that one across’ strongly, that we’ve proved our point.
Confrontation and emotionally charged one-upmanship gets us nowhere as communicators. All the time we can see a tight lipped intention not to change we are not making the connections we need for a fair-minded exchange of views.
Perhaps there’s something the righteous have in common, when talking on their favourite subject, that makes people dig their heels in. If that ‘better-than-you’ is absent then even the most outrageous disagreements can seem like fun, and can in a zany way seem quite constructive, as if our jewels might be good for “take-out”.
What we as ‘the communicator’ shouldn’t do is betray our own stand, by seeming to go along with views we don’t hold ourself in order to keep the peace. If we do that we’re going nowhere.
On some level, for vegans, there must be an acceptance of the omnivore. (For heaven’s sake, MOST if not ALL of the people we know ARE omnivores!) There are so many of them! We need to accept them and be pro-active in showing that – that’s if we want to have any chance at all of touching their hearts. It won’t work the other way round, by attack and confrontation. We’ve got to work out how to ‘dialogue’ with people, even when they disagree with us vehemently. This vexed question of whether our subject is regarded by others as ‘important’ - animal food and animal cruelty – is the foundation for all dialogue we have on this subject.
If this subject were talked about as freely as, say, environmental matters we’d be less frantic. Food and animal food and therefore animal husbandry touch a raw nerve like no other subject. For us this makes it that much more difficult to talk about than, say, an environmentalist talking environment. First up then, vegans need to ease up on the attack mode and relax into the role of ‘information-imparter’. But of course it isn’t that easy.
Confrontation and emotionally charged one-upmanship gets us nowhere as communicators. All the time we can see a tight lipped intention not to change we are not making the connections we need for a fair-minded exchange of views.
Perhaps there’s something the righteous have in common, when talking on their favourite subject, that makes people dig their heels in. If that ‘better-than-you’ is absent then even the most outrageous disagreements can seem like fun, and can in a zany way seem quite constructive, as if our jewels might be good for “take-out”.
What we as ‘the communicator’ shouldn’t do is betray our own stand, by seeming to go along with views we don’t hold ourself in order to keep the peace. If we do that we’re going nowhere.
On some level, for vegans, there must be an acceptance of the omnivore. (For heaven’s sake, MOST if not ALL of the people we know ARE omnivores!) There are so many of them! We need to accept them and be pro-active in showing that – that’s if we want to have any chance at all of touching their hearts. It won’t work the other way round, by attack and confrontation. We’ve got to work out how to ‘dialogue’ with people, even when they disagree with us vehemently. This vexed question of whether our subject is regarded by others as ‘important’ - animal food and animal cruelty – is the foundation for all dialogue we have on this subject.
If this subject were talked about as freely as, say, environmental matters we’d be less frantic. Food and animal food and therefore animal husbandry touch a raw nerve like no other subject. For us this makes it that much more difficult to talk about than, say, an environmentalist talking environment. First up then, vegans need to ease up on the attack mode and relax into the role of ‘information-imparter’. But of course it isn’t that easy.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Feeding information
Information is the currency of the future. Animal Rights information should be like ‘vegan take out’ - something the customer leaves with, to take home, to chew over. A food vendor’s smile is good for custom so it’s the same with vegans who smile, or rather who insist on affectionate interchanges. However, let it be said, this is not yummy food we’re selling, it is more like at-first-difficult-to-digest ideas. To pass these juicy morsels over the counter we need to make them seem safe. In other words we need to cultivate affection in order to make people feel at ease, unafraid, connected, and willing to go exploring with us.
Communication starts when the most in-discernable connections are made, and made in spite of any flying sparks. There’s likely to be heated views which are firmly felt. You may love your meat, your diet, your treats and I may be firmly against all of that. To come together, especially if the vegan is initiating the discussion, our smile, voice-tone and body language need to be unaffected by the force of opposition. We remain calm. Throughout everything we talk about, our affection for the person we’re talking to should be a constant. Our information may be hard to handle but our approach should be casual. It spells safety. It’s only when something is raised casually enough to indicate safety that it can become interesting enough for the other person to risk engaging with us.
