Everyone, each of us, has reasons and justifications for what they do. Everyone is capable of change but we cling on to our free will, not wanting to compromise the hard won freedoms of adulthood. From our earliest years as babies we struggle to assert ourselves, and at each stage of childhood we’re insisting on older kids’ privileges. We refuse to be treated as we’ve been treated up to now. We demand more freedom, more pocket money, later times to bed, then later, it’s about going out late, having sexual relations, indulging in mind altering substances. What ever is won has been hard earned. Whatever freedoms we have they let us do things on a grander scale. The initial freedoms granted us as teenagers fuel our fire, the main one being money. As we get closer and closer to being able to earn serious money we equate that with being able to enjoy adult privileges, especially all the extravagances of ‘free will’.
Now we can drive, so we can choose a car (or dream of owning one), we’re old enough to get involved in politics because we have a vote, we can eat what we like, dress how we like, entertain ourselves how we like. Temptations galore … when we come of-age. From total captivity, having been locked into childhood and obedience, now, with free will, we have a get-out-of-jail card. We can determine things in our own way. We can even avoid listening to people we don’t have to listen to. As the song says: “School is out for ever”.
If vegans are up against anything it might be an obstinacy that comes from prizing free will. This badge we adults wear lets us eat and drink what we want, and we can’t be told differently by our mothers or for that matter anyone, which includes vegan proselytisers, speaking with enthusiasm but no authority. Omnivores are determined to protect their ‘right-to-choose’ and being in the comfortable majority they have no wish to persuade vegans to be like them, whereas vegans, being so few in number, are keen to persuade omnivores to change. It’s not just because we want company but because we are convinced that everyone should be acting for the ‘greater good’. However it doesn’t gives us the right to put pressure on people to change diets, clothes, cosmetics, etc. We have no chance of succeeding that way, anyway.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
A tricky balance
Vegan’s might have principles concerning their eating habits and their attitude to animals but do we fully apply the same principles when relating with each other? Some vegans are not forgiving of people who hurt animals. But this includes almost everyone in the human race. Judgement-making, when it’s about morality and values, is a slippery slope – by disapproving of almost everybody, then almost everybody feels the dislike and returns it. If we say that every person is involved in animal crimes it’s simply because they are still eating them.
People are implicated by using their money to lend financial support to animal industries. In our present society we have consumer-sponsored attacks made on ‘fellow beings’. So the question is are we, as vegans, capable of broadening our harmlessness to living without judgement, over these big issues involving aggression?
If vegans do make a value judgement about certain human behaviours it can be poison because of the personal-dislike element. It’s as if we are willing to play Russian Roulette with our relationships along the lines of “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us”. It’s easy to make enemies of non-vegans. If we, as vegans, are trying to set the standard of non-violence, we have to show generosity by looking for the best in people, and giving them the benefit of the doubt. If that sounds a bit Polly Anna the other side to this balancing act is far too dangerous. The aim is surely to be ‘on-side’ without okaying what we know they (the meat easters) actually do. We only have to separate the deed from the person. We are teachers not preachers. Vegans should investigate what makes people tick. We need to keep asking the same question - why aren’t people impatient to become vegan, and why aren’t they concerned about ‘the animal problem’? We need to put our fellow humans under the magnifying glass, to see why they go along with the routine murdering of animals, or even why they enthusiastically support it.
People are implicated by using their money to lend financial support to animal industries. In our present society we have consumer-sponsored attacks made on ‘fellow beings’. So the question is are we, as vegans, capable of broadening our harmlessness to living without judgement, over these big issues involving aggression?
