Science, Non-science, Nonsense and
Nastiness in the Vegetarian World

Stanley M. Sapon, Ph.D.

This is Part Three of a Three-Part Series
To read Part One, click here.

NASTINESS

The theme of nastiness in the vegetarian world recalls hurtful, mean-spirited and belligerent verbal behavior. This kind of behavior damages the fabric and future of a movement that distinguishes itself by its commitment to social justice, respect for all sentient life, and non-violent solutions to conflict. Harkening back to the "disease" we identified as Scientism, one might wonder how what started out as "scientifically dispassionate and objective commitment to accuracy" came to generate overwhelmingly passionate and subjective attacks on people rather than on ideas.

As a caring human being, I am deeply concerned about the world we create and pass on to our descendants. I am deeply troubled by the spread of philosophical postures that turn differences of perspective into a battlefield of interpersonal strife and conflict.

As a psychologist, linguist and teacher, I am sharply challenged to understand the antecedents to such anger-driven postures, and the environment that fosters and nurtures such combative mind-sets.

As a dedicated vegan, I am sorely troubled by behavior that not only impedes progress toward a widespread acceptance of compassionate, fully humane lifestyles, but that carries with it a genuine threat to its viability as a philosophically driven movement.

Although this essay was originally inspired by the campaign to denigrate the work – and the person– of John Robbins, in the process of studying and analyzing the details of that situation I was led to examine and reflect on the psychological, philosophical and political antecedents and effects of self-inflicted damage within the vegetarian community

"Identifying and Attacking the Enemy"

Attacking with intense force is a response that is ordinarily limited to interactions with "enemies." One does not attempt to "persuade" someone who has been labeled "enemy." "Enemies" are to be vanquished, destroyed or overcome. As soon as I sense that someone has labeled me his enemy, I prepare to defend myself, not listen to his side of the story. You can only persuade someone who is disposed to listen to you, and hold still long enough to hear what you have to say. Identifying the person addressed as wicked, selfish, stupid or uncaring is to obliterate even the slightest possibility of persuasion.

This same fundamental paradigm holds true when there are differences of perspective among people who presume that they are fellow members of a kindred "action group." At what point do people who disagree with us become "the enemy?" At what point does discord become a destructive struggle between factions?

Intense devotion to a cause is often driven by powerful emotions such as love, joy, hatred or anger. Passionate behavior prompted by love or joy will look very different from equally passionate behavior prompted by hatred or anger. Sadly, the fervor that fuels deep commitment to a set of principles may also inspire anger at those who fail to embrace those principles completely.

A personal basis for decision-making can become a source of controversy and conflict with those holding differing views. "Values-oriented" vegetarians have been disdained for their disregard of "facts," and those who are strongly "data-oriented" have been frowned upon for neglecting the importance of "feelings." It is futile to deny the existence of different currents within an ideological community; the first serious question is whether these currents are flowing toward the same sea. The second, and perhaps of greater concern, is whether the currents reinforce one another or neutralize each other. We all carry significant personal responsibility for being watchful– and careful– about whether our own behavior fosters or impedes positive, constructive movement.

The Many Faces of Nastiness

Nastiness comes in different guises – not all of which are manifested by harsh, rude or insulting language. In its essence, nastiness appears as antagonistic behavior which is intended to belittle the accomplishments or disparage the goals of the targeted individual or group.

Nastiness is distinguished from ordinary belligerence in that its destructive force is not focused on an individual or movement clearly identified as "the adversary" - who is expecting and prepared to respond to attack. Instead, it turns against an unsuspecting target, and it comes from a source the victim innocently perceived as an ally or a collaborator in a common cause.

There is a presumption, founded in honest innocence, perhaps, that all who call themselves "vegetarians" or "vegans" are indeed members of the same "congregation," professing similar goals and obeying the same standards of ethical behavior and civil discourse. Unhappily, this presumption is frequently contrary to reality.

Feuds, Boycotts, Personal Vendettas and Personal Ego

There are websites that have chosen to boycott certain authors, prohibiting even the mention of their books or reference to laudatory reviews elsewhere on the internet.

Certain websites and mail lists have refused to receive postings from vegans who have posted to sites marked as "taboo." They make an issue of "loyalty" to the "owners" and display hostility to other sites and lists. Guests who are "loyal" to one site are encouraged to disparage and pick apart ideas and values professed by participants in sites that have been declared inimical.

