The vegan bulldozer

When meeting people who don’t want to hear what we have to say, it’s easy to lose it. But if we are affable enough we can bulldoze them - some chutzpah can work as long as we maintain a sense of humour and some familiarity, (this is after all a serious and an intimate subject). We don’t have to be best buddies with everyone, we just need to build mutual respect and emphasise equality of status. If we’re open to their views, it’s more likely they’ll try to listen to what we have to say.
‘Out there’ there’s genuine interest. People want to know what we eat, they want to know what a vegan diet is, even what our views are. They might ask provocative questions, and to get this they’ll put up with a bit of cheek, even to the point where we can send them up for eating ‘dead animals’, but . . . there’s a hairsbreadth of difference between friendly chat and us making value-judgements of them. Maybe vegans feel, out of loyalty to the animals, that we should be deadly serious and confront people where ever we can – as if to show how deeply we feel. But once we get heavy they stop identifying with us and lose interest in what we’re saying. Passing on information laden with judgement (and statistics) is dull and confronting. It’s even worse when we change the ‘temperature’ by withdrawing intimacy. A spat becomes unfriendly, and that’s the end of our communication. If we go to all the effort to establish a connection it shouldn’t be broken lightly.
Even if we can’t be buddies we do have to work from a position of equality. We can’t afford to lose anyone because they think we consider them inferior – that would be such a wasted opportunity. We must be seen to respect all views as valid (even the wrong ones!) until proven otherwise. Serious conversation must remain a friendly discussion in which everyone feels free to disagree or concede a point. It isn’t a competition or an excuse to spark bad feelings, and for our part we must try never to leave another person behind. However far apart our views may be our feelings for each other shouldn’t be compromised. By keeping the human to human connection open we remain simply two individuals chatting. Or it might be a vegan speaking to a room full of strangers, but as long as some level of affection is maintained the interaction remains alive. It’s a sort of professionalism, setting the standard for our relationships as well as maintaining the reputation of the cause we represent.

Being friendly and not pushy

Animal liberation/ vegetarianism is a subject people discuss amongst themselves in order to build a resistance to it. They develop stock responses. They tar us with the same brush. They regard us as pushy, especially the ‘dangerous extremists’. In our society, the more the term ‘vegan’ is known about, the more frequently we are bagged. Already today most people are familiar enough with our ideas to be bolting their doors to us before we’ve even had the chance to introduce our arguments.
But not everyone is like this, especially those with a gentler disposition and more open minds, mainly the younger generation people. Not having made so many independent food choices as their parents’ generation they’re not as likely to be locked into defensive attitudes about foods. However, all non-vegans are keen to survive, and they may not believe a vegan diet is altogether healthy or safe. They may not be sure they can rely on our information about plant-based diets. This is why our initial contacts are so critical, and why we have to come across as well informed and genuinely concerned for people’s safety. To get that across we need high personal standards as well as panache and sensitivity. But above all, we need to be seen as friendly people.

Clash of opposites

Here are the levels of acceptance put another way:

Stage 1 - the sun is hot, the water cool, who gives a stuff about …”What did you say? Animals? You want me to think about … what?” (With an attitude like that it’s probably not a good time to be talking about animal rights).
Stage 2, where a person might not agree, but admits this could be a serious issue.
Stage 3, listening, re-thinking long-held habits and learning new ones
Stage 4, agreement and trialling the diet
Stage 5, moving towards being ‘vegan’
Stage 6, becoming a political activist and going public.

Stage 6 is the danger zone
At stage 6, the political vegan encounters difficulties with ‘stage one’ people (comprising most humans in all countries of the world). We can fall into the trap of reacting badly when they respond negatively - we meet people who don’t normally talk about ethics or the philosophical issues concerning animals. It’s likely that they don’t normally talk with people like us. In fact already they purposely avoid talking about anything remotely connected with animals. They intend not to ask about food animals or veganism, and that effectively stops us in our tracks. Because they override their own set of good manners (that would normally invite us to tell them about what interests us), they show zero interest. Even a person with a wide set of interests will baulk at this subject. And without invitation we don’t have the right to speak. And if we suddenly bring it up we’ll be labelled as ill mannered, pushy or just plain weird.
With ‘stage one’ people we have to break down the mistrust and dislike that precedes us, by showing an interest, getting to know them, establishing some real trust, and asking them questions about themselves. It’s useless to go ‘crashing their party’ by forcing them to listen to serious and potentially confronting issues.
If there is a spark of interest or even a question, then we’re in business. (That is, unless they’re just being polite and there’s no real interest at all). It’s so rare to be asked an unguarded, intelligent question that it might put us on the spot. When we have to respond intelligently it means answering without using the occasion as an excuse to launch into things we haven’t been asked about.
We might have a lot we want to say but if we don’t get the chance to say it fully, the tiny scraps of information we’re allowed to deliver is nothing but frustrating. We may have become so used to assuming people are either insensitive or purposely closed down on this subject, that we expect the worst. We get exasperated. Then we try to force the lock - we push our arguments - we try to put a foot in the front door, and then to our immense surprise find it closed in our face. The doorkeeper is defensive. Even kids will be sensitive if their privacy is violated. It’s a territorial instinct. For the more life experienced adult being confronted by a vegan activist who is too enthusiastic it’s a case of ‘once bitten twice shy’. Then for ever and a day all vegans, vegan talk, animal rights issues sit behind a door that is closed on us for ever.