Communication starts when the most in-discernable connections are made, and made in spite of any flying sparks. There’s likely to be heated views which are firmly felt. You may love your meat, your diet, your treats and I may be firmly against all of that. To come together, especially if the vegan is initiating the discussion, our smile, voice-tone and body language need to be unaffected by the force of opposition. We remain calm. Throughout everything we talk about, our affection for the person we’re talking to should be a constant. Our information may be hard to handle but our approach should be casual. It spells safety. It’s only when something is raised casually enough to indicate safety that it can become interesting enough for the other person to risk engaging with us.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Affection is an approach
If an omnivore is willing to accept the idea of animals having rights it implies they’re no longer willing to accept the old idea, that they can be exploited for human use. That’s one of the biggest decisions one could make in one’s lifetime. That’s why it could be critical, when talking animal rights to strangers; we don’t get their backs up unnecessarily. We never know how close they are to accepting our premise … so it’s better to be safe than sorry. Affection is a great little safety measure. But let’s not get carried away – this is such a sensitive area. We need to think about ‘how we deliver’ so we show respect for the intelligence of the listener. Then w can expect some respect back.
If vegans don’t respect omnivores there’s no way they will listen to us; figuratively speaking, we’ll never get our toe in the door. Emotionally they have to be on-side if we want our ‘message’ to sell.
If vegans don’t respect omnivores there’s no way they will listen to us; figuratively speaking, we’ll never get our toe in the door. Emotionally they have to be on-side if we want our ‘message’ to sell.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Wanting to talk
Sunday 4th July, it being American Independence Day I’m asserting my own independence today to say something … I’m sorry it’s a ‘thousand-worder’. I “want to talk”!!
We should rub along together, and insist on it. The potential of our “omnivore - vegan interface” lies in talking together, understanding where each is coming from. Probably, for the omnivore, they haven’t thought much about ‘animal issues’ before, and for the vegan it’s likely we’ve forgotten how we came to ‘it all’ in the first place. What were our triggers at the time? What are people’s triggers now?
When talking’s happening we’re alive! Perhaps out of the blue the ‘subject’ comes up. The issues spring out ‘loudly’. Sometimes you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. Vegans are familiar with this. They’re used to seeing the resistance-shutters coming down. And so quickly too, especially if you’re already known to be ‘a vegan’. It’s weird, suddenly the spotlight falls on us. “Speak”. So the big question is, at that precise moment, how do we pitch what we have to say?
‘They’ may genuinely want to find out certain things, but hoping not to cop a lecture. What a vegan might want to say is less that they’ll be allowed to say. For us it’s a case of guessing how genuine the interest is and why they’d be commenting or questioning. It’s intended to evoke a response from ‘the vegan’. In all of this interplay, if we’re given the go-ahead to speak we need to know we have the right also NOT to comment. To drop it where we sense a violent element wanting to find a reason to cut our throat. Less extreme was the time I was talking on a crate at Hyde Park Corner, giving a talk and answering question about the kangaroo situation in Australia, and I was heckled so badly by one person who made so much noise that I couldn’t be heard. In such situations it’s important for animal advocates to question “why am I having this conversation in the first place?”
Apart from that personal safety issue there are other ‘safety’ issues to consider. Our own violence may be far too dangerous to show. If we’re advocates for animals just to get the chance to knock other people’s views on the head that’s one type of activist, but there is quite another: those vegans who genuinely want to assist … to help bring the general consciousness on a bit.
For genuinely non-violent advocates for animals who wish to communicate on this subject, the trick I think is to focus on helping (I hope that doesn’t sound too corny!) Our intervention into other people’s understanding is by their permission only. Otherwise whatever we say is definitely going to “put them off”, and if not put-off the core ideas then turned off by the spruiker of them.
