Bring on the debate not the quarrel

1009:

If there were a debate on Animal Rights, I imagine there’d be two opposite positions, and it would all be very ordered. But in the real world outside the debating chamber, stereotypes, prejudices, half truths and misinformation abound. It’s a struggle to get even one decent point across before it’s objected to or we’re being interrupted.

The animal advocate is handicapped by what’s gone before, how we have conducted ourselves in these sorts of discussions, the reputation we have built. Sometimes we’ve been very informative, even inspiring. Often we’ve been adversarial and too ready to quarrel.

To establish the most positive image, to turn this around, I would try to be seen as an okay-person, fair-minded, not aggressive and respectful of both human issues and animal issues. If it’s an up-hill job, to draw the majority towards my view (especially if it’s me who is wanting to debate animal issues, and not the other way round) then I need to deal with some preliminaries. Before I get anywhere near the business end of discussing animals, I will have to set the standard for non-violent interaction and logical argument, and show that I won’t go on the defensive.

I say that because I know we have powerful arguments. There’s no need for us to lose our advantage by being sensitive to criticism or demand our right to speak. We need them to take us on. And if that means they resort to their own brand of aggressive tactics, it’s usually a cover for what they see as their weaker position.

Sometimes I try to stir people a bit, but I never know how much I should dare to provoke, when I’m not sure of the person I’m talking with. And why try to pick a fight when I can instead try to bring out a person’s enquiring nature instead?

In conclusion, I think it’s a mistake to force people to respond, or try to emotionally blackmail them. Any wish to talk about issues in any sort of detail must come from them. It’s likely if they think the animals thing is an issue at all, they’ll want to talk about health and animal welfare. Then, it’s up to us to carefully introduce cruelty and slavery and all the really heavy stuff. 

Confronting – does it work?

1008: 

Here I am, eating dinner with others, seeing what they’re eating, and I feel the urge to make a comment on their ‘animal food’, wanting them to know why I’m eating something different. I comment. The ‘already-converted’ will say “Yes, we agree”, and that’s what I want to hear, some easy agreement. Others say nothing. Their silence indicates disagreement. They’re eating and enjoying their animal-food. They don’t want to hear what I have to say, so if I carry on voicing my views, talking about Animal Rights or vegan issues, I’m guaranteed to set off alarm bells.

Omnivores won’t listen when I criticise their food, especially if they already feel a bit guilty about their position on animal farming. Understandably, to them, speaking like this during a meal is excessive chutzpah.

But for some devil-may-care activists, any time is a good time to state their case – they’d say that these people deserve to be confronted. And maybe they do, but free-willed people know they can walk away (or in this case ignore me, but nevertheless seethe). And if they do they are lost to us, sometimes for ever. So, who wins then?

The alternative to this bulldozer approach is for us to strike a balance when talking about Animal Rights. Face to face we can judge if there’s an interest in hearing what we’ve got to say. If not, then perhaps they’re building a brick wall against us; and it’s the stone-wallers who’re the very people we should be trying to reach.

We think animals deserve to have a life of their own, but the vast majority haven’t thought about it - the question hardly ever arises, and if it did it would seem like an absurd question.

But in those few countries where the question of animals having rights is more often discussed, there’s an initial willingness followed by alarm and the setting up of defensive barriers. There’s no other subject that hots up quite so quickly.

What happens? Maybe someone like me attempts some crude moral bludgeoning. I’m thought to be unrealistic. Soon, our talk goes pear-shaped. Nothing much moves on. No bridge-building, no attitude changes, lots of self-justification. To the meat eater, animal- based foods are as natural as breathing fresh air. We can talk about the horrors of factory farming or the violence of the abattoir but to most people, a meal is just a meal. They can’t associate what they have always eaten with an act of violence.

If there’s any curiosity it’s only academic – the concept of animals having rights or being protected from exploitation isn’t realistic, it isn’t applicable to the personal lifestyle of everyday living. Maybe what we say is a shock when we say it, but it passes quickly. To all intents and purposes, it’s forgotten about as quickly as possible. There’s no compelling reason to remember what we’ve said. When reality kicks in, the grind of daily life leaves no space for change. Not this scale of change anyway.