Stage 5

Some practising vegans might choose not to be activists. Even if they reckon vegan food is the best food for them to eat, it doesn’t mean Animal Rights is a cause they want to promote. It may seem a hopeless case and becoming an activist a waste of time. They may think it better to leave ‘politics’ to others. If these ‘home vegans’ speak about the subject at all it will be with people they know.
Stage 6
If we decide to go further and attempt to persuade people it means taking on a lot of hard work. Obviously if we are vegan, protesting animal rights, demonstrating, getting involved with direct action, we need to believe the cause is worth fighting for. If we feel really strongly about promoting Animal Rights we have to remain passionate about it for a long time against a tide of seeming lack of interest amongst people. We need to be optimists, both in seeing the urgency of change as well what is already happening in people’s attitudes.
Optimistic activists aren’t starry eyed, they know it’s a mixture of concern we have, for the damage certain sort of foods are causing to people’s health and their guilt at what animals are being used for, for food. These twin concerns constitute personal change. With some of the plentiful supply of high energy (from our vegan diet) we should be able to direct our activism into inspiring people. Our aim should not be to separate from them, not leave them behind but involve them, include them in our concerns, along with our concern for the animals.
But we do have to keep our feet on the ground, knowing how unaware 95% of people still are that there is even a problem let alone about the level of animal cruelty and the dangers in eating animal foods. From most of the 95% we can expect negative reactions because this is an almost unknown language to them. Their reactions can range from indifference to passionate resistance. And so if that’s the way things still are today, we might have to get used to that, by recognising the different levels of acceptance and work through them systematically.

Persuasion

Tuesday 27th October

We’re in a tricky position as self-appointed advocates for animals, because we assume the right to talk about them on account of the fact that we don’t eat them. That’s a strong position to be in but it doesn’t give us the right to tell people what to eat or expect them to agree with us. Or even to listen to what we have to say.

How we go about persuading people suggests various stages of acceptance, theirs of us and then ours of ourselves.
1. We need to be invited to speak on this subject
2. We need to earn the listener’s respect and interest
3. We need to be convincing and go easy on the moralising

4. We ourselves need to agree with vegan principles
5. Be busily putting them into practice
6. And then becoming an activist by communicating, educating, informing and being sensitive to people’s problems regarding their food addictions and their relationship with animals.

Holding the interest

If the days of speaking in public, standing on a soap box are dead we may need to communicate in a different way. It’s a more intimate age today. And this subject having such a complex network of arguments doesn’t allow for slogans to deliver it. We need to be able to talk intimately about animal rights, even on a one to one level, introducing issues during an intelligent conversation. So, when talking casually-almost, this subject of animal usage might come up. The first thing that usually arises is one’s status in this development. If you’re a vegan it’s generally known that we do significant things that others don’t do. Status differences may be impossible to deal with, but if it isn’t destructive it may provoke an interest:
“You’re a vegan then?”
“Yes”
“Why?”
“It’s what I feel passionately about”
As soon as the significance of that mixes in with what is already known about veganism, interest may fade. As soon as it sinks in that we are supporters of animal liberation it may be overwhelming. They might regret asking the question. They may say something to stop us going any further, by changing the subject. Or they might go the other way, and try to provoke us:
“You’re what?”
It’s interesting how vegans can respond to this, by then making too sure they understand what a vegan is and boring them.
Ideally we get a green light. Gingerly, they might respond well by asking us to explain:
“y….e .. s, go on …”
Now, this last response, if sincere, is so rare that it usually takes us by surprise … but we need to be ready for it. By being prepared to say what we stand for and why, they can be made to feel quite comfortable, not assaulted by what we say.
But how effective is this approach? - how do we say what we want to say both casually enough and informing enough? How can we do it without confronting? How do we answer a question in such a way that leaves the other person interested and better informed but not put off?

Going public

When activists start accusing the exploiters and hurling abuse in public it works wonders … in the short term. It unifies our fellow protesters, it makes us feel good, and sometimes it’s brave – ‘aggro activists’ think if they look scary enough it might strike fear into people’s hearts. But unless we are willing to continually escalate this sort of protest it loses its power and is eventually ignored or it breeds distrust or it just fizzles out. Big talk and threats can only promise what can’t be delivered. The aim of any animal rights protest should be to win over by setting some sort of responsible example that people can identify with. If any one is moving towards veganism, even if only in their private thoughts, they are beginning to identify with the people they see who they like the look of. People who seem to be gravitating towards a non-violent way of thinking, who are pulling away from ‘hard nose’ attitudes.
If we are already established as vegans we may want to ‘go public’. We may want to make a huge fuss about the misrepresentation of veganism, perhaps to stop being easily ignored. The general public will ignore us completely given half a chance, not because of who we are but because of what we are saying. Any excuse will do when it comes to avoiding the dreaded subject of animal rights, and that includes the advocate.
This is mainly why it’s difficult for us, because we can’t catch people’s attention. We no longer bump into people on street corners and converse with them on serious matters. There aren’t any passers-by to talk to. There’s nowhere we can ‘address the public’. Today most people lead such private lives – we go from home to car to work to car to home, one closed garage to another closed garage perhaps. So we live in a cocoon. Life is so proscribed and random is a dirty word. No one meets the stranger, and so no new ideas circulate unless within the selected group or unless through the sanitised media. In the main, people no longer go searching for new or radical ideas because no one wants the aggravation.
So how, in the first place, do vegans make a connection and then prove we genuinely want to inform and, when there are differences of opinion, bridge the gulf in a non-threatening (non-judgemental) way? How do we convince people we only want to help improve their lives? Perhaps we do it most effectively via our manner. There’s that feeling you can have with others …