Self deprecation goes a long way

If we become too serious about even the most serious subjects no one will want to listen. We should do as comedians do. They risk everything by laughing at themselves to get their audience on side. They get the human dynamic working for them before doing anything else. As activists, we should try to be effective by appearing non-pushy. We have to take a few risks (in true comedian spirit), by using self-deprecation.
In the hands of a comedian, whose jokes, shall we say, are being aimed at vegans, we would be targeted as ‘bleeding hearts’, animal lovers, fussy eaters or tree huggers. In that same spirit there should be no reason why we, as vegans, shouldn’t enjoy all this, to show we aren’t afraid of being sent up. If we are confident of our facts and feelings, by laughing at ourselves we show others we have a healthy sense of humour, without which animal rights advocacy doesn’t stand a chance. By letting anyone show our naked side, we show we trust them. At the same time we show we’re not better than anyone else - vegan diet notwithstanding. If we can let others see our clowning side, we’ll be better able to show our serious side too. If we come across as a bit weird - so what? As long as we have a sense of humour plus a clearly non-violent tone in our voice, then our words won’t be too drastically reacted against or too easily dismissed. Our message needs to be sung as difficult-to-listen-to music is played, with panache.

A nice bit of violence

Does being hard nosed (in our decision making) assure results? Is violence popular because it is low energy? Perhaps the human way isto establish dominance to make sure we get our own way. All it needs is one snide remark or a punch in the face and we get maximum effect for very little energy output. When we’re afraid to go the longer way round we resort to good old tried and tested aggression. The hard nosed approach gives us a ‘sugar hit’, allowing us to be judgmental about someone else, which makes us feel good about ourselves, which in turn makes it easy for us to dislike the other guy. When things don’t go right it feels so much better to have someone to blame. We use the judgment-pick-me-up. But does it really work? Maybe not, because our judgements eat us up. They stop us looking for the best side in other people, and that consumes energy that we could be using more constructively.
To become non-judgmental as well as non-violent, we need to be both selfish and unselfish at the same time. We need to balance our spending of energy with what we get back. If what we do is all selfless we’ll never be able to keep it up, too selfish and it goes the other way. Better to get this flow of energy from ourselves and to ourselves working nicely. Then we’ll be less inclined to resort to clumsy methods.

Affection and disaffection

The affection and intimacy we reserve for our much loved pet could be the same as with our fellow humans, neighbours and work colleagues. But we’re not quite there yet. We aren’t so intimate that we could meet another human and automatically tickle him/her under the chin or stroke his/her hair (as we do with dogs). We are too reserved with each other. Unless it’s a strong sexual attraction, in our human relationships we don’t always act spontaneously. We pre-think our actions, perhaps because we are afraid of one another. “Shall I be firm with the child or draw out their inner kindness?”. “Shall I trust my neighbour or set up rules of engagement?”. Our first thoughts run to safeguards - being prepared for the nasty side in people. It’s dangerous to trust. A dog is so loyal and guileless that however friendly we are they always want more of the same. But with most humans it isn’t so. We think that if we get too friendly, people will think we have ulterior motives. And if too trusting, then we’ll be taken advantage of. So, we stay detached and defensive.
But if we would like to see non-violence get a foothold then trust is essential. We can make a start by giving other people the benefit of the doubt. By looking for their good points and not immediately finding fault we give them a chance to show their best side. And if violence creeps in, we overcome the worst of it by showing affection.
Is this approach a luxury? Do we typecast people, do we say, here’s a meat-eater so they must be nasty types, so best not to trust them? Without trust (and because we lose patience so quickly) we revert to type: we show the hard side of our self. We prefer to fight the enemy rather than find avenues for peace-making. Once we make that decision, to no longer be intimate and affectionate, to behave coldly instead, we blow our chances of making progress and step into disaffection.

A personal code of conduct

Our own ethics have to be constantly upgraded to keep pace with the increasing levels of violence and vanity in today’s society. As complicated as it may seem, I think it might come back to the difference between an intelligent way to behave and an unintelligent way. All this would hardly be worth a mention if it wasn’t for morality imposing ridiculous codes of behaviour. In our western world, during the 1960s, a lot of the main moral codes began to fall apart, and to a certain extent the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. But out of the vacuum left we began to feel a certain independence from authority. Our instinctive feelings were tapped into. They contradicted convention, in that personal morality began to challenge authorised morality. As we lost confidence in authority, so we began to question good, bad, right and wrong, and even though an ethics revolution didn’t exactly catch on (except in the expanded consciousness of hippy revolutionaries) the morality bubble was burst. Now, today, our choices are no longer automatically made in accordance with given morality, but by applying an instinctive code of conduct to our relationships, to our eating habits and to treading more lightly on the earth. To some extent this has given us some hope of making a breakthrough in our human conduct. And from that an optimistic breakthrough about the very future of life on Earth.
What we can see now is that violence is hand in hand with indifference. And nothing will change unless we become active. In theory, with just this chink of hope it will be possible for anyone to change, over night. Many of us contend that it is in our treatment of animals where we can see the worst of ourselves and where the changes must start. If we can realise the importance of animals having the ‘right to a life’, and if this caught on, we’d have the seed social revolution. By putting the theory into practice, by becoming vegan, by changing our personal code of conduct, we start the ball rolling.

Personal ethics

A personal ethic is our personal accountability. It reinforces the connection between our principles and the practice of them. It gets us over the hump of where a new habit, like an animal product boycott, is helped along by the ethic from which it arose. Now since a good ethic resonates with a healthy instinct, what we feel might be the right thing to do usually is right. Our core attitude, our core ethic, shows us how to form our attitudes and let us work things out for ourselves. We let answers gradually fall into place.
It may be that part of growing up is in discovering that we have innate knowledge about what and who we are and from that we develop an attitude, of which ethics is a big part. This isn’t an outer, mirror-reflected image of ourselves but an inside-felt image. Our self-identification process is used to relate to the outside world. A combination of self-produced and society-produced attitudes provide a guideline, to let us function in a way that satisfies us. If we’ve lost faith in society-driven ethics maybe we fall back on our own. Our personal ethics should make us feel so good about ourselves that we can carry this over to working co-operatively with others. If we feel we’ve done that successfully then again it’s another ethic that comes into play, that prevents us getting cocky about ourselves. The "ethics-behind-the-person-behind-the-action" lets us resolve matters without being righteous or using violent methods. Ethics exert a constraining force whenever we’re tempted to take the easy way out. Ethics help us to apply the accelerator or the brake where necessary.

