Can empathy bridge the gap between vegans and meat-eaters? Learn effective strategies for constructive communication, like validating core values and subverting stereotypes. And why the most effective way to reach people about veganism may be to stop trying to make them vegan.
The polarization surrounding veganism tends to raise complementary defenses on both sides, resulting in confrontational interactions. Yet, multidisciplinary research indicates there are ways to have constructive communication about divisive issues like veganism.
This article and video explore the efficacy of approaching people in vegan outreach and animal advocacy with empathy, curiosity, understanding, and validation. We cover such areas as:
- the importance of actively and non-judgementally listening
- identifying—and validating—the core values underlying meat-eating rationalizations
- separating the person we’re speaking with from the systemic oppression of animal use they’re participating within
- grounding messaging in the framework of what matters most to the other person (rather than what worked for us)
- the power of subverting vegan stereotypes and resisting the one-dimensional stereotyping of people who eat animals
Given the enormity and urgency of what’s at stake, this concept can be understandably challenging for vegans and animal advocates. So, we also explore the valid resistance to this approach, the importance of practicing self-empathy, and resources for vegans and advocates.
What if I told you that the most effective way to talk to people about veganism wasn’t to aggressively dominate them with facts, figures, and logical deconstructions of their objections—but rather to patiently listen to, empathize with, and even validate them?
In what feels like an ever-increasingly polarized society wherein vulnerability and self-reflection are often weaponized as weakness, the idea of empathizing with one’s “opposition” may seem foolhardy at best.
Yet it’s precisely in interactions framed within an “us vs them”1 expectation of one-upmanship that we have an opportunity to diffuse the “charge” of defensiveness by responding with calm curiosity.
If this concept has spiked your “this-sounds-like-it-ends-in-a-drumcircle-at-Burning-Man-semi-spiritual-red-flag-meter,” I hope you’ll stick with me. Believe it or not, research indicates that the most effective way to reach people about veganism may be to listen, truly hear them, and stop trying to make them vegan.
Why We’re So Polarized About Veganism Series Recap
This is the third article and video in my series Why We’re So Polarized About Veganism & What We Can Do About It.
In the first two (“The Science of Why People Hate Vegans” and “Why Vegans Won’t Tell You They’re Vegan“), we learned that when comes to talking about veganism, there can be a snowball effect wherein complementary defenses on both sides reduce any hope for effective communication—much less change. And that this polarization is fueled less by our differences than by the commonalities of our psychology, sociological behavior, and values.
In this article and video, we’re going to look into what exactly to do about that.
Research across multidisciplinary fields (including social, behavioral, clinical, organizational and political psychology, conflict resolution, political science, and addiction intervention) indicates that when we take the time to understand what’s behind our defenses—and connect on our commonalities—we have a chance for constructive communication about divisive issues like veganism.
Listen First. Everyone Needs to Feel Heard
Let’s start with a key commonality of human psychology: the need to feel heard.
It’s hard to listen when you don’t feel heard. It’s hard to see from another’s perspective when you don’t feel seen. And it’s impossible to be open and receptive when you’re having to defend yourself.
So while it may seem counterintuitive, the most important part of talking to people about veganism is to listen to them. We usually enter these interactions with our minds focused on what we want to say, rather than on listening to the other person.
Yet, research shows that when people are given space to safely express themselves about divisive issues—and extended empathy and confirmation they’ve been heard—they’re more willing and able to critically engage with ideas they find threatening, and even question or change their positions entirely.2
Of course, in order to non-judgmentally listen to the concerns of others, we too first need to feel heard. So if you’re struggling with the idea of empathizing with people who eat animals, you’re not alone.
At the end of this article, we’ll talk about the valid resistance to this approach, as well as the importance of practicing self-empathy+“We’re not talking about feeling sorry for yourself or bringing love to your own experiences. Self-empathy is not the same as self-compassion. Self-compassion involves treating yourself with the same kindness, concern, and support you’d show to a good friend.
Self-empathy means that an aspect of yourself observes, in an empathic manner, the aspect of yourself that experiences. This is done with an attitude of suspended judgment and openness towards yourself.
