The meanings of ‘our’

I agree that using “our” instead of “your” poses a less “we/me vs. them” attitude. And it is much less accusatory, possibly bypassing any unnecessary defensive reactions on the part of the reader. We were all once complicit in nonhuman animal exploitation, and just because we are vegan now does not automatically wipe away all our past crimes. If one is sensitive to the issue, one could also just remain neutral and say/write, “for human entertainment,” which gets right to the point (or better yet, “for the entertainment of human animals” – I like that best, but that’s just me. It drives home the fact that we are all animals, and that humans are simply one kind of animal exploiting our fellow animals).

This blog entry is being discussed at Vegan Soapbox: http://www.vegansoapbox.com/writing-to-change-the-world-or-just-writing-for-yourself/

I hope it’s okay if I expand on my thoughts here, because I would like to share them with the writers and readers of L.O.V.E. Forgive me if what I write is somewhat long…

Firstly, Victor, after reading Elaine’s comments and then rereading your blog entry, I think I can admit that I missed the point of what you were saying. I may be wrong (again), but now I think I see that your using the word “our” is less of a conscious tactic to prevent feelings of defense on the part of the pamphlet reader, but rather it’s a way (perspective) for you to be honest with yourself about the shared journey that we are all on.

However, what shines on the inside, shines on the outside. What we feel and think on the inside will eventually be translated to the outside world. If we can have the integrity and humility to see that this is a journey we are all on (we are all complicit and we are all trying to better ourselves), those who hear what you have to say will most likely sense the authentic compassion and empathy in you (I for one sense it), and be more open to what you have to say, even if (in your humility) that is not your sole intention.

The related Vegan Soapbox discussion evolved into a debate on whether using effective communication skills consciously in advocacy is too “passive,” “hippie/peacenik,” or “lovey-dovey” – I would call it “appealing to emotions.” Matt perceptively pointed out, “In point of fact, it is the ‘cut-throat’ business leaders and successful corporate marketers, not the long haired peaceniks, who seem be taking full advantage of Carnegie’s advice for influencing others.” It is true. The corporate elite of today use this very tactic of “appealing to emotions” (a tactic that normally would be attributed to touchy-feely activists) to successfully brainwash the mainstream via corporate advertising. And guess what? It has worked, and it’s still working.

To drive this home, Chris Hedges wrote an article today on how the corporate elite has for years successfully used the tactics of social activists of yore by appealing to the emotions of people:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090629_the_truth_alone_will_not_set_you_free/

I think offering facts are necessary and important and should never be absent in advocacy. But I am also beginning to believe that appealing to people’s emotions (and that includes consciously or unconsciously incorporating your own positive personal feelings/perspectives/beliefs), in addition to providing the truth (facts/logic), can lead more people to making connections. Why should a mix of logic/fact and positive emotion be so abhorrent? They needn’t be mutually exclusive. Do we not all have emotions? Empathy is an emotion and a vital one for (real) social connections. Isn’t empathy (and other emotions) what led us to the connection that the exploitation of any animal (human and nonhuman) is unnecessary and wrong? Or was it solely X, Y, and Z and other formulas of logic that brought us to where we are? I think it was a mixture of both logic/facts and emotion. I’m not saying that activists should use emotion purposefully as a stratagem. But if “feelings” of empathy or compassion (on any level of intimacy) happens to naturally be part of one’s approach (or journey), or if it happens to emerge by default, I don’t think it would lead to unsuccessful results (as long as the truth was also conveyed with some substance – meaning a substantial amount of time and energy were invested into learning and thinking about the truth that they are advocating – that cannot be stressed enough these days). Some advocates sorely lack the logic/facts (because they do not do the proper research), some lack the emotion (purposefully or naturally), and others lack both. We need both right now.

Has it been the deceitful campaigns by the corporate media that have produced such an aversion in advocates toward disseminating information in such a way that might actually appeal to the emotions? The corporate advertisers mix lies with elements that produce emotions. The consequence now seems to be that social activists are so cut-and-dry in many of their goals. But facts/logic (the truth) and emotions can go together, and in fact do (for most of us) naturally. Those who have been taking a solely logical/academic approach in their abolitionist advocacy (ala Francione, Nibert, Yates) are indispensable for their contributions of logic and promoting a new paradigm. But we also need intelligent and well-read advocates who can get in touch with the hearts of the mainstream – advocates whose overwhelming strengths are empathy, intuition, and a way with words that immediately connect with people. People who can blend logic, truth, and emotion. I would venture to even say this is part of what Francione is getting at when he talks about “creative, nonviolent vegan education” (the “creative” part can be projects that appeal through the emotions via art, stories, music, or just a heartfelt authentic way of communication).

—–

Here are some key quotes from the article:

“Corporate and government propaganda, aimed to sway emotions, rarely uses facts to sell its positions. And because progressives have lost the gift of rhetoric, which was once a staple of a university education, because they naively believe in the Enlightenment ideal that facts alone can move people toward justice, they are largely helpless.”

“Effective communication requires not simply an understanding of the facts, but how those facts will take place in the public mind,” Ewen said. “When Gustave Le Bon says it is not the facts in and of themselves which make a point but the way in which the facts take place, the way in which they come to attention, he is right.”

“He argues that the forces of social reform, those organs that support a search for truth and self-criticism, have mistakenly shunned emotion and rhetoric because they have been used so powerfully within modern society to disseminate lies and manipulate public opinion. But this refusal to appeal to emotion means “we gave up the ghost and accepted the idea that human beings are these divided selves, binary systems between emotion and reason, and that emotion gets you into trouble and reason is what leads you forward. This is not true.”

“And facts alone will be powerless to thwart the mendacity spun out through billions of dollars in corporate advertising, lobbying and control of traditional sources of information. We will have to descend into the world of the forgotten, to write, photograph, paint, sing, act, blog, video and film with anger and honesty that have been blunted by the parameters of traditional journalism. The lines between artists, social activists and journalists have to be erased. These lines diminish the power of reform, justice and an understanding of the truth. And it is for this purpose that these lines are there.”

“Read ‘The Gettysburg Address,’ ” Ewen said. “Read Frederick Douglass’ autobiography or his newspaper. Read ‘The Communist Manifesto.’ Read Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man.’ All of these things are filled with an understanding that communicating ideas and producing forms of public communication that empower people, rather than disempowering people, relies on an integrated understanding of who the public is and what it might be. We have a lot to learn from the history of rhetoric. We need to think about where we are going. We need to think about what 21st century pamphleteering might be. We need to think about the ways in which the rediscovery of rhetoric—not lying, but rhetoric in its more conventional sense—can affect what we do. We need to look at those historical antecedents where interventions happened that stepped ahead of the news. And to some extent this is happening. We have the freest and most open public sphere since the village square.”

“We must appeal to reason and emotion.”