Morals

We have an animal rights movement with excellent arguments but we still think we can better persuade people by emphasising the horrific violence of animal treatment. It does seem the most obvious thing to do, and yet because almost everyone identifies their own habits with that horror they turn away. People will always find a way NOT to see themselves as monsters. But still the animal rights advocates persist in trying to shame people into becoming vegan. It sometimes works too, but mostly it doesn’t. We’ve been banging on about the horrors for thirty odd years and still only a very tiny minority of people have changed to vegan diets. We’re still a million miles from having a 50% support base. And without that we will remain utterly powerless to help any animals. Surely, if we want to succeed we have to have a better understanding of why people are not coming across to our way of thinking. We have to start thinking outside the circle, beyond the shaming and moralising. We have to go back to where the mind manipulation starts in order to find ways of making our arguments meaningful.
In a supposedly morality-driven world people are still juggling with the absurd notion that, whilst thinking themselves peace-makers that they can still afford to continue with a few violent habits. The example has been set by the double standards of our educational and religious institutions. They always advocate non-violence but come unstuck over this troublesome issue of animal exploitation. Our leaders know that it would be dangerous to encourage people to alter their food choices or to mess about with that one big resource at our disposal – animals! For them to advocate stoping using them, to liberate animals in fact, would threaten the stability of society, so the connection between animal cruelty and violence is underplayed. In fact they attempt to hide it from the public (especially kids who are rarely taught about what happens to the animals they’re eating). This shows up our society’s moral codes as decidedly dodgy. On top of this, the authorities are very ready to condemn certain harmless behaviours (like fornication) but are happy to ignore the immorality of routine attacks made on animals. That’s quite confusing, even destabilising. And for those who bother to think things through there is a general disillusionment with our society’s moral codes. It encourages many of us to go back to basics, to our own instinctive assessment of what is right and wrong. We can no longer trust people in authority for our moral guidance. So the very idea of an authority based upon tradition begins to look old fashioned and ridiculous.
It seems that most people do want to see themselves as ethical people. In most respects we may lead our lives ethically and feel pretty good about ourselves but, unless vegan, we will have to make an exception, when it comes to the part we play in the imprisoning, attacking and killing of animals.
If anything we do is written up as being morally acceptable one would think it has undergone scrutiny. But for almost all people, on this thorny problem of using animals, there’s reluctance. Morally and ethically speaking, attitudes to animals don’t stand up at all well. There is an attempt to brush it all under the carpet.

Give peace a chance

Non-violence is gaining prominence today if only because it is so badly needed in a world that is post holocaust, post atomic bomb, post factory farm and post animal experimentation. It suggests that we should give peace a chance.
But are we ready for it? Isn’t the world too violent for such ideals to survive, let alone grow strong? Maybe we should go the other way? We’ll never get our point across unless we hit people hard with it? It’s rather like a constant tussle between two personalities within us. The hard versus the soft. We know we have to survive in this harsh world, we have to make money somehow, we have to go shopping and buy things for our daily existence, we have to be a bit rough with the kids or they’ll take advantage of our kindness. The ideal wears a bit thin and often gives way to pragmatism. We start to consider flirting with a little violence. A little corporal punishment might keep the kids from running riot. A few harsh words to our next door neighbour might quieten their noisy music! Even vegans who want to show the stupidity of the meat eaters use it in their language, to persuade people to show respect for animals. If ‘they’ don’t like it, too bad!
But I suspect we use it because we won’t exercise our imagination to argue our case more carefully and compassionately. Instead we hit out. We denigrate and show how much we dislike those who seem to not agree with us. It’s understandable enough and yet this ability of ours, to turn so readily to our violent, is something we may not like about ourselves and yet we don’t know how to achieve the results we want without it.
Perhaps violence is a close cousin of panic. When we are cornered, we search through the mad box for ways of making violence work for us, even without being fully conscious that that is what we are doing. It’s our safety valve and yet we refuse to acknowledge it as such. We "double-think", with violent attitudes wrapped up in a thin veneer of non-violence.

Non-violent vegans

By making non-violence work on the habit level, we need to get used to it and acquire the habit of not faltering, not slipping back into violent ways especially when we’re on the defensive. If we do still act violently then we’ve still got attitudes we haven’t got to the bottom of yet. (We all find that one extremely embarrassing, when our hard side is spotted).
Habits related to violence show up when we’re least on our guard. Often at home, where perhaps we are so well known that we don’t even try to impress. So when we roll out of bed and take our black mood to the breakfast table, things can fall apart pretty quickly. Without considering the consequences, we say something hard, and with this one small violence the damage is done. It all happens so fast, and then it’s hard to pull back. The atmosphere darkens. And we can’t take it back once our words come out of our mouth. We try to bluff it out, try to justify it, but whatever we say the feeling is left hanging, unresolved. Once the violent side of us is spotted, others remember we have a nasty side and from then on they avoid stirring us up. And so it goes … and we begin to dislike ourselves ... and then we resolve to become a truly non-violent person and to deny violence altogether. But good intentions may not be enough to deal with such a deeply ingrained violent past, which all of us have inherited from having grown up in a violent society. The nature of violence has to become a study in itself and habits need to be carefully readjusted if we want to acquire a truly non-violent personality … if that is what we really want. Being vegan is one thing, being a truly non-violent vegan is another!

Yer on yer own, buddy

The phrase “blessed are the peace-makers” may not mean very much to people who are only interested in winning approval. But approval from whom? Being recognised by others could be great for the marginalised vegan … if other people’s recognition had currency. But it might not, because most other people are ethically compromised and so their opinion of what we are might not be considered valid. If ‘they’ can’t be true leaders or role models, it means that peace-makers (vegans) must face being alone. They must survive and be strong enough to not need others’ approval. And they must be proactive into the bargain, strengthened solely by having found this one great cause and acted upon it. Thus becoming true peace-makers. For we vegans, simply by knowing that our habits have been remoulded for peaceful purposes, we should know we are ethically safe, relatively speaking. Feeling this sort of safety – is it enough for us?