If vegans do make a value judgement about certain human behaviours it can be poison because of the personal-dislike element. It’s as if we are willing to play Russian Roulette with our relationships along the lines of “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us”. It’s easy to make enemies of non-vegans. If we, as vegans, are trying to set the standard of non-violence, we have to show generosity by looking for the best in people, and giving them the benefit of the doubt. If that sounds a bit Polly Anna the other side to this balancing act is far too dangerous. The aim is surely to be ‘on-side’ without okaying what we know they (the meat easters) actually do. We only have to separate the deed from the person. We are teachers not preachers. Vegans should investigate what makes people tick. We need to keep asking the same question - why aren’t people impatient to become vegan, and why aren’t they concerned about ‘the animal problem’? We need to put our fellow humans under the magnifying glass, to see why they go along with the routine murdering of animals, or even why they enthusiastically support it.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Home rules
If killing animals to eat them is condoned by the majority, then as vegans we need to step away from all that, yet be upfront about it by not trying to hide our boycott. In our own mind we know that we live in society but are, in some important ways, not part of it – because we don’t condone violence and specifically violently extracted foods and commodities. In that way it makes us very different to almost all other people. Our decisions are coloured differently in so many ways, not just with food and clothing but in the very way we see our world – we don’t take on the role of dominator but that of equal participator with other species.
The way that we’re particularly different though is that we have our particular rules about food. Anyone who is part of a any discipline, whether in sport, religion, academic study or personal relationships, has self-imposed rules. We devise and adopt them not just to make our own life more difficult but because it’s generally beneficial. So those who practice a ‘discipline’ (as it may be called) are very familiar with home rules.
Take the Quakers. They avoid war and don’t let themselves be conscripted. They believe disagreements can be best handled by dialogue rather than confrontation. For many years in the eighteenth century in Pennsylvania, they maintained friendly relations with the indigenous Americans and governed a whole state on the basis of non-violence. Their government eventually collapsed because people preferred the use of violence and force for solving problems, but maybe the Quakers were doomed by their own inconsistency – they hadn’t embraced the idea of being non-violent towards animals since they still killed and ate them. But they still represent today a precept of acting non-violently and perhaps also non-judgementally, and we can all appreciate the value of that. I’d like to see them become vegan because of the valuable groundwork they’ve already done regarding all humans as being on an equal footing.
Vegans and Quakers each offer an important principle to the world. One discipline, from one group, could benefit the other group in a sort of principle-exchange.
The way that we’re particularly different though is that we have our particular rules about food. Anyone who is part of a any discipline, whether in sport, religion, academic study or personal relationships, has self-imposed rules. We devise and adopt them not just to make our own life more difficult but because it’s generally beneficial. So those who practice a ‘discipline’ (as it may be called) are very familiar with home rules.
Take the Quakers. They avoid war and don’t let themselves be conscripted. They believe disagreements can be best handled by dialogue rather than confrontation. For many years in the eighteenth century in Pennsylvania, they maintained friendly relations with the indigenous Americans and governed a whole state on the basis of non-violence. Their government eventually collapsed because people preferred the use of violence and force for solving problems, but maybe the Quakers were doomed by their own inconsistency – they hadn’t embraced the idea of being non-violent towards animals since they still killed and ate them. But they still represent today a precept of acting non-violently and perhaps also non-judgementally, and we can all appreciate the value of that. I’d like to see them become vegan because of the valuable groundwork they’ve already done regarding all humans as being on an equal footing.
Vegans and Quakers each offer an important principle to the world. One discipline, from one group, could benefit the other group in a sort of principle-exchange.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Strategy
Animal Rights needs a communication upgrade! As vegans we have our own weaknesses and they need to be addressed as much as the general public needs to address theirs, if only to keep our judgementalism in check. But speaking of the animal-eating masses, their habit of condoning killing and eating of animals is a weakness and that’s all it is. Vegans need to be able to show it for what it is, but ONLY that. No rancour, no disrespect and no value judgements. We don’t win long term commitment by inducing guilt or fear in people, only by showing we respect them and are interested in their welfare. Then we can keep them on side. Apart from wanting to be warm with people, it’s of strategic advantage to be warm. Warm translates as willing to help.