Self-empathy simply requires you to notice and recognise what is happening in you. Attentive self-empathy provides both affective and cognitive empathic access to your own lifeworld. It provides an opportunity for you to integrate aspects of your current and past experiences and doesn’t necessarily require reinvention or radical conversion of those experiences.”
(From “The Self in Empathy: Self-Empathy” by Lidewij Niezink, Ph.D. and Katherine Train, Ph.D – article series linked below) so that we can preemptively address any understandable objections to extending empathy to others.
Look Under a Rationalization & You May Just Find a (Shared) Core Value
What about when it comes to the rationalizations many people use to justify eating animals? Surely that’s the time to shut down empathy, whip out your list of logical fallacies, and hammer home the harms of animal agriculture, right?
Research into advocacy messaging by the nonprofit Pax Fauna suggests this approach may be a major source of disconnect between animal advocates and the meat-eating public.3
In their review of current animal advocacy messaging and subsequent interviews with the general public, Pax Fauna found that:
“[w]hile animal advocates continue to focus their messaging on the harms of animal agriculture, much of the public’s resistance actually lies in deeper values such as culture, tradition, and naturalness, which remain largely unaddressed by animal advocates.”4
When we dismiss these objections, or immediately counter them with logical refutations, we’re communicating to the other person a complete invalidation of and disregard for their core values—core values that we likely share.
We thus not only increase their defensiveness, but we also miss the crucial opportunity to connect with them on any shared values5 underlying their objections.
In their interviews with the public, Pax Fauna found that:
“[While v]alidating these culture-based rationalizations may seem counterintuitive, […] people who received genuine empathy about their attachments to meat often responded by being more willing to question it.
When the interviewer reflected the underlying values behind this common objection, participants would often relax and show more willingness to consider how those values could be preserved without farming animals.”6
When our values and needs are affirmed, it creates more space for open-minded self-reflection and engagement with ideas that would otherwise feel threatening to our sense of self—a phenomenon explored within social psychology and cognitive neuroscience.7
While we may not agree with how someone is fulfilling their needs, nor how they’re honoring their values, we can validate the needs and values themselves, opening space for discussing alternative ways to fulfill and honor them that don’t involve the exploitation of other animals.
Rather than jumping to refutation or probing the soundness of the other person’s logic, we can try asking questions to better understand the values and needs behind their objections.8
For example, in the case of culture-based objections, we may find the underlying values are honoring family, upholding tradition, or respecting other cultures.
The underlying needs may be to have a sense of belonging, community, and acceptance. All of these values and needs are valid and significant.
While we may not agree with how someone is fulfilling their needs, nor how they’re honoring their values, we can validate the needs and values themselves, opening space for discussing alternative ways to fulfill and honor them that don’t involve the exploitation of other animals.
You can find resources and guidance for using shared values in your advocacy at the base of this article—including example frameworks for effective messaging from both Pax Fauna and the organization Animal Think Tank.
Assume Good Intentions & Separate the Person from the Behavior
I’m going to propose something radical: give people the benefit of the doubt and assume good intentions.
When we assume good intentions, we’re better able to separate the individual from their behavior, and confront systems of oppression while connecting with the people still participating within them.
Unless you are one of the few who were raised vegan from birth, at some point in your life, you ate animals.
Think back to why you ate animals. Was it because you were a malicious, cruel monster who delighted in inflicting pain on innocent beings? Or were you just a human raised—along with the rest of us—in a society and culture within which the use and consumption of animals is so commonplace it’s unquestioned?
When we assume good intentions, we’re better able to separate the individual from their behavior, and confront systems of oppression while connecting with the people still participating within them.
The concept of separating a person from their behavior is found within nonviolent activism, modern conflict management, addiction intervention, and other therapeutic models.
In his book Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. laid out what later became known as the six principles of Kingian Nonviolence.9 As worded by civil rights activist Bernard Lafayette, the third principle of nonviolence is:
“Attack forces of evil, not persons doing evil. The nonviolent approach helps one analyze the fundamental conditions, policies and practices of the conflict rather than reacting to one’s opponents or their personalities.”10 (emphasis added)
Referring to the Montgomery bus boycott, King himself wrote that:
“The tension in this city is not between white people and Negro people. The tension is, at bottom, between justice and injustice […] We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust.”11
While Kingian nonviolence (as well as the nonviolence of Gandhi and others) uses spiritual or religious terms, strategic nonviolence,12 various therapeutic models,13 conflict management strategies,14 and Nonviolent Communication15 utilize this same principle in a pragmatic, secular manner.