Motivation for peacemakers

Perhaps you are the sort of vegan who doesn’t want to speak about it. You may just want to be accepted for your views. If that were me I think my only demand would be to feel as though I was doing something to save the animals (by simply being vegan). But I wouldn’t be human, on top of this, if I didn’t want others to recognise me for what I stand for. “Hey, please notice I’m vegan”. Which makes vegans seem pretty desperate for recognition, but sometimes it’s not that at all. It’s something else. We don’t want others to agree (although great if they do!) and we certainly don’t want to be admired for being vegan. No. Just to recognise us as peace-makers. Now that’s reasonable enough isn’t it?
If we expect anything more from others than that, we know it might be a very hard ask. Peace makers aren’t fully understood and the effectiveness of what they stand for is doubted. We still live in a world where things get done by force and coercion. So let’s not be put off by heavy reactions from non-vegans. It’s not something to get surprised about. Nor something to go on (and on) about.
Usually people’s reactions to veganism are neither logical nor kind – nor for that matter unkind. There is often simply a "non-response". A signal to say: “What might be important for you is not important to me and not worth talking about or responding to”. So for peace-makers, the very thing which is wonderful and brave and future-making in our own lives is, to others, not even worth noticing. Hardly very encouraging for us!
If there happens to be no kudos for a peace-maker, where do we find our source of encouragement? Perhaps from within. We need to tap into our sense of caring (in this case for the animals as well as our caring for fellow humans) and tap into our imagination, our faith, or whatever it takes to replace the recognition we’re NOT getting from others. Beyond the rights and wrongs and injustice of all this, beyond the wobbly faith, the one true powerhouse of energy is seated in our own imagination. And that’s the point here. Maybe the catastrophe of our age is really nothing more than a crisis of "unimaginativeness". For most people imagination stops short over certain matters, particularly this one. Even vegans, we don’t tap into that energy source often enough and in consequence we continue to look outside of ourselves for motivation (in the form of recognition). We find it in short supply. We get angry about it. But it’s much worse for our omnivorous friends who are even more out of the habit of working things out for themselves. They do what others do. Perhaps they reason like this: “others eat animals so I eat animals. Others don’t question so I don’t question”. But by not questioning or by not using imagination, none of us can develop our creativity – and so, we miss out on the golden chance of pursuing altruistic aims. Vegans may lead the way but any one of us vegans still keep hitting our own motivational crisis points.

Dynamic harmlessness

The dynamic doesn’t have to be mischievous, but simply be the confident assurance of a person with a strong case which doesn’t need to be overstated. But whether full-on wicked or something underplayed, our arguments almost inevitably stir the juices. As long as our dynamic side is founded on non-violence, we are safe, because it will be acting as a moment-by-moment checking system, making sure we stay constructive and non-judgemental, and preventing us from dipping into warfare at the first sign of hostile reaction from others. Our communications need to keep up a dynamic pulse that generates interest in the subject we want to talk about.
If there is real interest in what we have to say, we’re in luck! It’s like having an invitation to say what we want to say, to speak freely and let things rise to the surface naturally. That’s only possible, however, if we are given the invitation. Gate crashers beware!

Bring on the clowns

Even on such a serious subject as animal rights, there has to be a ridiculous side, a human side, which can always show us how capable we are of behaving absurdly. We need clowns because there’s so much scope for making mischief and even more if we are poking fun at ourselves at the same time. If we can show that we value vulnerability in ourselves and in others, we can approach this HUGE subject on an equal footing with others. By showing that we are incapable of being spiteful, we’ll seem far less dangerous . . . and what we have to say to be more intriguing than confronting.
From a humour point of view there’s so much material here for sending up. Our fellow humans, especially the meat eaters, can so easily make themselves look ridiculous if only because they seem to be so unthinking. They don’t look carefully at their food, or its origin, because they’re beguiled by the taste of it, so it eventually kills them. And of course if they are ridiculous so are some animal activists who take themselves so seriously that they make good targets for parody. And how about those people with no ideals, who look like buffoons when anything serious comes up. And we mustn’t forget the ultimately shallow guy who follows the crowd, who has social cool but very little else. It’s all potentially laugh-at-able. There’s so much scope for talented clowns, to make us look like fools and make us think about what we are doing. Here is an opportunity for sharp edged mischief to be mixed with the harmlessness of humour.
The light touch allows us to go further than sermonising. The combination of dynamic mischief-making and non-violence lets us say almost anything we want to say - and get away with it. Point made: no hurt feelings, just a few lightly bruised egos and some self-deprecation to release the tension. That’s one way of doing it anyway.

Going over the top

The way we persuade people without trying to snare them or inflict guilt on them is to simply get them thinking. If we try to tell others how they should think, what views are correct, etc, we might seem aggressive. And that puts people off. It’s like when we’re on the receiving end of an “agree with me or you’ll feel my disapproval” threat – it’s a premonition we get that a cruelty is about to happen to us. For some animal activists, this subject is so heavily charged, emotionally, that it provides them with the excuse to "go over the top". They’re passionate but one gets the impression that each verbal blow has been rehearsed. It’s seen as evangelising. The listener premeditates ‘their message’ and slams the door before giving them the chance to make their first point.
Animal activists who try and fail with these tactics "queer the pitch" for others who come after them. So is there a less direct way to talk about animal issues without causing grief, but not so indirect that we don’t say what we mean, or so gentle that we can be easily brushed off? How can we be gentle AND dynamic at the same time? . . . Maybe by the use of mischief (see tomorrow’s blog)?

Is our non-violence stable?

Unless we are under age or dependent on others to provide our food and clothing, it’s our responsibility to make our own choices. They can’t be left to anyone else. It’s up to us to decide to either develop a hard nose or a soft heart. That central choice is relevant to just about everything we do. But however soft hearted we are, say over the matter of animals, at some stage we’ll be asking if we’re also soft hearted about people - especially when trying to recruit them? Do we become disappointed with people when they don’t come across? Do we give up on them? Are we willing to bend over backwards to ease their transition?
And a few more questions. However important we think a matter is, can we discuss it without getting heated? Can we remain friends with people who disagree with us? Can we be sure our non-violence is stable when we wander into the minefield of persuasion?
The reason for being dynamic in the first place is that there are always two points of view concerning the big issues. Life, made up of polarities and we, taking up issues, all about creating tension, stirring ourselves into action, getting a reaction, and bringing issues into sharper focus. On the subject of Animal Rights, we might feel passionately about cruelty and therefore the urgency for everyone to at least become vegetarian, but as soon as we declare this, we are answerable for what we say and the way we say it. We might think we can keep our balance in whatever we say, but others’ reactions we can’t be sure of. The temptation for any of us to become reactive and self-justifying seriously impedes reasoned argument. If we, as vegans, are going to be the ones raising the subject, then it’s up to us NOT to deliberately provoke defensive reactions. Same goes for not trying to shame people, because there’s nothing worse than being accused (even by implication) of unethical behaviour.
If this subject is something we want to talk about we need to remember that this is one extremely sensitive subject. No other like it. Whatever we say will be interpreted in part as personal accusation or a criticism of certain behaviour. And that often means we’re critical of the whole person as well. Whatever we say in public, we should think-non-violence before speaking.

