Writing To Change The World Or Writing For Yourself?
Print This Post
The circus is cruel.
LOVE blogger Victor wrote:
“while reading a pamphlet we’ve been developing about circuses, an activist stopped at the line, ‘Some animals, like elephants, may be forced to work for over 45 years for our entertainment,’ and suggested replacing the word ‘our’ with ‘your.’ This comment intrigued me because the word ‘our’ was deliberately chosen to suggest a particular approach to advocacy and so I started thinking more about what that word represents.”
“‘Our’ reminds me not to think of myself as separate from those I am reaching out to and to instead understand that we are doing the best we know how. With this understanding, veganism is a process rather than an endpoint. Veganism as process means I am continually learning about veganism and that my path towards the vegan ideal is meandering and ongoing. So ‘our’ helps head off the judgment that I am ‘good’ and they are ‘bad’ by reminding me that we are all learning how to live our lives at the same time.”
Victor is onto something. He’s trying to connect with people who have different viewpoints about animals. He’s trying to empathize and guide rather than judge and instruct. Carol L. Glasser at the Humane Research Council is also interested in this idea of language. She wrote:
“Replacing descriptive words with euphemisms or using subtle language to describe extreme concepts masks the exploitation, misuse and abuse of other animals. For example, to make meat-eating more tolerable, words such as poultry, hamburger, and bacon are used to replace more accurate words like dead chicken flesh, shredded cow body, and sliced pig belly.” [...]
“If simply describing our movement with different words can have a significant effect on how willing others are to listen to our message, it is clear that the language used to talk about the animals for whom we advocate will likely have an impact.”
And then Glasser drops the bomb:
“Unfortunately, research has not explored how shifting language can shift outcomes for animals.”
Yes, we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about which words will have the most impact. And we should be careful about advocating a stance that isn’t justifed by science. Perhaps a subtle shift like “your” to “our” will change more hearts and minds and generate more compassion for animals. Or it might not have any effect at all.
Words are useful tools for expressing ideas and producing change. But they are not ends in themselves. If your reader doesn’t share your perspective, your understanding, your assumptions, etc., then all your ideas about the importance of a particular word choice falls to the wayside. The message is lost and your meaning is missed.
So, instead of debating and writing essays on the philosophy behind using the word “our” versus using the word “your,” more time should be spent measuring the efficacy of various words and techniques. That is, instead of focusing so much on YOUR meaning, try focusing on the audience and THEIR understanding. What do they need to hear in order to get them to change their behaviors?
Luckily, this is exactly what HRC is doing. In 2004 they did research and found that the average person is more receptive to the term “animal advocate” than the term “animal activist.”
When you write anything, think about who is reading and what they need to hear in order to compel them to act. What do people who are going to circus need to read in order to decide to turn around and boycott the circus? What emotions must they feel? Who should they identify with? What needs of theirs must be met? Are they even going to read? How much do they understand/ what is their reading level?
In my mind, there’s an even more important question: Does it even make sense to waste space with words? Would images convey more?
I was just recently at a circus protest and one of the other protesters commented that he thought most passersby didn’t even read the signs and most just thought to themselves, “Here are a bunch of people who don’t like the circus. They must have a good reason. I’m not going to the circus.” I think he might be onto something. When I see protesters I’m intrigued and I try to read their signs, but even if I can’t figure out what they’re protesting, I get an automatic negative feeling about the business they’re protesting.
The circus is cruel.
Boycott cruelty.
Boycott the circus.
Does much more need to be said? What and how should it be said in order to be convincing and effective?
—
Editor’s Note: this article was originally published in June 2009. After minor edits it has been republished in 2012.
The message that many people take away from a circus protest, for example, is that the protestors are attacking the circus patrons for supporting the circus. A natural response to this perceived attack is to become defensive – and then dismissive of the claims made by the protestors.
An effective way to counter the natural tendency of people who feel attacked to become defensive is to use words and phrases that are inclusive – like “for our entertainment” instead of “for your entertainment.” People are less likely to become defensive if they understand that they are not the ones being attacked or criticized. By using inclusive words and phrases, people are more likely to feel that they are being educated about a wrong that they have the power to help stop, instead of being made to feel that they are the ones who are doing wrong – when really they just don’t know any better yet.
Matt, what you say sounds well and good, but where’s the real proof? Show me the stats that prove a defensive reaction results in complete dismissal. I have not found that to be true.
But more to the point, inclusiveness is not necessary!
Simply remove the entire problem of ‘your’ vs. ‘our’ and change
“Some animals, like elephants, may be forced to work for over 45 years for (y)our entertainment,” to
“Elephants and other animals may be forced to perform for over 45 years,” or
“Elephants are intelligent animals who live long lives – up to 70 years! Circus animals, like elephants, often spend nearly their entire lives in captivity, far from their natural wild environments.”
And… do you think victor was inclusive of the vegan who wanted the pamphlet to read “your”? Do you think his LOVE blog post inspired that vegan to be a better advocate or do you think he felt defensive?
