Animal Writings

My impression of the average free-ranger I meet is that he/she has made some concessions to conscience by way of purchasing apparently less cruel forms of animal products, doesn't overtly want to—or is afraid to—make any more similar sacrifices, and is pretending that he/she has done enough and is morally in the clear. And yet deep down is not convinced and still harbors conflict. And so relies on the usual rationalizations and compartmentalization techniques, but has enough knowledge and insight to realize that, truth be told, he/she is engaging in some denial and playing psychological games.

In other words, free-rangers are in an unsteady and somewhat malleable state.

I find that if I have at least a couple of minutes where the two of us can talk candidly, I can usually get the free-ranger to express some of these doubts and uncertainties simply by asking questions:

How "free" are cage-free hens? What do you think their living conditions are like? Spacious or crowded? Clean or unkempt?

At the slaughterhouse, how are the animals killed? Painlessly? Are they "put to sleep" with care and concern as might be done at an animal shelter? Or do you think it's more callous and assembly-line style?

"Did you know" questions are great:

Did you know that dairy cows are killed at 5 years old, when their milk production declines—but is still quite high?

Did you know that according to many investigative reports, cows may still be alive and struggling when hanging on meathooks and their sides are split open? Did you know that dairy cows may be pregnant when all this is going on?

Did you know that according to ex-slaughterhouse employees, pigs at the processing plant may still be bleeding from the throat, thrashing wildly as they drown in tanks of scalding water?"

Did you know that virtually any eggs you buy come from hens that were produced in hatcheries where they grind up or smother newborn male chicks?

And so forth.

Quite often, the free-ranger (like almost any non-vegan) will say "Stop, I can't stand to hear about this" or "I've had enough." And then I say something along the lines of "I know it's difficult. But I feel that I have to remind you of these horrors in hope that you'll stop perpetuating them. Yes, it's extremely painful to hear about animals suffering, but you should know the degree of suffering you're causing—and can help prevent—through your actions. As much as you hate to hear about these cruelties, I hate that they exist—even though they're stunningly easy to stop. Just stop eating animal products and the horror stories start to go away." And I will try to say this in a way that conveys my sincere concern—even mourning—for the animals, and my faith that people can do the right thing, rather than coming across like I am condemning and making value judgments. After all, I did the same thing and went through similar stages—and I will often point this out.

Most free-rangers with whom I talk are a little too savvy to think that cage-free hens live in wide open spaces, although they tend to be ignorant of some of the severe cruelties and harsh living conditions that are common to nearly all egg production operations. Similarly, rarely do I meet a free-ranger who thinks slaughterhouses are nice places or that agribusiness corporations really care about their animals. When I mention the brutality of farmed animal transport, hardly any free-ranger disputes the realities. They may say, almost as reflexive wishful thinking, "But aren't there some small farms where they don't do this?" because they are still largely stuck in a mindset of eating animal products, and I will inform them that virtually any commercial operation that uses animals for profit commits cruelties—including killing the animals, usually at a young age—and that most of the brutalities I've mentioned are standard practices throughout the industry, and that, by far, the best way to ensure that one is not supporting animal cruelty is to not buy the products that are created with those cruelties. Time and interest permitting, we may delve into related psychological inquiries, like why is it so important to eat animal products in the first place?

So we've got folks who --

• Have taken some action, however small and tentative, on behalf of animals (and perhaps the environment) based on what they've heard about factory farms.


• Are basically receptive to acknowledging that there are cruelties that are not addressed by the modifications they've made thus far to their diets.

In other words, they're primed to take further steps. Even though, as members of modern Western society, animal products are practically shoved in front of their noses daily, they're surrounded by explicit and implicit messages encouraging them to consume animal products, and they may have this lingering but deeply entrenched notion that dinner is incomplete unless it has meat.

How do we encourage them to build on their budding momentum, and to resist the brainwashing and seductive advertising of the animal agriculture-government industrial complex and follow their consciences and abide by their deepest principles instead? There are a number of possibilities.

Thank them for the steps they've taken. Acknowledge that they've acted on their morals and have reduced the amount of suffering in the world by their actions—specifically the changes in their diet.

But remind them that cutting out 25 percent of the avoidable cruelties they cause (a figure I picked out of the hat) while continuing to inflict the remaining 75 percent—including reprehensible ones like body mutilation, death by suffocation, and torture—is not ethically defensible. It probably falls far short of their own standards. It is not what they would wish for if the roles were reversed.

A technique that I've had pretty good luck with the last couple of years is to ask people if there are particular roadblocks that prevent them from continuing on a path toward vegetarianism and veganism—toward a non-violent diet. This gives the non-veg*an a chance to explain in his or her own words why they still eat animal products, but within the context of examining a problem and acknowledging that their current lifestyle falls short of what they could attain, ethically. They may very well cite the fact that they love cheese, or that there isn't enough good food to take the place of the chicken, steak, and burgers they currently eat. If you've been in activism for any length of time, you'll know how do deal with these concerns in your own style. Your omnivorous friend may appreciate you explaining how to make a filling and tasty cheeseless pizza, or recommending Veganaise or Purely Decadent non-dairy ice cream, or what have you.

Often I will advise Googling "vegan" plus "recipe" plus whatever they're interested in, be it "cheese" or "Mexican" or "Greek" or "filling" or whatever, and they will find the food solution to their concern.

You can also try a technique which I believe has been best articulated by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau of Compassionate Cooks. If the person protests: "But I could never give up yogurt [or fish, or whatever]," you can say "OK, let's leave that out of the equation for now. Give up the other stuff, I'll help you replace it with tasteful, healthy, and diverse vegan options, and we'll come back to [the supposedly indispensable thing] later." By that time, the person may come to realize that he/she really can give up the animal product to which they currently cling, that they were just dramatically expressing irrational fears, and that the truly difficult things to give up are kindness and compassion.

I also sometimes like to ask people "What would it take to get you to reduce your meat and dairy intake by [some percent]?" Often when it's put that way, they can be quite precise and honest in their answers. These open-ended questions make the conversation less of a lecture and more of a combination of an interview and a mind-awakening session. When people say "This is what would have to happen," and it's reasonable, they've sort of laid out a plan of their own, which I think makes everything seem more approachable, and you can serve as helper, moral supporter, and—if the relationship can accommodate it—coach.

To a large degree, I realize that in this post I've been inferring one-to-one, "high touch" activism—personal outreach. What about animal protection /animal rights organizations? How should they communicate to free-rangers? I'll explore that in the next post.

Labels: activism, cage-free, free-range, outreach