Thoroughly non-violent

For any one of us, being non-violent is when no one is afraid of us. Which means that no one’s afraid of what we say. Speech can be just as violent as a punch in the face. How do we say “I’m vegan”, without sounding superior? (I think humans employed violence originally to establish superiority). How do we speak about non-violent food choices without sounding religious?
If we are thorough about being non-violent, we’ll bring that into our food choices and buy cruelty-free. And that makes us pretty much non-violent people because we choose our food based on never going in for the kill. So we should be able to bring that principle into our conversations, and therefore never emotionally go in for the kill either.
Our arguments are strong enough not to warrant unnecessary displays of emotion (unless spontaneous) Rehearsed outrage is an ugly thing, and enough to steer most people clear of ‘animal righters’. (There’s been so much preaching in the past!). I’d argue that this whole image we have (we good+intelligent:you bad +stoopid) is why there’s an unnecessary gulf between the converted and those that aren’t. For that reason alone I reckon there’s an urgent need to take on non-violence all round. In just about every interaction we make. Or else suffer the consequences of failing more often, more disasterously and getting more and more out of date as the years go by. Vegans really should be primarily associated with being non-violent people rather than vegetable eaters. That’s not to say we shouldn’t be very proud of the will power exerted over our lives - for non-vegans certain foods, using animal, are just too tempting. Say na’ more!
The next paragraph should be ‘R’ rated to enthusiastic animal eaters. It spells out the dividing line between addiction and control. The cruelty of imprisoning and executing helpless animals is something so awful that any truly non-violent person would never want any truck with it. Vegans are vegans not only, or primarily, for reasons of spiritual safety or health but simply to avoid hardening their hearts and blinding their eyes. I suppose it’s true that vegans prefer to stay awake to many dark things going on around them, whereas others don’t. We probably, most of us, reckon that non-vegans are paying a very high price for their animal foods, in more ways than one.
Everyone knows that plant foods are nutritious. In fact they’re highly nutritious. We may also know nutritional needs can be met by plants. And we know from epidemiological studies (of the lives of millions of vegetarians and vegans around the world) that we’re safe as vegans (and satisfied). That undermines any previous doubts we might have had, and takes away justifications we’ve previously used, about our very survival being dependant on abattoirs and animal farms.
Veganism suggests life can be lived without harming any sentient creature. That’s a huge weight off the mind and allows the possibility of leading a totally non-violent life. But because vegans might already be aware of this (and have no trouble applying this principle to their diets and wardrobes) they probably all feel good about it. But where does it stop? A vegan might choose to go no further than personal food and clothing, for fear of broadening the issues too far . . . and it all becoming too overwhelming - “such a huge undertaking - too many changes to be made”. And so be it.
But there must be a great sigh of relief by the planet (and the animals themselves) when any human goes vegan and active, who choose to go into the advocacy business. I suppose it would be appropriate to suggest here that all this changing, to becoming vegan, to becoming animal liberationist, isn’t a race to see who gets there first. This is a true all for one and one for all situation. There are so many issues to consider and each one relates to the rest. Non-violence and altruism, interpersonal relationships, global warming, animal factories, malnutrition … at first glance they seem to be unrelated and yet somewhere down the track they are each destined to meet. If we want to see where that meeting point is, we might have to hang around longer than our body wants us to, so it may NOT be for our eyes, but surely … when it happens. When it happens there’ll be a strong whiff of non-violence around. And it will be nothing less than a revolution in attitude, of which animal rights is but a part. Until we imagine this or become more sophisticated in our ideas, we won’t ever understand what all the fuss is about, and why we’re not making fast enough progress.
As a starting-out point (along with diet of course), non-violence gives a steady direction to what we do, and ideas-wise it seems to be a catch-all. It draws the best out of ideas, so when animal activists become involved in non-violent action, they see the connection between animals and humans, the environment and third world poverty. And they realise that the connection between each issue area is fostering peaceful relationship. Our relationships, like our foods, must become cruelty-free. Once we get there, then we won’t have to try so hard and we can allow things to flow more naturally.

Non-violence

Cruelty and waste, force and destruction, privilege and money are effective power tools today, but their influence is obviously on the wane. There are other, less energy-consuming ways, waiting in the wings. For example - in the world of politics, we only need to practise civil disobedience to make our point effectively; there’s no need for confrontation, hurling abuse or any face-punching. In the theatre it’s the same; satire has more impact than launching into bitter tirades. At home, it wouldn’t be home without the regular stoush, a general stir-up is always better than a family feud. So, if violence is always hovering about us like a bad smell, then non-violence is there to hold our hand.
All the time we’re aggro and making threats to help ‘persuade’ people, we do it for peace … and it doesn’t come across that way at all. Non-violent approaches use patience because it encourages us to think-before-acting. No need to get too intellectual here, but in essence it comes down to using reasoned argument only. Even heated reasoned arguments, but none of that other stuff. The ‘V’ thing. It’s unfortunate that debating opportunities are so rare. If they were as common as they were in ancient days we’d learn how to talk issues through.
For the vegan animal activist, what is the main issue here? Surely being non-violent? And as surely that implies, not eating them by way of a diet. Diet is the child of Principle. They go hand in hand.
If they don’t, it’s understandable. If vegans get too assertive they blow it, but they risk it because in this area there’s such a sense of urgency. And that seems to override such luxuries as patience and non-violence. Yet non-violence is a more effective way to bring about Animal Rights, because it doesn’t bang on about the violence as much as it does about it’s opposite, cool. Non-violent advocacy works through fashion. It doesn’t have to be moral or emotional if that’s not our style. It also doesn’t need to get slushy or ‘animal-lovers-unite’ either. In fact it’s main focal point, the Animal Rights Movement is about them not our need for a comrades club. It’s all about liberation and the consumer getting used to the idea of it not being cool to use animals.
If the idea of animals having rights becomes fashionable, it would be a foolish politician who ignored the writing on the wall and ignored law reform. But for that to happen, for this idea to be in fashion, we as a people need to grasp the implications of this social change, one that is non-violence-led. To be non-violent, even in our most heated protests, when it’s cool it can’t help fall into the present culture. Then, and only then, will numbers grow enough, and quickly enough, to outlaw animal exploitation.
Non-violence allows us to take the heat out of our bad habits, to repair for the long term, but nothing more. It doesn’t do any work for us. Somewhat different to its dark cousin violence, employed so abundantly by the wealthy exploiters. Non-violence hand backs the problem to us, but in ordered form, so that we can work on it, think about it creatively. Repair it. Non-violence is the enemy of thoughtlessness, and ‘wickedly’ friendly to intelligence, enough to pose the big question, “What can be done?”, “What will I do?”
This question might apply to global warming, but it might equally apply to animal ‘warming’. Our debt economically, ecologically and ethically is common talk today. We talk about it like we would if we were referring to a common ‘live now pay later’ mentality. And this is the mantra of the wasting, exploiting animal industrial complex. It all becomes that much more frightening when we see Nature speak to us about global warming. This is principle clashing with diet. It’s the principal ticking off the student for stupid behaviour. Nature rules, okay? The question here is surely, what position do I take, to do what I want to do intelligently; which approach is best for Animal Rights?