Omnivores have certain rights, but they are also (expletive-deleted) maddening. Most of us would be familiar with these tricky conversations with omnivores, on important matters. We’ve seen the ducking and weaving that goes on. It’s horrible to behold and so, perhaps this is where we should show our first act of kindness, in pretending not to have noticed! Seriously, we aren’t talking animal rights in order to make fools out of people.
Talk can be inspiring - if we can get damp tinder glowing we may get a fire. The conversation may roar like a fire up the chimney, and yet all through we must know we will leave as good friends. At other times it doesn’t work. It turns into a bun fight over who is MOST RIGHT.
When we do get talking with non-vegans we, and not usually they, know how fundamental this subject is. Others, because they don’t know (or maybe don’t want to know), try to treat it frivolously. We do have a position we hold – that this is a serious subject. It can’t possibly be regarded as a frivolous subject. Nor is this subject one of those nice dinner table conversation pieces, which we can “just agree to disagree about”. Well, yes we can … anyone has the right to ‘leave it at that’ if they want to – there’s no law that says you HAVE to listen. So, assuming we are all volunteers-in-conversation, ask yourself this, why would an omnivore want to bring the subject up, and then be prepared to go on with it?
Maybe it just happens. But I suspect that it often happens and suddenly a great chasm appears in front of our feet and in the heat of the moment we forget who we are, we think the feelings of the other person don’t matter, and whoops, we did a ‘wobbly’ on them.
They felt it. You could see that. And they saw you see it … and so a heated conversation starts off on a poor footing. But there are other sorts of conversations. Calmer ones. And it’s these which allow both sides to perform their act and at the same time put on a little show of respect towards each other.
If we get a question about veganism we can expect it to be asked out of a genuine respect for our principles. But why is a question asked in the first place? Maybe the other person is ‘showing an interest’ but not necessarily asking out of a ‘fascination to know’. It could be a show of manners. Maybe our friend wants to learn a few things from us. But motives can be quite different and since, half the time, we don’t know who we’re talking to (and on this oh-so-sensitive matter) we can never be quite sure until after our first words are out, at what level we should be pitching to them. They may have their own agenda, anything from having a quick dig at us to an intention to bring on a full scale moral punch-up. The question again: Why would an omnivore want to discuss ‘veganism’ with a vegan?
That is such a central question for vegans that when we get clear about that we’ll have it in the bag. But that’s another matter. For the time being I’d like to get inside the vegan head and think out loud. Why am I wanting to talk?
From a vegan’s point of view it may be decision time: which way to go for the best sales ‘pitch’. I’d like to suggest that it’s not quite a case of: “I mustn’t offend my friend therefore I must soften my position”, it’s more “I must make it attractive, a gift, a service I’m wanting to perform”. Can I “affectionately deliver the argument, show good intention as well as emphasise the self-benefit of it all. Vegans need to talk, they need to be patient enough to wait for the invitation to talk. But at the end of the “day” we have to be able to say to the other person, “Take it or (if you’d prefer) leave it”. You can lead a horse to water …
We should rub along together, and insist on it. The potential of our “omnivore - vegan interface” lies in talking together, understanding where each is coming from. Probably, for the omnivore, they haven’t thought much about ‘animal issues’ before, and for the vegan it’s likely we’ve forgotten how we came to ‘it all’ in the first place. What were our triggers at the time? What are people’s triggers now?
When talking’s happening we’re alive! Perhaps out of the blue the ‘subject’ comes up. The issues spring out ‘loudly’. Sometimes you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. Vegans are familiar with this. They’re used to seeing the resistance-shutters coming down. And so quickly too, especially if you’re already known to be ‘a vegan’. It’s weird, suddenly the spotlight falls on us. “Speak”. So the big question is, at that precise moment, how do we pitch what we have to say?
