When is a question?

Stanley M. Sapon, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Psycholinguistics
University of Rochester (NY)

It is no surprise that Vegans face challenges. Contrary to popular expectations, however, finding acceptable food is only one of them...and it is far from the greatest one.

The most serious challenge that Vegans confront has nothing to do with eating, but with talking.

As people whose dietary behavior is noticeably different from the mainstream, they often provoke -- without premeditated missionary intent -- comments and invitations to dialogue from those around them. At this point in the life of a Vegan the word "communication" takes on a special urgency.

My trusty dictionary defines communication as "the exchange of thoughts, messages or information." It is not easy to convey one's ideas clearly, and the messages we send are not necessarily the ones we want to transmit.

If "exchange" means to give and receive reciprocally, we face a problem when one party is eager to "give," and the other is strongly committed to "not receiving." We may see two people talking... one asking what appears to be a question, and the other answering, but precious little "communication" taking place.

The rules of grammar make it simple to identify "what is a question." In written form, one sees the question mark, and in spoken form, one hears the interrogative melody. The same rule book defines a question as an expression of inquiry to elicit information. There should be no problem in knowing when a question has been asked. Or is there?

The truth is that the question form is a social lubricant as often as it is a means of acquiring data. "How are you?" from a co-worker passing you in the corridor is a friendly salutation, not an inquiry about your health. Asked by a close friend, it is a manifestation of concern for your well-being. Woe to the person who answers the question that was not asked. To tell about your aches and pains when what is required is "Fine!" makes you look like a Martian. To give a snappy "Fine!" to one who is really concerned about you, is to brush off genuine interest.

We reach out to strangers to make cordial contact at bus stops with questions like "Hot enough for you?" and "Isn't that a beautiful sunset?" We are invited to participate in other people's wonderment when they point to a branch and ask "Did you ever see such a huge caterpillar?" At cocktail parties people who scarcely know one another initiate conversations with "...so how about those Rangers?" Comments like "Do you come here often?" or "What’s your sign?" are rarely perceived as authentic, heartfelt inquiries for data, but without them the American tradition of the Singles' Bar would not long survive.

Time and Place: The Setting

How do we tell the difference between social formulas, requests for factual information and other kinds of questions? The clues here are not verbal, but situational. How far apart are the speakers, is there full eye-contact, is there time for more than a brief "sound bite," do the speakers have a relationship that is more than superficial, precisely where does the verbal interaction take place? Is the interaction just between two speakers, or is there an "audience" involved?

Questions: Rare, Medium & Well-Done

Where can I find tofu in this town? How many minutes should the rice cook? How many grams of fat are there in a cup of butter? What is the calcium content of a head of broccoli? All of these are simple questions that request information. There is no element of personal viewpoint or personal values to be found in either the questions or the answers. It is when we go beyond data-exchange questions that life gets more complicated.

After a presentation I gave at a conference, a young man from Michigan waited to talk to me about a serious personal issue: "I really find myself in trouble when people press me with questions about my values and my life style. What answer can I give to somebody who knows of my concern with animal suffering in research laboratories, and asks me 'Do you really think the life of an animal is worth more than the life of a human being?' What can I say to somebody who learns that I'm a Vegan, and challenges me by asking 'What would happen to the millions of animals who would not be consumed if the world became Vegan?' How do I reply to someone who asks 'Don't you care about the thousands of hardworking, God-fearing cattle ranchers, dairy farmers and poultry producers who would lose their livelihood if everybody gave up eating meat, cheese and eggs? And what about their poor, innocent families?' "

His struggles to answer such questions set me to reflect on how my own professional experience might cast some light on a problem that Vegans so often encounter. The first thing to become clear was that he had been deceived by a grammatical form. He had been attempting to answer... as questions... fragments of rhetoric that were not simple questions.

What disarmed him, and made him so vulnerable, was his inability to determine when a question is a genuine inquiry...and when it is not.

First of all, he failed to recognize that everything that has the grammatical form of a question is not always a request for information. The "questions" about animals in research and agricultural economics were certainly not requests for factual information that might be found in an encyclopedia. At best, they are challenges to the validity of Vegan ethical values, and at worst, thinly disguised attacks on Vegan life style or perspectives.