Playing out violence

When humans ‘lock horns’ they don’t usually kill one another, but they do a nice line in violent discussion! They bring out their sharp word weapons without realising what power they exert. By watching humans having a verbal stoush, you’d think they loved it! Once engaged in this way, their wish to be constructive soon gets lost in a sort of blood lust. When push comes to shove, humans become nasty. They don’t know how to be dynamically non-violent without becoming intimidating. Violence is so ingrained in us, that we go too quickly into that one particular high emotion. It saps our energy and frightens us into ever more violent and destructive behaviour.
If I’m a cruel person, violence comes easily to me. But it’s likely that most of us don’t want to be intentionally cruel. We’ll regret becoming aggressive, but once ‘done’ we can’t undo the damage. We let it fester and the air becomes charged with something uglier than we ever intended. It never occurs to us to use the emergency brake of "non-violence". Instead, we go further and further, sliding deeper into an energy drain, and make no progress at all.

Human violence

We humans know how to use violence for our own ends, but once violence is released does it then control us? Is this how we lose our power? For instance, we think we are superior to animals, so anything they do is equated with inferior or weak behaviour. And yet they could teach us a thing or two about non-violent interaction, equableness and peaceful co-existence.
Instead we stay violent and continue to exploit animals, and non-violence is sidelined. The pressure of the competitive market ups the ante for the producers, specifically animal farmers, and forces them to be ever more violent, to stay ahead of the game. For both producer and consumer the way animals are being treated is obviously obscene and anyone in their right mind should want ‘out’, but it’s an impossible dream - those of us who want to stop ‘The Violence’ still haven’t resolved our own violence. So, surely, humans can’t liberate animals until we liberate our own violent natures. Until we address that, the whole sorry business will just continue.
The animals: what we do to them is bad enough, but it’s not surprising. The way we treat each other let alone how we treat animals is the reason we shouldn’t be allowed within cooee of animals. Fact is, we aren’t yet in a position to help the animals even if we want to, because we don’t understand the reason why they are as they are. . We don’t dare to see behind the peaceful nature of the animals themselves, because we’re programmed to exploit them. Which means we don’t understand how deeply our violence is embedded in us.
We assume animals don’t think or speak, nor that they’d have anything important to ‘talk’ about if they could. They just graze and doze. But we know well enough that they interact with one another and with great sensitivity. They can become passionate over sex and territory, and also show remarkable wisdom in other ways that humans should (and could) learn from. When animals communicate and fight, what does it amount to? They face up to each other, they make their statement (they don’t usually violate or kill each other) and then back off. Their aim is not to defeat or eliminate, but to lock horns. They don’t ‘do’ gratuitous violence as we do. They usually don’t have to resort to violence to get something or save-face.

Fighting talk

As adults we should be able to talk freely with each other, and surely we shouldn’t have to worry about our sensitivities getting bruised. Let’s not forget just how important this subject is, not only for me and you but for the countless animals currently living in Auschwitz conditions. Surely the wear and tear on our own sensitivities pales to insignificance when compared to the constantly attacked sensitivities of animals and the suffering they have to endure. If we feel strongly about this, surely passion must outweigh politeness. Isn’t a little bit of violence-in-our-talk excusable? And wouldn’t it only be seen as excusable outrage, a bold move away from being Mr Nice Guy all the time? But if violence is violence and always destructive and we decide to do without it, then where does that leave us? Can we still be a passionate advocate using principles of non-violence? Will our non-violent side always out-argue our violent side?
Let’s be clear, "dynamic non-violence" is not the same as "not getting involved". It merely avoids our violent side being used for back-up, so that we never resort to it. Take a nothing subject – the weather. We don’t need to become aggressive when discussing this, because the weather is out of our control. The subject of animal treatment is different! We each play a part in controlling this, if not directly then indirectly. We each have a say in what happens to them and we each help to keep them locked up. We are all involved. So it’s important to get this one right. The question is, how do we serve animals in the best possible way? How can we truly act as their protectors? Humans, past and present, have subjected billions of animals to barbaric existence. Many of us feel passionately about this, enough to "fight" for the case. But is the standard idea of ‘fighting’ appropriate or effective? Do we need to radically re-define ‘fight’ before we can effectively convince people by the weight of our arguments? Chinese proverb: When we fight it means we have lost our argument.

Is being opinionated being violent?