Let’s say we are together, you and I. If you look at my face, you’ll pick up all the essentials as to how I’m feeling – either I’m relating to you non-judgementally (I’ll be giving off a signal: I like you or I accept you) OR I’m being judgemental (signalling disapproval or mistrust). I might not want you to see ‘judgemental’ in me and I may not want to be judgemental, but all that’s overridden by my wanting to show off. I may want nothing more than to show my high standards. I may even be prepared to risk our relationship for the sake of this. By letting you know that I disapprove of something you do, I gamble on you finding my honesty valuable. And that shows you I’m not trying to deceive you about how I feel. But for the onlooker this may not be what they see at all – rather it will be seen as ‘covering our tracks’, blocking any opportunity of you disapproving of me.
If I’m being judgemental, it is all about values, mine and yours. It’s about me needing to establish my credentials, showing I have something to say and establishing my right to say it. If I express a moral judgement (aimed at you) you may take offence. If it’s the other sort of judgement it isn’t the same thing at all. For example, to judge the fire as hot. No one disputes that. The heat is evidence-based. That fire burns is self evident. But when I assess your values, that’s a subjective statement about my values being better than yours. My judging may not necessarily be fair or carefully researched, but because I feel it is right, I’m impelled to make my position clear. I relate my values to yours. I take it as my responsibility to impress you with my values. I may even think to shock you. What I say to you, I hope, will ‘wake you up’.
A judgement or a disapproval lands us in all sorts of deep water. It’s as clumsy an interaction as when you insult me and I punch you in the face. I do it without thought almost. I react before I’ve thought it through, and the damage is done and can only be undone with a lot of effort. This is a powerful moment, my punching you in the face. My judgement is quick, clear and almost primeval. I dislike you and I am showing it decisively. I act speedily to keep my advantage, before I can give myself time to make more considered response.
Acts like this are automatic for those who are afraid to think. Each day we make decisions without taking the trouble to consider more carefully. Perhaps that’s because we don’t have enough time or patience to consider anything much. We think and act almost simultaneously, instinctively, impulsively liking or disliking. When it comes to straight talking it might not be such a bad thing, if our friends come to know us as speakers. But if we haven’t thought carefully about it we may use the shock and attack approach and not care about their feelings or setting off a whole train of insensitivity ending us as a grand mistake. So where does that leave us? Perhaps strategically needing to be very careful about making value judgements.
Let’s say we are together, you and I. If you look at my face, you’ll pick up all the essentials as to how I’m feeling – either I’m relating to you non-judgementally (I’ll be giving off a signal: I like you or I accept you) OR I’m being judgemental (signalling disapproval or mistrust). I might not want you to see ‘judgemental’ in me and I may not want to be judgemental, but all that’s overridden by my wanting to show off. I may want nothing more than to show my high standards. I may even be prepared to risk our relationship for the sake of this. By letting you know that I disapprove of something you do, I gamble on you finding my honesty valuable. And that shows you I’m not trying to deceive you about how I feel. But for the onlooker this may not be what they see at all – rather it will be seen as ‘covering our tracks’, blocking any opportunity of you disapproving of me.
If I’m being judgemental, it is all about values, mine and yours. It’s about me needing to establish my credentials, showing I have something to say and establishing my right to say it. If I express a moral judgement (aimed at you) you may take offence. If it’s the other sort of judgement it isn’t the same thing at all. For example, to judge the fire as hot. No one disputes that. The heat is evidence-based. That fire burns is self evident. But when I assess your values, that’s a subjective statement about my values being better than yours. My judging may not necessarily be fair or carefully researched, but because I feel it is right, I’m impelled to make my position clear. I relate my values to yours. I take it as my responsibility to impress you with my values. I may even think to shock you. What I say to you, I hope, will ‘wake you up’.
