Let’s Not Shoot Ourselves In The Foot
Print This Post
There’s a lot of talk in the animal rights community about advocacy strategies and what’s effective versus what’s counterproductive. Let’s take a look at one way some advocates are shooting themselves in the feet.
Erik Marcus wrote about recent news that people who live near fast “food” restaurants have a 13% higher risk of stroke than people who don’t live near fast “food” restaurants (source). He warned against inferring causation from correlation:
“If every activist in the animal protection movement read and understood the Wikipedia link above [or here], we would collectively be vastly more persuasive and credible.”
Sadly, Marcus doesn’t seem to realize that persuasiveness isn’t strongly correlated OR caused by an understanding of causal relationships. He undermined his own message.
Logicians are no more persuasive to the general human population than marketers. In fact, they’re often less so. Marketers are more persuasive than philosophers.
Let’s look up the Wikipedia entry for persuasion:
Persuasion is a form of social influence. It is the process of guiding people toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always logical) means. It is strategy of problem-solving relying on “appeals” rather than coercion. According to Aristotle, “Rhetoric is the art of discovering, in a particular case, the available means of persuasion.”
Methods include appeals to reason as well as appeals to emotion, subliminal messages, coercion, seduction, torture, etc. Persuasion is NOT necessarily about strong logical arguments and in fact, those arguments are only persuasive to a small segment of the population. For example, McDonald’s doesn’t put toys in Happy Meals because it makes McDonald’s appear more credible or reasonable, they do it to persuade children to desire Happy Meals.
If we want to persuade the public to adopt a more animal-friendly lifestyle, we should choose the methods that are most effective, not necessarily the methods that are most logical (though they can go hand-in-hand and there’s no reason to ignore logic). My worry, when I see animal advocates cling to logic at the expense of all else, is that emotion will be swept under the rug. In our movement, emotion is likely THE MOST persuasive method. Sure, we should learn critical thinking skills and logic, but the more important things to learn are skills of persuasion.
Where can animal advocates learn about persuasion? Here are some options:
- Join Toastmasters - learn about public speaking and leadership at a low cost
- Take a class in marketing or sales
- Read Influence - learn about the 6 Principles of Persuasion
- Read How to Make Friends and Influence People
- Do your own studies and analysis by surveying friends and family members. Ask them point-blank what it would take to get them to go vegan. Or show them three videos and ask, “which is more effective?” Do an online survey or quiz. Compile the data and analyze it.
- Got more ideas yourself? Please leave them in the comments below…
(shorter version at Selling Compassion)
I agree: sympathy (or compassion) logically precedes ‘reason’; emotion does not come at the negation of logic. Rather, emotion signals that an object has moral value and reason determines the appropriate response. Veganism, then, is the conclusion of reason, however, this is predicated on a recognition of moral value in sentient life (Or else, why would we even be reasoning about it in the first place?).
~ Recent blog post: A common theme: sophistry. ~
Such brilliant writing, eccentric! You are right, commercial marketing seems to be more eefective than philosiphal leading, as for example Ghandi didn’t believe in eating anything with a face but then why is everyone not a veggie or vegan? McDonalds, the meat(cruelty twards animals) and (since the 1950s typical food habbits) people have assimalated to the idea that animal flesh is necessary for survival, where as we know that’s obviously not the case, it’s very difficult to persuade people to follow our beliefes. I find argueing or slamming people with harsh, brutal video’s is ofen not very productive… how ever, showing them the ethnical, health, enviroental and compassion benifits of the veg/vegan diet, they will be begin to ask more without an agressive tone. I also realised showing he non-vegans all the famous vegetarians/vegans (search on you tube) and how some of the greatest people in history were non-animal consumers, including people like celebrities today, that it helps them to think, “So they live like that, It must not be so horrible or difficult, and they are my role modals.” which just encourages our stance. Persuasion is such a finicky topic when it comes to compassionate people and non-vegans, I tend to atleast try to not get into an arguement or whole speech (which is difficult for me) when people make their own food/lifestyle choices. Hope this helps, tell us when the contest (convenience store) is because I’d love to participate!
~ Recent blog post: Beating my Hunger ~
Amen! Well put EC. and Alex too.