In this conversation we’re having with out imaginary adversary, instead of cooling things down, perhaps I decide to go for broke. I dive down deep, get into rough stuff, get them responding passionately and open up their deepest feelings. Is this courage on my part or something less attractive? What starts out as a robust discussion turns into something that can easily get out of control. The big question here is – can we afford to let this happen, between friends? Or indeed between anyone? When talk turns to fighting, when verbal stoush starts to include the use of ‘dislike-tactics’ and it gets personal, what’s happening then? Do we go to any extreme to ‘win the argument’?
The cost? Perhaps Animal Rights is more important than staying on friendly terms with someone. If I think I’m right about an issue, I’ll defend my position, no matter what happens (“fight to the death for my right to say how I feel”, etc). I think the cost to Animal Rights will be heavy if we go this way. On almost any other major issue, yes, we can go in hard for our case and receive respect for the strength of our beliefs but not with this subject. It’s quite different because it triggers such uniquely illogical responses. We touch on the most sensitive sense that people desperately want to defend, their right to titillate their taste buds, food, etc. That’s why we are so astounded, when people discuss animal rights, at the blank response we get. And this is why we get so annoyed with otherwise intelligent kindly people. But that’s or challenge.
This unique advocacy role we have requires us to be true to our role as advocate, in our defending the undefended. Yes, yes, and this is all very noble of course, on the face of things, but in our culture this particular approach is often doomed to failure. This is why we should deeply understand the nature of non-violence, as a strategy, as a communication channel, if we are ever to get people to drop their taste bud addictions and do something about their food policy. To swing the masses across we need only become non-violent in thought, word and deed. And then if that is part of one’s approach to others, then it can also be part of one’s approach when talking about the "animals".
If we understand the value of non-violence, we won’t get sucked into fighting, and instead we might go the other way. We might decide to submit a little in order to restore good feelings, even to the point where we consider letting our feelings remain undeclared. In a nutshell, to be much more patient than we want to be.
But is that realistic or even honest? If we have strong views surely we shouldn’t pretend otherwise? And why should defending a position, a serious position, have to go pear-shaped anyway? Surely the satisfaction of an argument, between two points of view, provides the heady atmosphere that can blow cobwebs away, break a few barriers and let us re-examine attitudes. A frisson of tension means the issue is alive, even if it makes for discomfort. Just by discussing it (Animal Rights) means we’re into a serious subject, that indeed we’re involved with each other, trusting each other. But are we?
This subject is a classic divider, even between close friends. A vulcanologist never knows how big the eruption is going to be. Similarly, do we ever know exactly what will set another person off? Do we ever really know where their breaking point is or precisely what issues are too sensitive for them? How much can we trust another person even if we are certain we don’t want to hurt them?

Not becoming too heavy

To most vegans I suppose the subject of Animal Rights is fascinating, and we do love to talk about it. Pointing out the potentials there for humans as well as the animals. In our effort to get the subject across, we can converse, argue, debate or … quarrel. We can put our case patiently, point by point, but however carefully we try to persuade, this subject matter may not touch others where it counts, especially (or because) they feel negatively about us. If we do get to discuss this subject and if things get heated, how do we keep the focus on track without it falling into the personal inference? How do we stop it becoming personal or getting right out of hand, even becoming violent? Surely, here, we’re trying to sell and one never sells something by becoming aggressive. Trying to sell is not the same as simply justifying one’s own position in what we believe. The urgency and focus always has to be on the rescue bid for the animals, and for this we need to sell the idea and build its momentum. The answer to the best outcome here is in the numbers of people who feel our empathy for them and who come on-side with us for the animals, but also with us as people with whom they can identify. If we are simply salesperson-wanting-results and not the empathiser, our adversary might feel as though they’re being railroaded. Anyone with such a watertight moral philosophy as vegans have is likely to be tempted to take liberties with people in order to recruit them. And often these liberties include ‘anything-goes’, anything right up to violence itself.
So, where does it come from, this determination to say our piece, to sell a belief, even to provoke someone in order to get a reaction? Why, when things aren’t going our way, are we willing to confront? Or if the shoe is on the other foot and it’s us being confronted, what does it feel like and how do we handle it? If we do take our conversation out to the edge, how do we pull back in time? How do we let any bad feelings blow over, especially within that vital microsecond, before we’ve gone too far?
I think it all comes down to how much we care about them and their potential support. The last thing we need to be doing is getting personal, judging values, becoming antagonistic or even privately disapproving. The odour of dislike is not difficult to spot. By disciplining our urge-to-judge someone, because of the attitudes they have, vegans best represent the nature of the animals for whom they’re advocating. Surely their foundation of non-violence should be ours too, in everything we do or say.

Conversation and debate

Conversing is what we do all the time. We enjoy chatting to one another. Conversations are useful for working out what we think and how others are thinking … and indeed how they feel about us. But if we’re too intent on talking about one favourite subject, it might be football, it might be animal rights, we might become a bore. Especially if we show no interest in what others want to talk about. When we’re coming from a minority view, and a moral one at that, no one is going to be happy if we grab all the airspace. It’ll be noticed and disapproved of.
For example, as soon as we start criticising the eating of meat or condoning animal cruelty, if the cap fits, they’ll want us to stop. (And let’s face it, the cap fits anyone who isn’t vegan). They’ll almost certainly give out some sort of warning. If we don’t stop at their warning it’s likely there could be a flare-up. So, the light hearted chat between two people, albeit with opposing ideas, albeit a very serious subject, soon becomes a fight, and in a very short space of time a distinctly different atmosphere can emerge.
To avoid this happening we have to ask ourselves some honest questions. This conversation - did I come with an agenda? Was I trying to manoeuvre things in order to make a speech? Did I have any thought as to how what I was inevitably going to say might feel to others, if I confronted them on this level? Did I think about the effect my voice could have on them, if an assertive tone entered my voice, and could that seem like an attack? Did I expect them to listen to me? Did I jump in too heavily on something they said which they wouldn’t have said if they’d thought about it? Honest and difficult questions, and there’s another aspect to this. However good my arguments may be, can I afford to be too cocky or too embarrassing when other people might want nothing better than to burst my bubble? Do I really want a fight? Am I moral bullying? And even if I am not a bully, even if I’m as nice as pie, this subject (ethics, animals, animal food, farms, slaughtering) is not a lightweight subject. It’s about a whole way of life. And if people feel generally okay about their life, they’re not going to give way easily. It’s not likely they’ll casually pick up this "good idea" and run with it, just because we’ve bludgeoned them with it.
All I’m saying here is that if we go in hard on people, we can expect some rough-house fighting in return. And in terms of feelings getting damaged, can we in the Animal Rights Movement afford to damage people’s perception of the Movement or even of us as ‘animal advocates’. We do represent an essentially non-violent principle, as it applies to animals, as it applies also to people. Any emotional confrontation misrepresents and compromises the animal rights movement and what it stands for, and slows down what it eventually must succeed in doing?

The talker getting a reputation

These days in conversation, I can speak up about what I believe in. But just because I think I’m right it doesn’t necessarily bestow any magical power on my arguments. As soon as I attempt to persuade people, I find they’re not putty in my hands after all. They can’t be moulded to my will. And just because I’m vegan doesn’t make everything I say be respectable. Therefore by being fearless with my words I won’t necessarily impress. More likely I will simply be irritating. If I’m too outspoken, I’ll either be ignored or have what I’m saying denied, if only (for them) to save face. If I mean to make people feel ashamed, that will lodge in their memory, and act as a warning for them in the future, that I am prone to moral lecturing. I’ll be resented for trying to evoke shame. To add to their own justification, they’ll not only see me as preaching but of boasting about my own achievement (of becoming vegan). Unless handled carefully, our "animal talk"might be intended to win converts but end up winning enemies. As Robert Louis Stevenson says: “All speech, written or spoken, is a dead language, until it finds a willing and prepared hearer”.