Moreover, what do you think about the idea that the adult circus patrons are not the *true* audience, rather the children are? Children rarely get as defensive and angry as adults. They are simply curious. And well, it’s a pretty simple concept, perfectly suited for children, with or without “our”:
Wild animals belong in the wild, not on circus stages.
Ah, glad to see the smiley face icons can be used here!
If we want some evidence for the effectiveness of using all-inclusive language when attempting to influence others, we need look no further than page 93 of Dale Carnegie’s book “The Quick and Easy Way to Effective Speaking” where he advises readers that “the pronoun ‘you’ is dangerous, when it may establish a cleavage between speaker and audience rather than a bridge. This occurs when it might seem as though we are talking down to our audience or lecturing it. Then it is better to say ‘we’ instead of ‘you.’
I believe the Vegan Soapbox bloggers are familiar with Dale Carnegie, the author of “How to Win Friends and Influence People” and his works have been cited in previous blog entries. But for people who have not yet heard of the late Mr. Carnegie, he is considered by many to be the world’s foremost authority on effective communication skills.
EV, I agree with you that simply removing the entire problem of ‘we’ vs. ‘you’ language would be effective too. Sometimes images are also fantastically effective at influencing others. All very good points.
I do also think that Victor’s LOVE blog post inspires vegans to be better advocates just as we are both attempting to inspire others to be better advocates by expressing our opinions. Evidence to support our opinions is helpful. Thank you for reminding me to cite evidence to support my previous claim.
To answer your question, I think parents are the “true” circus patrons because they are the ones who pay and they are the ones who ultimately decide to patronize the circus or not. I’m not sure how that relates to our discussion other than the fact that it is important to remember who our audience is. I believe it is also important to pay attention to the best ways to reach our audience without turning them against us. When we phrase things as “you” versus “us,” I think we are more likely to influence conflict rather than cooperation.
Regarding children:
I was taking a longer view, seeing the problem not as a single circus and trying to get people to boycott right then and there for that weekend and that’s it, but rather seeing the problem as a larger issue. Children, teens, and college students are THE “audience” because the message is about animals in general – wild animals belong in the wild – and it applies to circuses, zoos, etc. If they grow up hearing that over and over, it will eventually sink in and they’ll be a generation of people who care about animals, at least they’ll care about elephants and primates.
The circus is already on it’s way out. Circuses are like dogfighting: animal cruelty for human entertainment. We have the majority on our side already. NOW is the time where it might be OK to separate the “good people” from the “bad people.” In fact, NOT doing that makes the crime of cruelty seem less evil. Imagine if we tried to be all lovey-dovey and inclusive when talking about dogfighting. Would it work? Would it foster a generation of humans who think dogfighting is socially unacceptable?
While dogfighting is illegal in all 50 states and a felony offense in almost every state, animal based circuses have only been banned in a little more than a dozen US cities. I’m not sure a comparison of public opinion regarding dogfighting and animal based circuses is very useful at present.
But I find it even more interesting that you seem to think that effective communication skills are akin to being “lovey-dovey.” You’ve made similar comments in previous posts implying that being respectful of others is some sort of passive and ineffectual hippie/peacenik tactic. Perhaps reexamining that apparent prejudice would help you to better understand my point. 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.
That said, I agree that children are an important audience to consider for anti-circus and also other animal liberation efforts.
Matt, I think we have communication problems. The post above is NOT anti-inclusiveness.
The post about is about how victor chose to be inclusive because it met his needs, not because it met the needs of his audience. He said, “‘our’ reminds me” “my path”… He sounds like he’s more interested in personal development than helping animals. He sounds like he’s doing more introspection than advocacy.
I read victor’s post and I did not come away thinking to myself, “wow, what a great advocate.” Instead, I thought, “man, he’s full of himself. He thinks he’s the Buddha.”
Perhaps I misread him just as you seem to misread me.
Wow! Really? I am getting the exact opposite meaning from Victor’s post.
How do you think he is being ‘full of himself’ by suggesting people “move away from an adversarial relationship speaking at others and towards a collaborative one speaking with one another.”?
How do you get that he is being ‘introspective’ when he says “I think the word ‘our’ is powerful and important by bringing a basic sense of connectedness with others to advocacy.”?
It seems to me he is all about humbly admitting his own shortcomings and understanding that by being less judgmental and more understanding of others that we have a better chance of reaching them with our message.
Speaking of Buddhism, it is my understanding that Buddhists believe that every sentient being is of the same Buddha nature, the same body. We are all just different manifestations of the same thing. So I guess if Victor is a Buddhist he may actually believe he is the Buddha – just as we all are. Again, inclusiveness.
Matt, just count how many times he uses the word “I.”
Of course the efficacy of our words is important. But should efficacy ever be the sole force driving our movement? Isn’t sheer efficiency what drives the exploitative industries we’re trying to put an end to? Nothing else matters: just be efficient! Make money! Make meat! Make vegans! Eh?