What Worked for You May Not Work for Others
As advocates, we often assume that whatever kind of messaging or tactic that worked for us will work for others. While this assumption is natural, it’s also a major contributor to entrenched polarization.16
When we frame our messaging in a way we find convincing, rather than listening to the values and concerns of the person we’re aiming to reach, we’re not only unlikely to have successful engagement, but also risk further alienating them—an outcome thoroughly evidenced by research.17
In Zen Buddhism, there’s a concept called shoshin (初心), meaning “beginner’s mind.”18 The practice of shoshin entails approaching everything—especially things we think we know the most about—with the open-minded curiosity and eagerness to learn of a beginner.
Approaching conversations about veganism with a beginner’s mind—or with what’s called “intellectual humility”19 within psychology, neuroscience, and other fields20—means dropping all preconceptions and presumed “expertise,” and openly listening.
When we actively listen—and ask questions to ensure we understand—we’re able to identify what’s most important to the person with whom we’re speaking.
We can then work together to not only address their concerns, but also ground our messaging in the framework of what they value most.21
This is what’s called “moral reframing,”22 which—along with everything we’ve discussed thus far—can aid in my most controversial call to action: stop trying to make people vegan.
The concept of intellectual humility has been receiving increasing attention across multidisciplinary fields, including philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and educational research.23 While lacking a unified definition, “[i]ntellectual humility, which entails openness to other views and a willingness to listen and engage with them, is crucial for facilitating civil dialogue and progress in debate between opposing sides.”24
Philosophically, intellectual humility is understood “as the disposition to own or accept one’s intellectual shortcomings out of a genuine desire for knowledge and truth.” It’s the opposite of assuming one is an “expert” in anything—an assumption that research has shown can lead to us overestimating our intelligence or comprehension,25 and being more closed to alternative viewpoints.26
For animal advocates, it may feel like approaching non-vegans with intellectual humility would mean doubting our convictions and agreeing with everything they say.
However, one of the key aspects of intellectual humility is that it offers us a “middle ground” between arrogance and servility:
“intellectually arrogant and intellectually servile behaviour […] obstruct the acquisition of knowledge and understanding. Intellectual arrogance entails expressing an unquestioned superiority in one’s attitudes, and intellectual servility entails expressing an uncritical, reflexive agreement with others (regardless of their veracity or personal views).”27
This lay article by cognitive neuroscientist and author Christian Jarrett offers an approachable overview of shoshin and intellectual humility. And this literature review (along with its introductory lay article) offers an approachable look at the scientific research into intellectual humility (though it is from 2018, so see the bibliography for more recent research on intellectual humility).28
Stop Trying to Make People Vegan
No conclusion is as convincing as one we come to on our own. Most people already hold the core values of veganism: they genuinely care about animals and don’t want to harm them. But it’s precisely these shared values that can spark the strongest defenses29 when facing the dissonance of both caring about and eating animals.30
It’s tempting as advocates to directly confront people with the misalignment of their actions and values. To call them hypocritical and say if they really loved animals, they’d go vegan. However, research indicates that shaming people into changing is not only ineffective, but can actually backfire, causing them to double down and become even more entrenched.31
More importantly, when we focus on inconsistent actions, we miss the valuable opportunity to connect with and explore shared values:32 like their love of animals.
If we assume good intentions, take them at their word, and respond with curiosity, we can provide them the safe psychological space for self-reflection. And it’s within that space that they can draw the most powerful of all conclusions: their own.
In their interviews with the public, Pax Fauna found that:
“[While] participants were hypersensitive to any language…which could imply a negative moral judgment of meat consumption on the individual level[…] when invited to share their own thoughts, these same participants could deeply question the ethics of farming and slaughtering animals.”33
In fact, when asked open-ended questions in a non-judgmental space, many participants themselves debunked the very objections they’d earlier used to justify eating animals.33
There’s a reason that in my speeches to non-vegans, I always include some variation of the statement:
“Believe it or not, I am not here to force my beliefs upon you—to criticize your country, culture, traditions, religions, or beliefs. I’m not here to shame or shock you. I’m not even here to make you vegan. I won’t pretend to have that power. And no one really makes any lasting change through force, anyway.”