Force

Everything that might have seemed clear about the idea of veganism is, in reality, not clear at all. It isn’t just about diet, health, leading a cruelty-free life or avoiding unethical products, it’s also about persuading people to change for their own good but against their own will. It’s likely that most people will dislike the pressure we might put on them, which will muddy the idea we are promoting, whilst for our part we’re likely to be convinced of the need to push them past their own inertia.
Maybe we should merely suggest and wait. Like any truly successful salesperson, we should avoid trying to sell too directly, only help people to make decisions for themselves. If vegans choose to talk the subject up by inducing guilt and fear, they may fail instilling new attitudes. If the sales pitch is aggressive or has a heavy moral overtone, we can be sure our ‘customer’ will feel as if he/she is being ambushed.
We’ll be seen by the way we come across, either as someone to be interested in or to be avoided. When people clash with us it’s usually because of the uncomfortable feelings that our arguments evoke, as if we are using them to float our disapprovals and value-judgements. As soon as anyone feels their values are being judged, there’s trouble. So we need to unravel a lot of our own attitude before we can start to alter other people’s, before we can talk productively about this subject. We mustn’t forget that we’re dealing with something most people are attached to, namely the use and the eating of animals.

The simplicity of the vegan solution is not so simple after all.

Perhaps we begin to listen to ideas (vegan ideas?) that deal with our most pressing problems. We take on ‘the good idea’ (a vegan idea?) and test it out by putting it into practice. If the problem concerns our own long term welfare as well as the welfare of animals we may take it seriously (the idea of veganism). This idea is neat in that it addresses the issue of ‘cruelty to animals’ as well as our own improved nutrition, so we can see that this particular ‘good idea’ allows us to lead a much more ethical life and a healthier one too.
But for those who can’t come at it, this very same ‘good idea’ scares them. They might prefer to just live with the problem (being non-vegan). Veganism may seem like too high a price to pay for peace of mind (plus) and so, for these people, a vegan solution might be off limits, not to be discussed and not even to be considered.
So when is a good idea not a good idea? Perhaps when people refuse to take it seriously? But why wouldn’t anyone jump at the idea of best food, best health, best energy, when it’s so obvious? To a vegan, this refusal-to-consider seems illogical. We do our utmost to communicate what it’s all about. But in our zeal we tend to over-sell the idea, and find people reacting badly. When we try to talk it up, we really only talk it down. For some, this has to be an entirely locked-out subject. Just this one idea causes such different and extremely opposite reactions in people, that the last thing the entrenched meat-eater wants to do is think about it. While, of course, vegans very much want to think about it. And discuss it.
Given half a chance, vegans will do anything they can to help disseminate the idea. Trouble is, our enthusiasm makes non-vegans swing into reverse, because a good idea is not good if you don’t want to hear about it. So how do we stop that happening? Perhaps by realising just how threatening major lifestyle change is to some people (and veganism isn’t just diet but much more). But mainly it’s about food. There’s a perception-of-taste issue, but there’s a safety issue here too, concerning nutrition, flying in the face of most authorities who do NOT advocate a vegan diet. The safety of an all-plant based diet is based on instinct and the experience of those few vegans who who’ve proved that it is an optimum food regime. Even after 60 or so years veganism is still, to most people, a very new idea (of living without animal products, let alone being better all round by not using animals for anything). To stop a knee-jerk, negative response to the idea of veganism, vegans themselves have to become incredibly patient, imaginative and compassionate towards their fellow humans, and learn to resist the temptation to convert them by attacking them.
Vegans believe that a vegan diet is good for health and good for clearing the conscience. They have weighed it, tried it, become convinced and long term vegans are now completely at ease with it. Perhaps some of us have forgotten the stages we might have gone through to get to where we are now, and expect others to make a speedy transition. Vegans are usually proud of their achieving a vegan lifestyle. They’ve learnt how to do it without effort. It’s like when you first learn to ride a bike and want to show off your new talent. Once you can do it you want others to come along for a ride with you and you can’t understand why they refuse or why they keep falling off their bikes. We try to win others over with our "vegan ideas", but we often meet with resistance even from people we know. Vegans who are not self-reflective can be so full of this good idea that ethical "veganism" becomes the one subject they feel confident in talking about but ironically it’s the one subject that can make our friends "unfriendly". The good idea that seemed so simple at first …

Problems we can’t shake off

On what basis do we reckon what is important and what’s not? One person eats meat and thinks nothing of it, another would sooner die than touch the stuff. Two extremes of view. We might give up eating meat but what if we hate the idea of being vegetarian? We have to feel good about our choices, otherwise they won’t work. Problems don’t vanish just because we want them to, but they do get a good start if we feel good about a new choice.
Most of us have problems we’re trying to work through - works in progress. Maybe we enjoy trying to solve them - like looking for healthier foods, making more money or deciding what to wear. But we also have other problems that we’re forced to face, which pull us two ways at once. They’re difficult to solve and we’d love to be rid of them. They challenge us where we don’t want to be challenged. For instance, the nasty business of the foods we like to eat and what they do to animals on factory farms to produce it. That makes us feel uncomfortable. So we usually put this sort of problem into the too hard basket and as time passes, we convince ourselves that it’s an "unimportant matter". We usually have the support of our carnivore friends in this, and eventually we don’t give it a second thought. We try to forget it for the sake of our own ‘peace of mind’. Yet it’s not that easy if we have a sensitive conscience or an inquisitive mind. There are problems about our world which just won’t go away. And the longer we leave them the worse they seem to get. Solutions might be clear enough but it’s quite a different matter putting them into practice. Save animals – go vegan!! The very thought of it can make us feel profoundly uncomfortable.

Happiness

We can see what is happening out there - billions of domesticated farm animals, who are alive today, are all on death row. They have no quality of life, no purpose for living and no contact with the natural world. We have ignored their sentience and reduced each one to the status of a machine. And we’ve done this to them (each of us to a greater or lesser degree) because we want to take something that’s theirs from them. Shopping for animal foods must therefore be considered an act of violence.
Now if we profess to "believe in non-violence", we have to put our money where our mouth is . . . and it isn’t only by making a moral statement, because it has to be kept up, every day.
We won’t be able to sustain this behaviour just because it’s ‘right’. There must be some other force keeping us on track. It isn’t so much about what we should do, but about what we should want to do. And so we should first want to be altruistic. The intelligent altruist isn’t a do-gooder but an explorer, practising altruism just as one would pursue any other enjoyable activity. Whatever we want to establish by way of altruism, we have to let it filter into our lives, so that we can feel comfortable with any project we take on, which uses it. And in order to be useful and effective and not get depleted by what we’re trying to do, we have to practise on each other … by developing an interest in one another … by serving each other. Wanting to be useful is the same thing as wanting to be happy: our own happiness is linked by wanting others to be happy too. Great for human relations, but imagine the implications on our attitude towards making animals happy!