Second, he failed to realize that the person who phrases the "question" also frames the "rules of engagement" that oblige the respondent to accept the legitimacy of the proposition to be explored. Just because someone asks you a "question" does not mean that you are obliged to reply in accordance with the premises of the "question."

Perhaps the most grievous tactical error of all derives from honest attempts to address the issues within the framework of a "question and answer." Categorically, it is impossible to answer a question that is nothing more than a challenge to a verbal, philosophical, or moral duel. The person who asks if you value an animal's life above a human's, is not really interested in your views. What your interrogator is seeking is an opportunity to push you into defending an indefensible position, and solidly confirm the correctness of his views and the wrongness of yours. To attempt to answer the question -- as phrased-- is to acknowledge the validity of an "either-or" choice, as well as the fallacious assumption that killing animals saves human lives. If you fall into the trap, you will find yourself defending positions that have no basis in reality. You will be standing in quicksand, flailing at phantom issues, sinking deeper by the minute. Defending is the key word here.

To be on the defensive is to start out with two strikes. Your capacity to inform, enlighten or sensitize your interlocutor starts low and is likely to get lower. The ideal of communication can be seen as a set of verbal events that are followed by both parties better understanding each other's viewpoints and values. One who accepts a defensive posture in a dialogue starts off in a thoroughly distorted communication process.

Answering the Real Questions

Accepting the assumptions of the challenger guarantees a losing contest. One must find a strategy that levels the playing field, changes the contest into a respectful setting for an honest discussion of real issues, disarms the challenger in such a way that the antagonism is dissipated and sets the stage for reciprocal flow of ideas and information. That is a very tall order, but there are some basic principles of verbal interaction that can help.

Even though the gist of the "question" is apparent after the first few words, do not interrupt or get on with your response until the question is complete. You need the time to formulate a courteous and respectful acknowledgment of the genuine interests of the questioner. The essence of the questioner's concerns must be identified and isolated from the emotional turbulence that typically accompanies those concerns.

If The Question Doesn't Fit..

You are not obliged to answer the question as it is put to you. You may more effectively answer the question you wish had been asked. Or the question phrased the way you think it should have been.

"If you don’t drink milk, aren’t you worried about getting osteoporosis?" does not really address what you worry about. It is either about what worries the questioner, or it is a suggestion that you are not rowing with both oars in the water. Either way, the questions you do answer are:

"What is the relationship between animal-flesh/dairy-based diets and plant-based diets and the risks of getting osteoporosis?" or

"Isn’t the consumption of cow’s milk a basic nutritional need for children to develop strong bones, and adults to stay healthy?"

This is your chance to talk about the typical protein overload from meat and milk, how it actually heightens the risk of decalcified bones...and how abundant is the supply of calcium in green, leafy vegetables, tofu, sesame seeds, etc.. This is also the time to talk about the perfect fit between the milk of every mammal and its own offspring. This is not the time to talk about the horrors of the veal industry and its links with the dairy industry.

"I understand your feelings about killing, but since chickens lay eggs naturally, and cows don’t have to be killed to get their milk, what's wrong with eggs and milk?"

The question you answer is:

"Isn’t the production of eggs and milk a nonviolent, gentle, benign kind of activity?"

Now you can provide some information about the horrors of factory farming and the dreadful cruelty inflicted upon "farm animals."

Precautions:

When the question relates to issues of human health, your answer has to stick to health. Don’t complicate or confound your answer with issues of compassion.

When the question relates to issues of compassion, stick to those issues. Questions on this theme give you the opportunity to talk about your feelings, about how you are moved to compassion by all forms of cruelty. Remember: The questioner has not given you leave to reproach her/his insensitivity or indifference to others’ suffering.

When questions about Veganism are based on more than one theme, it is difficult, but essential, to limit your delivery of information to the dimensions of the question. One of the most frequent causes of failure in communication is "information overkill." It calls for careful, alert and well-tuned antennae to avoid telling your questioner more than s/he cares to know about the subject. Delivering massive doses of information may do more to discourage further inquiry than it is to foster active search for additional facts.

If the answer to a question has more of a "persuasive ring" to it than an "informative flavor," the credibility of the factual information is compromised.