A judgement or a disapproval lands us in all sorts of deep water. It’s as clumsy an interaction as when you insult me and I punch you in the face. I do it without thought almost. I react before I’ve thought it through, and the damage is done and can only be undone with a lot of effort. This is a powerful moment, my punching you in the face. My judgement is quick, clear and almost primeval. I dislike you and I am showing it decisively. I act speedily to keep my advantage, before I can give myself time to make more considered response.
Acts like this are automatic for those who are afraid to think. Each day we make decisions without taking the trouble to consider more carefully. Perhaps that’s because we don’t have enough time or patience to consider anything much. We think and act almost simultaneously, instinctively, impulsively liking or disliking. When it comes to straight talking it might not be such a bad thing, if our friends come to know us as speakers. But if we haven’t thought carefully about it we may use the shock and attack approach and not care about their feelings or setting off a whole train of insensitivity ending us as a grand mistake. So where does that leave us? Perhaps strategically needing to be very careful about making value judgements.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Being non-judgemental
When we’re talking animal rights we use words, and it’s impossible not to expose our inner feelings when we speak. Try as we might we can’t take the judgement out of our voice if it’s already in our mind. Our words can sound benign, but if we harbour any negative personal feeling it will show in the tone of our voice, and be picked up. Anyone thinking any sort of judgement about someone’s moral values can be smelt from a distance, and be regarded as hostile. “Avoid, avoid”. So, for vegans talking animal rights, it’s almost impossible for us to win the hearts of people if we are in judgement of them.
If we wear the badge of the ‘animal liberationist’, owing to our general reputation for proselytising, we’re immediately recognised as potentially boring. So somehow we need to win people over in order to get them to stay with us long enough to listen to us. How do we do that? I would suggest by proving to them, first and foremost, that we aren’t judgemental, and if necessary to say so. To do that we first have to BE non-judgemental, truly so. We must be convinced of the futility of making moral judgements, whether it’s about the abuse of animals or about anything we consider wrong. Instead we need to see it in much the same way a doctor sees a disease, without rancour or disrespect but simply as a fault in the system, which needs help and hopefully correction. A doctor will look for a remedy to counter the destructive element, and so should we.
They say there’s cancer in everyone’s body and we have to stay healthy and keep our immune system robust to prevent it taking hold. In much the same way we need to keep a healthy resolve, to not make judgements.
If we wear the badge of the ‘animal liberationist’, owing to our general reputation for proselytising, we’re immediately recognised as potentially boring. So somehow we need to win people over in order to get them to stay with us long enough to listen to us. How do we do that? I would suggest by proving to them, first and foremost, that we aren’t judgemental, and if necessary to say so. To do that we first have to BE non-judgemental, truly so. We must be convinced of the futility of making moral judgements, whether it’s about the abuse of animals or about anything we consider wrong. Instead we need to see it in much the same way a doctor sees a disease, without rancour or disrespect but simply as a fault in the system, which needs help and hopefully correction. A doctor will look for a remedy to counter the destructive element, and so should we.
They say there’s cancer in everyone’s body and we have to stay healthy and keep our immune system robust to prevent it taking hold. In much the same way we need to keep a healthy resolve, to not make judgements.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Forced into peace
There’s little comfort for vegans in any stories in the media. All we hear about is how conventional food habits are flourishing. Cuisine, making full use of animal body parts, is all the rage. It’s only ever about taste experiences, variety and freshness. The TV cooks are oblivious of the animals whose bodies they use. And their use of abundant quantities of animal products is made to look like the extravagance we all deserve. There’s never a thought to the harm their rich foods do to human health let alone the harm to the animals who produce them. They are agents of indulgence and in the pay very often of the animal (and allied) industries. There’s benefit all round.
Our society is careful to elevate the chef. They do nothing to endanger the acceptability of animal produce. Vegans, on the other hand, want retribution. But our sack is empty. We have nothing coercive to fight with. This is why we seem to be silent, busting but silenced.
For those of us who are less impatient we see this to our advantage, as a movement. At this early stage we can act more effectively by not drawing attention to ourselves.