Harmlessness isn’t quite enough

How successful are we going to be, as liberators? If things don’t work out well for the animals (and they’ve had no luck with humans so far) things won’t progress for any of us. Humans have a tradition of treating animals barbarically. We now seem like barbarians, but most of us see ourselves, personally, as humanitarians. Until we change our attitude towards animals the ugliness of our eating habits will stick and we won’t be able to move on. Until at least 50% of the human population realises there’s an animal problem, the animal problem will remain, and we won’t have the numbers to even communicate the issues let alone make attitude changes. And with no change we’ll remain as we are. On a personal level we may swing over to becoming vegetarians and collectively we may eventually get the worst abuses fixed, but that won’t be enough to inspire a non-violence-based attitude change. It won’t represent the massive voting support we need for animal liberation to start.
Ultimately, this is what makes us feel so afraid – the no-progress thing. The fear that we are always going to be a cruel, selfish and hard nosed species. Even just on a personal level it doesn’t seem to be dynamic when we just observe the principle of harmlessness. It doesn’t communicate powerfully enough to be noticed. It’s a bit too wussy? Not pro-active enough? On a personal level, most of us would like to save our own souls, and there are many vegans who are vegans primarily for that reason. Others see the bigger picture, the urgency of getting others on side and for animals to be safe - from us! All the time we identify with and excuse other humans, who make up ‘the dangerous species’, the less effective our individual changes will be in persuading a non-violent approach. Vegans need to get across the absurdity and impossibility of humans moving on all the time most of us are still in the habit of exploiting animals.

On side isn’t enough

Animal rights is about developing a passion for non-violence, alongside an altruistic concern for animals (mainly those we eat). Animals and humans are inextricably linked. Their fortune is our fortune. Their plight and our own plight depend on our becoming protectors of them. We need to be close to animals to learn how to restore our sensitivity. They are significant teachers for us (but voiceless all the same). They need us as we need them, and not in an exploitive relationship.
At this stage, the need for human liberation is more urgent than animal liberation, if only because of initial repair work we needs to start on ourselves. Admittedly, over the past thirty years we have come a long way towards developing awareness of and compassion for animals, but were any of the achievements for their welfare too shallow to have been much help to them? And on our public relations front, have animal activists seemed too violent (or unlikeable) to inspire or educate others?
For animals to be liberated many people must vote ‘yes’ to it. First, the issues must be introduced to the public effectively, so vegans have to seem worthy of representing animals’ interests and clear about their “no-touch-animals” policy, which comes from the human track record with animals, there being something in our collective genes, that we can’t help exploiting animals if we get the chance. Vegans must be good communicators of this message if we want the majority to support this animal liberation quest.

Animal rights in yer face

Over the past thirty years, since the birth of Animal Liberation, it has had an aggro, "in-yer-face" image. We’ve handed people a golden opportunity to dislike us and therefore dislike what we say. Thus we’ve lessened our chances of being able to discuss issues concerning animals. Animal-people often look unapproachable. The prospect of having a low key, informative chat with them seems unlikely because they seem like people who are only interested in others agreeing with them. (that is, agreeing with us). In the presence of preachers, there’s little chance to form your own opinion.
In the Animal Rights Movement there’s such a strong wish to convert that there’s not enough attention given to education. Our spokesperson-for-the-cause can sometimes look like the wrong person to be speaking, especially since our arguments are themselves so powerful they only need to be clearly presented without any added hype. Essentially, we need to believe that the story-of-animals will touch the hearts of people, and that the advantages of becoming vegan will seem attractive and that animal rights is an exciting prospect. If any of our message sounds hard and uncompromising it will be off-putting. It will all seem too difficult to try. It will be a case of either the back burner or the too-hard-basket.

Don’t approach me, I’m an animal activist

Currently, animal activists are responding to animal abuse in the only way they know how, the only way they think will work - by protest! We are out there, insisting that we strongly object to the use of violence towards animals. Surely that’s unarguable. But as activists we can appear to act aggressively towards non-vegans, often in an unrestrained, intense and vehement manner, to get our point across. We think it’s okay to be pushy if it’s in a good cause, telling ourselves we have a duty to be forceful … on behalf of the animals. But how close is this to ‘fighting violence with violence’? Confronting any negative reactions or abusive language with sharp invective of our own?
As animal rights activists we believe we have a better chance of winning significant welfare reforms for animals by being uncompromising and assertive. By using this approach we’ve brought issues to public attention and ended many of the worst abuses of animals. The shaming of vivisectors and other animal exploiters has worked to some extent. But it hasn’t convinced the majority of consumers, who haven’t felt the opprobrium personally and therefore haven’t felt responsible enough to change their daily habits. We might say that the collective conscience has not been tweaked.
Instead, a group of animal activists, who seem angry, have made it hard for most people to identify with them. That has encouraged disagreement with their arguments. Consumers have successfully convinced themselves that these are people you wouldn’t want to know, so they shut off from them. They never even get to first base in understanding the issues, because they don’t like the look of the people who are talking to them. The vegan activist can’t afford to appear like this.

The art of boycotting

If we disapprove of the system we’ll want to help change it. If we don’t, then it’s likely we’ll feel guilty about our involvement in it but not enough to do anything about it. It comes down to what value we put upon having a clear conscience as opposed to having a somewhat guilty conscience (for supporting the people who pollute the environment and exploit animals). Any thinking person sees what is rotten in our society and wants to see change but by buying unethical products we become collaborators in corrupt aspects of our society – supporting the very thing we want to see changed. Whereas by promoting sustainable and humane systems, we not only show concern for the planet and the animals but also for the easing of the human conscience. The clearer the conscience the easier we feel with our self.
Once we get this far there’s one further step to consider – how active are we prepared to be and how non-violent are we going to be when active? Whether we’re compassionate repairers or enthusiastic advocates of veganism, it matters not a jot unless we’re already convinced by the effectiveness of non-violent action. By having this particular principle to guide us, we can conduct ourselves with dignity. And down the track, when the changes start to happen, we may be glad that we were outrageous enough to attract attention but dignified with it nonetheless.