teach, don’t fight
When is the last time you changed your mind and learned something new because someone belittled you, made fun of you or threatened you?
And when is the last time you learned something because someone listened to you, took into account where you were at, was patient and offered steps you felt you could actually follow?
Good teachers know that motivation is crucial. Our students aren’t going to learn much if they are not motivated. This motivation can be external (must have good marks to pass, must pass so I don’t get in trouble etc) or internal (I want to learn because this is interesting, this is enjoyable, I want to learn because I am gaining from this or I can use this knowledge to do things and it is pertinent to me).
We should take into consideration the perspectives of our audience and where they’re at. Because of this, it makes no sense to tell them that the only acceptable objective, whether it’s a short term or long term objective, has to be a rigid plant based diet within a set in stone vegan ideology. It makes no sense, especially if they’re not even interested in vegetarianism or in considerably reducing their negative impact on animals.
What’s more, we’re in the late 2010’s and what is considered normal, desirable and often necessary is to eat meat and exploit animals. Why would any animal advocate waste everyone’s time demanding all or nothing? Why alienate allies because of minor differences? Because you want to be right? Because you want to fight for the animals? Go one step further and be humble, and teach for the animals.
Go one step further and be humble, and teach for the animals.
Teach with your audience in mind. There is no point having a rightful and thorough message if the vast majority of people don’t want to listen to it or cannot understand it. It’s like my chemistry teacher in Year 10 who seemed to know his topic very well, but only got 2 students out of 30 to understand his class and do okay in chemistry.
Here’s another comparison: Isn’t it great, arguably the best thing even, to have a PhD in a domain? Quite possibly. Would you teach beginners at a PhD level right from the start? Would you only teach them if they accept to do a PhD down the line? Would your teaching be wasted on anyone who does not intend on even going near a PhD but who is otherwise interested in learning and doing well? And do you have a PhD yourself?
Similarly, it’s okay if people do not intend on going vegan. Veganism does not have to be anybody’s goal. Accepting steps forward even if the goal is not 100% vegan is FINE and something we should embrace and condone. And who’s a “true vegan” anyway?
If you are too demanding, if you scare people, if you come across as out of reach, you are likely to be counter-productive and you might make a significant part of your audience not want to have anything to do with animal advocacy or veganism. And this is something you should think about. We cannot keep on saying that every method of teaching is valid and that every way to deliver a message can work if some may put people off and have an adverse effect for the animals.
Speaking of adverse effect, did you know that if you convince someone of how bad red meat is for their health and the environment, they are likely to eat more chicken meat instead, which means more animals being killed and raised with the most extreme suffering? It takes approximately 200 chickens to produce the same amount of meat as one cow and chickens are typically raised in the worst conditions — See One Step for Animals’s page.
We know generally that our audience, as animal advocates, may consist of roughly three different groups:
- Individuals. Some, if not most, already care to a certain degree about animals, whether they have taken steps to help animals or not;
- Companies, as we want their products or practices to be (more) animal friendly;
- Governments and politicians, as we want to influence them and have better laws for animals.
When it comes to targeting individuals, there is no doubt that teaching will work better than fighting. Just think of the questions in my opening sentences.
Regarding companies, there again, a respectful and pragmatic approach will work best. Last year, a chef in a food company had posted a photo of their baby on a kitchen table next to pieces of dead animals. This did not go down well with many animal advocates, and I too found this photo rather distasteful and disrespectful. Angry “animal rights, vegan” activists were flooding their social media pages with complaints and some of the most vocal ones were sending e-mails which, in their own mind, were reasonable and respectful: these e-mails were asking for the company to go entirely vegan and to follow a clear doctrine where they would progressively but definitely change their business and be vegan. It was a bit of a good cop / bad cop strategy. The bad cop being represented by the angry calls to boycott and the abusive messages and posts. The good cop, here, was telling them what their only option out of it was, which was to comply and toe the line.
I witnessed this situation on social media, because a vegan spokesperson was sharing with me his e-mails asking the company to go vegan. I saw an opportunity to use my teaching skills, and to engage the company on achieving their outcome. I suggested they apologise for the picture if they agreed that it was inappropriate (which was already clear that they did) and show that their apology was sincere with a good gesture: a donation to an animal advocacy organisation. I then suggested a few appropriate options. Within an hour, the matter was resolved for the company. They published a sincere apology and publicly donated $250 to One Step For Animals.
Did I prevent this company from going vegan? I certainly do not think so. Their employers and employees weren’t vegan although they produce and sell animal friendly ingredients.
In a sea of screaming angry vegans, I didn’t play the good cop, I played the teacher, the conciliator, and I got results. Now, I am happy that there are very good websites explaining how to go vegan and helping new vegan businesses so that perhaps one day, this company or another may consider this. In my opinion, they will consider it if it is profitable — they are a business after all, not a charity. These websites are only useful for a company that is already considering this move. Slightly off topic here: it is wonderful to see big business and wealthy business people investing money in animal friendly products such as vegan burgers or nuggets and “clean meat”.
Companies don’t have to listen to angry vegan customers if they can still make money elsewhere. Before we can engage productively, we must look at their motivation. From there, we can select the best strategy based on the specific company, and it will depend on the size of the company, its history, its location, the products they make and sell, etc. Boycott and angry messages may have their role to play in some cases, but I believe it is more effective to take the time to explore other avenues as well. Boycott and protests should not be the first step, but rather, a last resort.
I don’t personally have a blanket opposition to any practice or strategy — I simply try to find the ones which seem the most likely to bring about results.
When we talk to government, as politicians have sadly demonstrated during assembly time, shouting, agitating and point-scoring often seems to work, or at least get their attention While patient teaching methods can help, they may not be enough, at least not without the support of a significant percentage of the population. A population we will be more likely to influence positively if we teach them, than if we fight them.
Thank you.