— from my speech “The Best We Have To Offer? How Ireland Exposes ‘Humane’ Farming“
Facts or Feelings: What We Leave People With
When talking to anyone about the myriad of issues surrounding veganism, it’s natural to lean into facts, figures, and logical deconstructions of objections. But what we take away from human interactions is far less about what was said than how we felt in the exchange.
As I explore in depth in “The Science of Why People Hate Vegans,” negative vegan stereotypes and the anticipation of judgment are some of the most significant barriers to engaging with the issues underlying veganism.35
The power of subverting negative vegan stereotypes cannot be overstated.
When someone enters into an exchange anticipating judgment and is instead met with curiosity and genuine interest in hearing their side—it’s disarming.
What we take away from human interactions is far less about what was said than how we felt in the exchange.
Even if it doesn’t seem like they have any intention of moving away from eating animals at the end of the conversation, having an experience of safe and open dialogue around the profoundly charged topic of animal use can start to lower some of the most pervasive defenses.
Over the years of my advocacy, I’ve heard from many people who went vegan overnight after watching my videos or speeches. While I don’t have a running tally, I’d hazard a guess that the “overnighters” are far outnumbered by the people who’ve told me they watched my videos for months to years before fully moving away from eating animals.
What kept them coming back and watching more, they said, was the safety of non-judgment in my delivery. Like most people, they needed that space and time. And like all people, they had to come to that conclusion on their own.
We’ve Lost Space for Nuance, Complexity & Humanity
Another significant barrier to effective communication and driver of reactionary polarization is the loss of complexity. Meaning when we reduce each other to one-dimensional caricatures and complex matters to black-or-white oversimplifications.
We’ve lost any allowance for the inherent complexity of anything worth talking about. And with that, we’ve lost any allowance for any of us to be fully human.
Research shows that the most intractable conflicts—meaning “conflicts that stubbornly seem to elude resolution, even when the best available techniques are applied”36—are those “which have lost the complexity inherent to more constructive social relations and have collapsed into overly simplified, closed patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting that resist change.”37
Our increasingly polarized society has been supercharged by the one-dimensionality and agitating-by-design nature of social media content, which has arguably bled into our real-life interactions as well. YouTube thumbnails, tweets, and memes don’t allow much space for nuance. And agitation-driven algorithms don’t reward content presented in de-polarizing packaging. We’ve lost any allowance for the inherent complexity of anything worth talking about. And with that, we’ve lost any allowance for any of us to be fully human.
To be fair, this is not a problem social media platforms (or, more so, the tactics of the companies behind them) have created—but it is one they’ve greatly exacerbated.38
As someone who’s spent the last decade as a primarily online-based educational activist, I’ve observed and experienced the fallout of this firsthand. And to be honest—I reached points in my activism where my ability to respond to anyone with empathy or compassion was so profoundly compromised that I worried I’d snap on someone.
My video and article “Why Vegans Won’t Tell You They’re Vegan” provides a much deeper exploration of the “cost” of being vegan in a non-vegan world, and what can bring us to a point of exhausted reactivity.
For any advocate in any social justice field—or, frankly, any vegan—this is an understandable place to reach. It’s also a dangerous one—for our own health and for our activism.
But Don’t The Animals Deserve Our Outrage?
The level of embitterment and raw-nerve reactivity I reached in my advocacy is extremely common to the point of seeming inevitability. For those of us who’ve made a deep connection to what the animals are experiencing—and especially for those of us who have witnessed it firsthand—it’s natural to harden towards anyone paying to support those atrocities.
And for those of us who’ve been on the receiving end of outright vitriol, mockery or derision for our veganism, the idea of approaching anyone with compassion, empathy, or validation can feel unjust, illogical—even weak.
Nonviolence and intellectual humility offer a middle ground between violence and passivity, and between arrogance and servility.
Where we actively but strategically confront injustice in order to effect radical change within entrenched systems of oppression.