I’m not saying that’s what you’re suggesting per se, but personally I prefer not to focus solely on emotional reactions… that’s the first thing I ever did when I went vegan, and it was a complete disaster. I just ended up being very emotional myself and getting people to talk about their desire to keep eating “humane meat” while telling me I was insane for the crazy comparisons I made with concentration camps and what not. At the time I was still feeling traumatized by the whole situation, so that was a bit extreme. Still… I’d rather not simply try to evoke emotions about “cruelty” and just create a sense of negative emotion… particularly about something that people are as attached to as animal flesh. Your tactic might be valuable in some settings and with the circus (who goes to the circus anyway?), though I would certainly not choose the particular words you chose.
I agree on the need to understand our audience (I wrote about this in my latest blog post), but a) I don’t believe that this contradicts Victor’s argument, and b) I think it’s more complicated than what you have described. I don’t just want to get a reaction… I want to engage my audience. As I wrote in my post, I don’t just want to make new vegans. That’s something I emphasize by preference, though I am sure I could learn plenty from your approach. I am presently concerned with the whole understanding bit. Not just understanding so I can change someone else… but understanding as in sincere interest in the other person. Can I be understanding while pointing a finger at someone and saying, “Look what YOU are doing?” Hmm, it’s a complicated question, I admit. After all, I went vegan a couple months after someone did that to me… still, it caused a lot of antagonism which was perhaps unnecessary. I don’t know. I get uncomfortable when I see T-Shirts or posters implicating the audience (especially ones that seem to ignore the point that some of the audience may actually be veg*an… I mean, how’s that for ignoring the audience?). I’m just tired of all the anti-veganism from people you’d expect to be more sensible than that, i.e. a huge lot of Buddhists I know. And at the moment, I can only say that I’ve personally had more success with – or, rather, satisfaction – with just influencing people through an unassuming sincerity. I’m not advocating this upon anyone else as it’s something I’m still very much still trying to learn myself, but just to point out that we do indeed come from different places… both legitimate. That’s something that’s come up a few times on the LOVE blog – the need to embrace ‘our’ diverse perspectives… and I think that includes the need to recognize and acknowledge at least on some level of our activism the diversity beyond ‘vegan’-'non-vegan.’
Lastly, what is wrong with Victor using the word “I” with great frequency on the LOVE blog? You know, if he were in the context of primarily those he was trying to reach with the vegan message, I could see your point. But he’s not. He’s just trying to find his own personal way as a vegan activist, as are all of us (or at least am I) who frequent the LOVE site. That’s different from, say, a carnivore who ends up on a site advocating veganism. Different contexts. Yes, there’s a “we” (“our”) in every interaction, but I think that two people on a vegan activist site vs a vegan and a carnivore on a vegan advocate’s site are going to be closer to already having a sense of the “we.” Less of a barrier to begin with, and besides, the vegan probably knows a heck of a lot more than the average carnivore… whereas two vegans may be equals knowledge-wise.
God, this is one convoluted argument I am writing… I apologize. My mind is like that… Need to do a mind-cleaning.
~ Recent blog post: How would I want the world (you) to know me? ~
Better yet, I’d like to ask some questions:
-How do you implicate someone in a way that that someone would accept? I mean, other than in the unassuming and indirect way. Different individuals react differently, so it’s not so much a black and white issue I’m visualizing here as an ambiguity created in the generality, IF we’re addressing the general crowd (and I’ve expressed above my personal feelings based on personal feeling of non-vegan crowds).
-When and how and how frequently is “I” language appropriate? I know it to be appropriate in story-telling and safe spaces such as discussion circles… On the other hand, it’s not usually appropriate to be used in high frequency in a book offering some great teaching. Or an ad on the metro. Or a video of factory farming. Yet LOVE seems to be a place for story-telling. A safe space.
Perhaps these are questions for another time and place… and I apologize if this seems somewhat repetitive, but I just want to make sure I’m doing more than arguing here and actually asking genuine questions.
~ Recent blog post: How would I want the world (you) to know me? ~
I statements are useful in some contexts and even in victor’s post it might have made sense to use I statements. My point is simply that it isn’t about US, it’s about the animals. And we need to think about that when we’re crafting our messages. We need to think about what will help the animals most.
One approach I’ve heard for writing effectively is to write respectfully and articulate new moral frames.
In my view, the audience is not children who can be ideologically converted or bad adults who can be shamed. It is those people who actually CARE but have been desensitized against caring, as well as those who would care but really haven’t given it thought.
Many people – adults and children – would say, “You know, I don’t want elephants tortured for my entertainment, and, yup, I see what you mean, this is torture.” From my perspective focusing on “separating good people from bad people” sacrifices the possibility of speaking to those allies on the altar of loud self-righteousness.
honestly i’m a look at the whole picture kind of guy, i don’t get easily confused, mislead or upset by pretended and/or obvious and/or second hand and/or subversive meanings. and it’s the animals that suffer, case in point circus animals and elephants whom are extremely intelligent and emotional.