These essays were initially prompted by a lopsided science. We now come face to face with a lopsided philosophy in which the concern for the feelings of animals becomes so intense– and so exclusive– that it justifies inflicting pain on humans who do not share their narrowly defined view of veganism.

The site that excludes humans from the shelter of vegan principles is the same site that offered its pages to the Mad Scientism – and the "Mad Scientist" – who waged a remorseless crusade of character assassination on any and all whose writing was deemed harmfully inaccurate. The allies of this Mad Scientist declared themselves chastened by the fallout of outrage against their campaign of vitriol, but the web site continues to advocate and encourage the same narrow values that provide a fertile ground for the growth and venting of destructive anger.

Self-assuredness sometimes rises to heights of arrogant scorn for the beliefs and feelings of others who have different hierarchies of importance.

Someone who believes that the absolute crux of vegan living is the unwavering commitment to breast feeding, read a glowing review of a book that presents a compassionate, thoughtful and broad-spectrum view of veganism. Since she felt that the book did not show the proper reverence for breast feeding, she widely published a counter-review; it was dedicated to expounding on the crucial nature of breast feeding and she damned the book with faint praise, declaring it to be, at best, a qualified success. The clear purpose, if not the actual outcome, was to discourage people from reading a book with a strong potential for advancing vegan thought and practice.

There are members of the vegetarian community who, having acquired "celebrity status," appear to have fallen into a state where personal ego comes to override moral conviction. This condition introduces a highly divisive, toxic and destructive element into the community of vegans and vegetarians.

A renowned vegetarian and animal rights activist organizes a large conference, and decides to have the conference elect a member to an "Animal Rights Hall of Fame." Hundreds of veteran workers in the field attend, but many are troubled and offended by the organizer's decision to permit only presenters at the conference (some of whom are newcomers to the animal rights movement) to cast ballots. When challenged on the appropriateness of such a decision, the organizer contemptuously dismisses his critic, declaring "Yes, it's an elitist election, and I'm the Dictator!" In addition to tarnishing the award, the behavior sets off destructive resonances in both the Animal Rights movement and the Vegetarian community.

Consequences of Nastiness

If there is strength in unity, it follows that there is weakness in contentious dissonance. Constructive discussion can stimulate people to clarify their own perspectives and seek to understand another's. Destructive disputes leave nothing but ashes.

What I think is essential -and crucial- is the widespread acknowledgment that no special or highly selective point of view can be successfully advanced at the cost of the denigration of other perspectives or priorities within the vegan-vegetarian community.

Nastiness is far more damaging than simply "not being nice." Passionate, ardent and strident insistence on what distinguishes one set of values from another's serves only to focus attention on what divides groups within the whole community, and to mask or distract from what unites them.

Responses to Nastiness

When there is an embarrassing outbreak of nastiness, it often prompts the efforts of self-appointed peacemakers who urge rapid hushing of the sounds of strife. proclaiming the larger interests of "the movement" (not airing dirty linen in public). Unfortunately, what typically calls forth these "peacemaking efforts" is a victim's vigorous defense from a verbal onslaught. It is important to keep clearly in mind that defense is not self-serving or reprehensible "counterattack." Defense is what is inevitably called forth when one is libelously attacked and one's reputation is smeared. The role of Peacemaker is most effectively filled by a timely and strong response to the provocations of offensive behavior by parties other than the person or group that has been disparaged. If the victims of attack are left to defend themselves, the community has failed to meet its responsibility.

To rebuke the defenders for the vigor of their defense adds insult to injury, and to chide them for failing to instantly forgive their assailants is simply to encourage rampant aggression with impunity.

Perhaps the most effective way to discourage nastiness is for the community at large to swiftly and vigorously identify, reprove and disavow all attempts to persuade that are based on a posture of attack.

Can people learn alternative responses to anger-provoking situations — responses that are less fierce and more constructive? People who are genuinely committed to non-violence do not employ violence against those who embrace different strategies for achieving a gentle world.

One of our high-priority objectives must be the cultivation and exercise of gentleness and respect in dealing with all living creatures – including people whose beliefs and practices we find distasteful. There can be no room in our verbal inventory for the phrase "violent disagreement."

If our message is to reach outside the vegan-vegetarian community, it demands a consistent and sincere display of our value system within the vegan-vegetarian community. If we would be accepted as genuine and wholehearted advocates of gentle, mindful, compassionate living, nothing that we do in the conduct of that advocacy should contradict or deny the values we espouse.