These understandable feelings can be further compounded by the internal politics of social justice movements,39 wherein extending compassion and understanding to the “opposition” can be cast as “betraying the cause,” and grounds for questioning an activist’s commitment and integrity.
It can seem profoundly unfair to suggest that in addition to shouldering the debilitating awareness of what the animals are experiencing, we must also be the ones to extend empathy and compassion to people still participating in systemic oppression.
After all, don’t the animals deserve our outrage? Aren’t their lives more important than people’s feelings?
This is where nonviolence and intellectual humility offer a middle ground between violence and passivity,40 and between arrogance and servility.41 Where we actively but strategically confront injustice in order to effect radical change within entrenched systems of oppression.
But in order for us to walk that most delicate and demanding line, we must first extend empathy to ourselves before we can offer it to others. By intentionally practicing self-empathy before and after demanding interactions, we can strengthen our capacity to remain grounded and open.42
After all, it’s hard to listen if you don’t feel heard.
In Closing…
I hope this article and video help encourage more impactful and productive discussions about veganism and the surrounding issues.
For help establishing a self-empathy practice and to learn more about the concepts we touched on in this video and article, see the resources below, where you’ll also find free trainings for animal advocates.
I would love to know what you think about everything we covered in the comments!
To stay in the loop about new Bite Size Vegan content and updates, sign up for the newsletter or follow the Telegram channel. To support educational content like this, please consider making a donation.
— Emily Moran Barwick
MORE IN THIS SERIES :
FEATURED TOPICS:
Below are some highlighted resources to learn more about the concepts we touched on in this video and article. Also, see the citations for specific references and the full bibliography for all consulted sources. (Please note: While I have reviewed the majority of these resources in great depth, I haven’t comprehensively evaluated every training/resource listed).
Establishing a Self-Empathy Practice
This series of articles by Lidewij Niezink, Ph.D. and Katherine Train, Ph.D. offer a helpful introduction to the concept and practice of self-empathy and its application in conflict resolution and change.
- The Self in Empathy: Self-Empathy (helpful introduction)
- Noticing with Self-Empathy
- Self-Empathy With Ethical Responsibility and Centredness
- Preventing Conflict Through Self-Empathy
- The Light and Dark Side of Empathy
- Self-Empathy Is Required to Empathize With Others
In her blog post series on Nonviolent Communication (NVC), Eva Hamer of Pax Fauna touches on the importance of practicing self-empathy, primarily in the posts:
- Beginning a Practice in Nonviolent Communication (outlines some sample exercises that start with self-empathy)
- When Enemies Appear: Untangling Our Anger (briefly revisits self-empathy)
Narrative Studies from Pax Fauna & Animal Think Tank (with frameworks for effective messaging)
Pax Fauna Narrative Study
- The full reports (I highly recommend reading the full reports, especially the primary one I reference throughout this article: “Using Private Interviews to Deeply Probe the General Public’s Views on Farming Animals“)
- Narrative study summary page
- Key Recommendations
- Executive Summary
Animal Think Tank Narrative Study
- Narrative study summary page
- Messaging Guide (frameworks on crafting effective messaging from their research)
- Research Report (outlines the research behind the recommended narratives)
- Understanding Key Narratives Underpinning Public Opinions of Animals’ ‘Roles’ in Society
- Which are the best narratives for influencing support for Animal Freedom?
The Common Cause Foundation is a nonprofit that focuses on the power of shared values for systemic change and has free resources and information on its website. Additionally, both of the narrative studies linked above delve into the power of using shared values in outreach (see, especially, Animal Think Tank’s Messaging Guide).
Free Training & Tools for Activists
- Animal Justice Academy (self-paced with optional Facebook group)
- “Inspiring Behaviour Change In Others” by We The Free (live webinar offered twice a month; while designed for application at WTF-specific viewing events, the training touches on many of the concepts covered in this article, using an empathy-based approach)
- “Effective Vegan Advocacy” from CEVA (self-paced – paid or free options)
- “Sustainable Vegan Advocacy” from CEVA (self-paced – paid or free options)
- Beautiful Trouble Toolbox (an interconnected web of the key strategies and tactics that have inspired people-powered victories & upended the status quo)
Nonviolence & Nonviolent Communication
Nonviolent activism has a long, rich history. As I mentioned earlier in this article, some of the more well-known names in nonviolent activism had spiritual foundations for their nonviolence. These same principles are utilized in a pragmatic, secular manner within strategic nonviolence, various therapeutic models, conflict management strategies, and Nonviolent Communication.