‘They’ may genuinely want to find out certain things, but hoping not to cop a lecture. What a vegan might want to say is less that they’ll be allowed to say. For us it’s a case of guessing how genuine the interest is and why they’d be commenting or questioning. It’s intended to evoke a response from ‘the vegan’. In all of this interplay, if we’re given the go-ahead to speak we need to know we have the right also NOT to comment. To drop it where we sense a violent element wanting to find a reason to cut our throat. Less extreme was the time I was talking on a crate at Hyde Park Corner, giving a talk and answering question about the kangaroo situation in Australia, and I was heckled so badly by one person who made so much noise that I couldn’t be heard. In such situations it’s important for animal advocates to question “why am I having this conversation in the first place?”
Apart from that personal safety issue there are other ‘safety’ issues to consider. Our own violence may be far too dangerous to show. If we’re advocates for animals just to get the chance to knock other people’s views on the head that’s one type of activist, but there is quite another: those vegans who genuinely want to assist … to help bring the general consciousness on a bit.
For genuinely non-violent advocates for animals who wish to communicate on this subject, the trick I think is to focus on helping (I hope that doesn’t sound too corny!) Our intervention into other people’s understanding is by their permission only. Otherwise whatever we say is definitely going to “put them off”, and if not put-off the core ideas then turned off by the spruiker of them.
Omnivores have certain rights, but they are also (expletive-deleted) maddening. Most of us would be familiar with these tricky conversations with omnivores, on important matters. We’ve seen the ducking and weaving that goes on. It’s horrible to behold and so, perhaps this is where we should show our first act of kindness, in pretending not to have noticed! Seriously, we aren’t talking animal rights in order to make fools out of people.
Talk can be inspiring - if we can get damp tinder glowing we may get a fire. The conversation may roar like a fire up the chimney, and yet all through we must know we will leave as good friends. At other times it doesn’t work. It turns into a bun fight over who is MOST RIGHT.
When we do get talking with non-vegans we, and not usually they, know how fundamental this subject is. Others, because they don’t know (or maybe don’t want to know), try to treat it frivolously. We do have a position we hold – that this is a serious subject. It can’t possibly be regarded as a frivolous subject. Nor is this subject one of those nice dinner table conversation pieces, which we can “just agree to disagree about”. Well, yes we can … anyone has the right to ‘leave it at that’ if they want to – there’s no law that says you HAVE to listen. So, assuming we are all volunteers-in-conversation, ask yourself this, why would an omnivore want to bring the subject up, and then be prepared to go on with it?
Maybe it just happens. But I suspect that it often happens and suddenly a great chasm appears in front of our feet and in the heat of the moment we forget who we are, we think the feelings of the other person don’t matter, and whoops, we did a ‘wobbly’ on them.
They felt it. You could see that. And they saw you see it … and so a heated conversation starts off on a poor footing. But there are other sorts of conversations. Calmer ones. And it’s these which allow both sides to perform their act and at the same time put on a little show of respect towards each other.
If we get a question about veganism we can expect it to be asked out of a genuine respect for our principles. But why is a question asked in the first place? Maybe the other person is ‘showing an interest’ but not necessarily asking out of a ‘fascination to know’. It could be a show of manners. Maybe our friend wants to learn a few things from us. But motives can be quite different and since, half the time, we don’t know who we’re talking to (and on this oh-so-sensitive matter) we can never be quite sure until after our first words are out, at what level we should be pitching to them. They may have their own agenda, anything from having a quick dig at us to an intention to bring on a full scale moral punch-up. The question again: Why would an omnivore want to discuss ‘veganism’ with a vegan?
That is such a central question for vegans that when we get clear about that we’ll have it in the bag. But that’s another matter. For the time being I’d like to get inside the vegan head and think out loud. Why am I wanting to talk?
From a vegan’s point of view it may be decision time: which way to go for the best sales ‘pitch’. I’d like to suggest that it’s not quite a case of: “I mustn’t offend my friend therefore I must soften my position”, it’s more “I must make it attractive, a gift, a service I’m wanting to perform”. Can I “affectionately deliver the argument, show good intention as well as emphasise the self-benefit of it all. Vegans need to talk, they need to be patient enough to wait for the invitation to talk. But at the end of the “day” we have to be able to say to the other person, “Take it or (if you’d prefer) leave it”. You can lead a horse to water …
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)