We’re in no position yet to morally browbeat. We can’t expose, we can’t ridicule, we can’t do anything of this sort to help our case, simply because our minority views are up against a vast majority attitude. Frustrating as it may be for us it’s nevertheless good training for not being too ready to judge, even in our most private thoughts. It forces us to take on total non-violence. Only by completely rethinking our attitude to those who disagree with us can we make any headway with them.
Our society is careful to elevate the chef. They do nothing to endanger the acceptability of animal produce. Vegans, on the other hand, want retribution. But our sack is empty. We have nothing coercive to fight with. This is why we seem to be silent, busting but silenced.
For those of us who are less impatient we see this to our advantage, as a movement. At this early stage we can act more effectively by not drawing attention to ourselves.
We’re in no position yet to morally browbeat. We can’t expose, we can’t ridicule, we can’t do anything of this sort to help our case, simply because our minority views are up against a vast majority attitude. Frustrating as it may be for us it’s nevertheless good training for not being too ready to judge, even in our most private thoughts. It forces us to take on total non-violence. Only by completely rethinking our attitude to those who disagree with us can we make any headway with them.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Pessimism
Pessimism is connected with things going badly wrong psychologically (some negative attitude or hatred or resentment which sours our life). It’s our pessimism making it impossible to agree to anything that might make matters worse for ourselves.
In this state of mind just holding our life together is more immediate than entertaining new ideas; dancing off into the sunlight on some adventure, exploring the human connection with … animals. Struggling to survive - in this state of thinking it’s likely we’re less receptive to sound advice. “Go away” thinking is justified by our own not-liking or trusting the person with the ‘new idea’.
When vegans take on the role of advisor, to offer what we know, we forget we need permission to come in. We need to win some trust. If we’re really compassionate, passionate and patient, we’re more likely to do just that. Then trust is established. To get to that point we need to be listening to all their reasons (for not being vegan) whilst being the compassionate all-rounder ourself. Not their judge. Trust is there if we don’t judge.
Coming back to the arsonist, judging them goes some way to satisfying the need for revenge – the wish to simply punish. The arsonist acts illegally and immorally and therefore provides a perfect excuse for everyone in the community to come together on this one matter. And because we can all take part in this judgement, we are justified in being uncharitable.
Which is what vegans sometimes do, when they hear about the latest coronary heart disease statistics. They like what they hear, because this statistic is so useful for our arguments concerning the eating of meat. Those stats do help our argument to be taken seriously but our mistake is to forget to express concern for the people with heart disease. If we ignore their tragedy we seem callous. And then our motives won’t seem trustworthy.
In this state of mind just holding our life together is more immediate than entertaining new ideas; dancing off into the sunlight on some adventure, exploring the human connection with … animals. Struggling to survive - in this state of thinking it’s likely we’re less receptive to sound advice. “Go away” thinking is justified by our own not-liking or trusting the person with the ‘new idea’.
When vegans take on the role of advisor, to offer what we know, we forget we need permission to come in. We need to win some trust. If we’re really compassionate, passionate and patient, we’re more likely to do just that. Then trust is established. To get to that point we need to be listening to all their reasons (for not being vegan) whilst being the compassionate all-rounder ourself. Not their judge. Trust is there if we don’t judge.
Coming back to the arsonist, judging them goes some way to satisfying the need for revenge – the wish to simply punish. The arsonist acts illegally and immorally and therefore provides a perfect excuse for everyone in the community to come together on this one matter. And because we can all take part in this judgement, we are justified in being uncharitable.
Which is what vegans sometimes do, when they hear about the latest coronary heart disease statistics. They like what they hear, because this statistic is so useful for our arguments concerning the eating of meat. Those stats do help our argument to be taken seriously but our mistake is to forget to express concern for the people with heart disease. If we ignore their tragedy we seem callous. And then our motives won’t seem trustworthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)