There are countless resources for learning more about nonviolence as a whole. I’m including some places to start, and a blogpost series focused on Nonviolent Communication (influenced by nonviolent activism), written by Eva Hamer of Pax Fauna.
- 10 Essential Things to Know about Nonviolent Resistance (very brief overview of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance)
- The Politics Of Nonviolent Action by Gene Sharp (a foundational text of what’s often called pragmatic or strategic nonviolence)
- “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence.” (chapter in In Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story) by Martin Luther King (to read this chapter, in which King lays out what later became the six principles of Kingian Nonviolence, check out the book for free at the link provided and jump to p90)
Eva Hamer’s 9-Part Blog Series on Nonviolent Communication
- Part One: Why the Animal Freedom Movement Needs Nonviolence
- Part Two: What We Mean When We Talk About Empathy
- Part Three: Needs Consciousness for Better Conflicts
- Part Four: Facilitating Conflict: Making Requests in Nonviolent Communication
- Part Five: Beginning a Practice in Nonviolent Communication
- Part Six: When Enemies Appear: Untangling Our Anger
- Part Seven: The Movement Needs a Repair Kit
- Part Eight: What Anti-Vegan Bias Can Teach Us About Allyship
- Part Nine: Empathy with Our Opposition: Persuading through Nonviolent Communication
Subscribe via Telegram
Emily, it’s evident this was (yet again) a remarkable amount of work! I’ve so enjoyed this series getting into the psychology of polarization, and it’s rewarding and extremely helpful to have a “what to do about it.” As always, I appreciate your skillful consolidation of complex concepts, and transparent and clear citing of the research. I also REALLY appreciate the section where you acknowledge the layered challenges we face as vegans and give US much-needed validation and empathy. I’ll be re-referencing this one! Thank you for your efforts, always.
Thank you so much, Anesh, for your thoughtful and kind feedback. I’m always very honored to hear when my work is of any help! That’s why I put so very much thought, time, energy, and effort into what I create. It is indeed quite the undertaking—this video and article were the most demanding of the three in the series! This is such a challenging, delicate, yet profoundly important topic, so it took quite a bit of time to pull it all together. Thank you for taking the time to comment!
Thank you, Emily,
For your courage, wisdom and for being so inspiring. It is truly a gift and privilege to follow, listen to and do my best to learn from you.
In the 90s, a high school student told me that a person could save 25 acres of Rainforest by stopping eating beef. I told the student that this adult cared about what was important to him and that I would not eat beef again. Soon after I attended heart health training and stopped all animal ingredients. Great side effect was nasty hot flashes stopped. At that time I changed mostly for my love for animals.
In 2021, I decided I had value, so stopped junk food, salt, oil and most sugar. Amazing, I lost weight and inches.
Your videos helped keep me focused.
Thank you for all you are, have done and do.
I wish you only the best always and in all ways,
Wow, Sue. Thank you so very much for your kind words about my work. I’m profoundly honored to have had such an impact in your life. It means more to me than I can possibly express. Thank you for sharing this with me!
emily…you give me answers to questions i’ve not asked YET, as a proud vegan since early 2012, I felt through experience, the best way to NOT share my vegan ways, unless asked ???. This has served to support patience, when interested souls claim I CANT LIVE withOUT cheese. to chat about my experience giving up animals, dairy, fish. People have stated thank you…I feel no need sharing that I chose veganism over one night, I just answer ? if asked. so your newsletter speaks to my head and heart for I messed up at the started of my vegan life. but at the time it was hard to hear meat eaters…but I hear you and am listening to me re non rambling on my pride becoming vegan. Now I share treats vegan of course teehee…I feel better about and those I talk with feel comfy to ask.
emily your info/videos/writings/are awesome YOU are my ‘go to’
Tracie, Thank you so much for taking the time to comment. And I’m thrilled to be of help answering even unasked questions! And we ALL start our journey with intensity. And (I think) many (if not most) of is re-enter that space from time to time. It’s completely natural and understandable. Which is why we must afford ourselves empathy as well!