Saving Our Souls

1007: 

Violence would have been dropped long ago if humans were less competitive and less quarrelsome.  We each want to get to the top of the heap, or at least prevent being pushed further towards the bottom.  Progress is measured by upward 'advancement';  e.g.  human animal rising to the top of the animal kingdom, becoming the dominant species.  But in our quest to rise, we’ve found ourselves submerged in so much destructive behaviour that we should look again at what we really mean by 'progress'.

Humans are now at a stage of reassessing priorities.  We’re beginning to realise that winning isn’t necessarily gaining.  Our thirst for war and our need to practise domination over animals seems to have been our undoing.  On a personal level, shame and failure has crept up on us quietly.  We've hardly noticed it.  But when evidence of ill health, weak ethics and planetary damage becomes too obvious to ignore, we have to.

I’d suggest that if we hadn’t been so hooked on 'yummy' animal-based foods and all the other little comforts associated with products from abattoirs, we wouldn’t be in such a mess now.  We wouldn’t now have to face up to reducing our carbon footprint or ending mass starvation or fighting obesity or struggling with the shortage of clean water!  Plant-based eating would never have brought us to any of these crisis points.

Whether in the form of making war or taking what we don’t need, it’s been humans' short-term, short-sighted approach that’s been our undoing.   Our quick fix habits have been self-centred and anthropocentric.   Hardly ever have habits been based on empathy and altruism.  The characteristic advances that humans have made have been based on the premise that we must 'leave others to rot'.  Our irrepressible desires and decadent lifestyles are dependent upon exploiting the most accessible resources.  The most valuable and vulnerable of  these 'accessible resources' are - animals.

           

If we do eventually save our world (saving our own souls at the same time) it might just be in the nick of time.  The great fear is that we are already at the eleventh hour.  If we have left our run too late, we won’t know until it IS too late.  So perhaps we need to act sooner rather than later.  The choice is ours, but we can’t move on until the most obvious damage is repaired.  To make a start, we can GO VEGAN - NOW! and start to reverse the damage we’ve set in motion.  The longer we leave it the more damage will be done and the more we'll have to repair.

Ed: CJ

Idealism goes a long way too

1006: 

My main aim is to get people to listen.  But why would they?  Perhaps because I have something attractive to offer, and they’ll get something useful from me.

I need to give them new information about a subject not often discussed or about things they don’t normally hear about.  Interest flows from there.  I might point out some of the hidden truths of animal farming but I will also mention the importance of animal rights - including all the benefits it can bring to us - and paint a picture of the future, and show how I think we can get there.

I think it’s important to point out that we are not only interested in animals but a much broader prospect that involves human life at every level.  I’ll speculate about how I think people could turn out, and even be passionate about it (otherwise I won’t convince anyone that I really can see a different world ahead).

           

You can guess something of this future world – it would be a world WITHOUT a slave trade in animals, without abattoirs or animal farms.  We wouldn’t see animals as food but as sovereign beings in their own right.  Because the prospect of such a world is so difficult to visualise, my job must be to convince you that it isn’t unattainable.

If this world is to seem at all realistic, firstly my ideal must appeal to you, so that it can also become your ideal.  It’s likely that what we have in common is that this new world will be more altruistic than the one we know at present, but that it will feel normal and natural to be altruistic.  And if that ideal is reached, that we’d see ourselves as being more mature human beings, walking more worthily on earth and breathing more easily. Who wouldn’t be drawn to the prospect of such a world?

Self deprecation goes a long way

1005: 

Some vegans can come across as being up themselves, as if we would rather be seen as too serious than be mistaken for being half-hearted in our views. But it widens the gap, and it makes for communication difficulties.

To prevent this over-serious image, I’d rather try to do what comedians do - they risk everything by laughing at themselves, to first get their audience on side.  They might try to appear stupid or ‘uncool’ or even clumsy, but they’re really busy getting the human dynamic working; they’re building a wave to ride on, to carry the whole audience away, as if by surprise.  When they do it well, the audience loves it.  They laugh out of gratitude, learning something about themselves, in that they’ve been so easily fooled by the trick of the comedian’s self-deprecation.  I think we, as animal advocates, can do approximately the same thing.  We have to do something unusual to take the heaviness out of our subject.

I’ve found even with the most hostile bunch of people, a little self-deprecation goes a long way.  If I’m prepared to laugh at myself, show my vulnerability, show a soft underbelly, then I’m likely to be seen incapable of doing much damage – to show that I’m not wanting to be hurtful.  And in the end they’ll be more prepared to listen to even the most difficult material.  And let’s be clear - our material is NOT what people usually want to hear.  It can make people feel very uncomfortable. 