Emily, thank you for your insightful article on the importance of empathy in conversations between vegans and meat-eaters. Your approach to constructive communication—validating core values and subverting stereotypes—is not only refreshing but also necessary in today’s polarized society. It’s encouraging to see such a thoughtful exploration of how patience, understanding, and genuine curiosity can bridge the gap and foster meaningful dialogue. Your work is a valuable resource for anyone looking to engage in these discussions with compassion and respect.
Francisca, thank you for such a thoughtful comment. I’m so honored to hear how much this connected with you. It was quite the undertaking to put together—the very polarization it’s meant to dissolve makes writing and speaking about it a very delicate matter! Very rewarding to hear it came across well for you. Thank you for taking the time to share this with me.
I have been vegan since October 2022 and I include a bit of plant-based meat in my diet. At the beginning, I felt like a hypocrite doing this, thinking, “If meat is animal exploitation and suffering, then isn’t its plant-based equivalent something like pretend child porn?” I decided against this reasoning and established a clear conscience eating plant-based meat, when I figured out that it’s farther removed from the real thing. Plant-based meat has nothing at all to do with an animal being harmed, and I would never watch (and especially would never derived pleasure from) even a cartoon or CG content of an animal being slaughtered, butchered, or used for “entertainment.” An image of an animal being harmed is an image of an animal being harmed, whether real or pretend, but plant-based meat is not a meal of an animal being harmed.
Dear Emily,
Thank you for the great article, as always it was very education and I learned a lot. When I am out socially and have to refuse certain foods I am always asked why. I learned that if I remain polite and answer I am usually asked more questions. This does develop into a calm conversation with both sides exchanging ideas. I am looking forward to reading Martin Luther King’s In Stride Toward Freedom especially the chapter Pilgrimage to Nonviolence, which I am not familiar with (yet).
People love delicious food, many don’t care about animals. So one way is to offer them delicious vegan food so they can switch. Now you can buy vegan meat everywhere, and they are tasty. It is time to stop killing animals, they are in great pain and waiting for us to save them. It’s sad that not much we can actually do, because many just don’t care. Even climate activists don’t want to be vegan, many politicians say they care about environment but the fact is they care more about delicious food.
In a novel that I self-published before I went vegan, I wrote the characters, including the protagonist, as eating meat and other animal products. A little while after my vegan transition, I appended a note to the afterword that the protagonist, her family, and later her husband, went vegan and had been eating plant-based products in the story. I didn’t mention it in the story itself because I was worried about certain readers thinking I was “preaching veganism.”
Thank you so much, Emily! Your brilliant combination of wisdom, education and compassion is much-appreciated.
(And I love the idea of “shoshin”.)
Thank you so much for the kind words. And so glad to bring the “shoshin” concept in. I was on the fence about including it, so thrilled to hear you appreciated it!
I commented a few days ago but it never appeared so I thought I’d do it again.
Thanks for this article, I think it is very timely and comes at a time when vegan advocacy seems to be facing significant pushback and criticism. In particular, I liked the suggestion that advocacy might have a different goal from simply “converting” people to veganism, and in particular I agree that how people feel after talking with advocates is more important than judging/criticising/guilting them. So often I see advocacy that seeks to make people feel bad for their choices, but why should we think that making people feel bad will encourage them to want to do differently?
For some time now I’ve felt – perhaps wrongly – that measuring success by totting up the number of people who become vegans is an exercise in futility. I note that overall, veganism remains staggeringly unpopular, even while many people are still concerned about animal welfare. You highlighted this with the quotes from the Pax Fauna research which found that what progress there is seems more a form of reducetarianism than veganism and that veganism and vegans are often regarded with considerable disapprobation.
A little while back on my own blog I suggested that maybe, the focus should go beyond “making” vegans and instead encourage positive engagement, even if the result is not any particular commitment. We want a much more generally positive idea of veganism, yet most people think that it is nothing but a super strict diet and vegans are judgy, preachy hypocrites. Shouldn’t we change this misperception first of all?
Put simply, does it make more sense to measure successful advocacy not by the number of people who become vegan but by the extent to which public attitudes to veganism (justice for other animals) are positive, enquiring and supportive?