           

In the hands of a good comedian (whose jokes, shall we say, are being aimed at vegans) we can be sent up.  They may portray us as ‘bleeding hearts’, animal lovers, fussy eaters, tree huggers, etc.  There’s no reason why we can’t describe ourselves like this, and enjoy the joke of these stereotypes.

           

In this way, we can show we aren’t afraid of being made fun of, thus showing we’re confident of our selves and our views.  It also proves we have a healthy sense of humour (without which animal rights advocacy doesn’t stand a chance)!

By letting someone see my naked side, I’m showing I trust them, that I’m not considering myself too important to be laughed at.  When I put on my clown mask, I’m better able to show my serious side too.  If I seem a bit weird, so what?  As long as I keep my sense of humour plus a non-violent tone in my voice, then I can speak freely without doing damage.  And then what I have to say won’t be reacted against or too easily dismissed.

We have a strong message that needs to be sung lightly. 

A nice bit of violence

1004: 

Why is the human so aggressive, why is there so much violence and violation?  Perhaps because it’s the easier way.  Violence is popular because it requires so little energy, especially if the victim is very much weaker than oneself.  There’s almost no resistance when the virgin is violated or when we violate and extract the spoils of the earth or the seas.

Violence is attractive because it gets results.  It’s like getting something for nothing.  On a subtler level, it’s used in a different, less obvious form, for self-confirmation - when we make a value judgement.  It confirms that my values are better than yours.  I’ll use judgement as a pick-me-up and draw energy from feeling good about myself by making my position clear to you, or by making you feel bad about yourself.

But it’s like a sugar-rush, it doesn’t last long.  Whether I’m value-judging or bullying, raping or killing, in the end my violence eats me up.  Even when I’m justified, when I think I’m right and you’re wrong, as soon as I’m making judgements I’m indulging my destructive side.

If I want to do something good for my soul, I’ll draw energy from being non-violent and non-judgmental.  That might mean striking some sort of balance, by taking the longer way, the slower, less violent way.  So, if I don’t like what you do, my first reaction might be to tell you, to make it clear where I stand, but it’s not only about me and how I feel.  I won’t be helping you.  You won’t be inclined to change because of my disapproval of you or what you do. 

Affection & Disaffection

1003: 

The affection and intimacy we all so easily show to a dog or cat is more inhibited when it comes to humans.  If we don’t have the same invitation from others, we don’t show them quite the same level of intimacy.  We might not be prepared to take the initiative.  People, even kids today (and perhaps with good reason!), don’t trust spontaneous intimacy.  We are more likely to pre-think our interactions.  Perhaps we’re afraid of one another.

Even closer to home, firstly with people we know, intimacy-levels have to be established.  Do I hug my friends when I meet them, kiss them, shake their hands?  Should I be soft and gentle with kids or be stricter, firmer?  Do I trust my neighbour enough to be friendly or should I establish some distance between us?  Perhaps we fear that if we get too friendly, people will think we have ulterior motives.  Or if I’m too trusting there’s a fear in me that I might be taken advantage of.

If we are ever to break down our barriers, if we want intimacy and non-violence to be the norm, then we must trust ourselves and our motives, and then go on to trust that others will read our signals and respond accordingly.  If I want to nurture trust, I must take the lead. I must show intimacy and affection, not sometimes but at all times.  Perhaps I must be prepared to risk my reputation, give other people the benefit of the doubt, consistently look for the good points in others, and be more aware of myself when interacting; I have to be sure there’s no aggro in my own words, and if I make a mistake, I must right it with apology and affection.

All this we have to do if we want to prove our deeper aim - to emphasise non-violence and affection.  If we want to break down alienation, there needs to be no disaffection but lots of empathy.

All this must be ‘danced’, human to human.  If we can get it right with one another then we stand a better chance of applying it in the form of empathy-with-animals.  Whether we feel close to the plight of humans or closer to animals, we can learn from each other, from those who have a different inclination from ourselves; this is where vegans can learn to be warmer to their fellow humans and where the omnivore can feel more affection for the animals they’re consuming.  We oil the wheels of non-violence with affection.  In the end, it’s only by upping our affection that will transform us into truly compassionate people.