There are some locations in which it is near-lethal to entertain any kind of question about Veganism. When asked, at the dinner table, about the reasons for his Vegan diet, my son's very wise and courteous reply is always: "I never discuss my diet at mealtimes. But I would be glad to explain it at length, at some other moment."

Even questions tinged with negative overtones reveal something about the focus of interest of the questioner. If you structure your answers in ways that avoid a confrontation, and provide gentle, factual answers within this framework of interest, you will have done more than just refuse to do combat; you will have left the questioner with some simple, straightforward facts that s/he can chew on and perhaps digest. Be wary of interpreting a congenial reception of your answer as a "small victory on one issue," and attempt to press your advantage with "...and besides,..." By going beyond that one issue you may very well make enough waves to wash away whatever seeds of understanding you may have planted.

If a "question" can reflect some emotional turbulence on the part of the questioner, it is reasonable to expect the respondent to experience his/her own emotional reaction. This is where accepting an invitation to dialogue gets difficult. Suffice it to say, even in the face of thinly disguised attacks on Vegans and/or Veganism, we need to avoid falling into confrontations, disputes, or anything that looks like an "argument." We are supposed to be living proof that Vegans are committed to nonviolence, reason, and reverence for all life... even that of militant carnivores! I disagree strongly with the strategy embodied in the widely distributed "Fact Sheet" entitled "How to Win an Argument with a Meat-Eater." It is, in fact, psychologically impossible to "win" an "argument." If it is indeed an argument, i.e., a dispute, a strong disagreement, a contention or the like, the facts you mobilize to overcome your opponent's position are more likely to engender negative feelings than enduring and happy acceptance of your ideas and perspectives.

How Hot Is the Question, and What Is the Temperature of the Answer?

Marshall McLuhan, the Canadian scholar (The Medium Is The Massage, 1967) who brought exciting insights to the study of communication, characterized various kinds of communication media along a continuum from "hot" to "cool." In his analysis, communications that were spontaneous, in which statements could be made without benefit of reflection, rethinking and careful selection of words, and that called for rapid, or even instantaneous responses, he called "hot." Communications that could be polished before delivery, and that did not (or could not) call for instant replies, he called "cool."

Active questions and answers in the form of a lively dialogue between two individuals, face to face, would be the "hottest," and written communication, with a time lag between delivery of a message and the preparation of a reply, would be at the "coolest" end of the temperature range.

From a simple psychological point of view, face-to-face question-and-answer dialog can be seen as either enhanced-- or contaminated by all the subtleties and nuances of voice quality (earnest or sarcastic), facial expressions (smiling, neutral or grim), how swiftly or deliberately the answers come, body posture, arm and hand gestures, etc.. Following McLuhan's imagery, we need to monitor the temperature of our interchanges...not so cold that nothing moves, nor so hot that ideas evaporate.

Sometimes They Shoot the Messenger

What these observations also point to is the fact that there are times, places, people and subject matter that call for cool communication. This is where an offer of printed material can be a life-saver: It is impossible to have a "hot argument" or a "heated dispute" with a printed page. From the point of view of the transfer of extensive factual information, nothing surpasses a piece of printed text. It is permanent, the reader does not have to remember the exact numbers or statistics, and it is available for review and reconsideration at the reader's convenience. And it is impersonal. That means that facts and feelings raised by the writer are less likely to be interpreted as being personally addressed to (or aimed at) the reader. Offering a little information-booklet to insistent inquirers is respectful of their interest, courteous, and may make the next interaction safer for talking.

There is much to be said for not vocally presenting troubling messages or painful graphic images. I do not enjoy being the speaker who gives the bloody details of what happens in the slaughterhouse or what happens to male calves or chicks. Making my point also makes me the unpleasant bearer of perturbing information. I am happier being the person who reports ... "in vivid color and graphic detail"... on the delights of a compassionate Vegan lifestyle, and the broad range of satisfactions it provides.

What Fits in a Nutshell Is for the Birds

The most hazardous questions of all to answer are those that bear the marks of genuine, innocent and sincere requests for global information. What makes them so hazardous is that they seem so disarmingly simple. With no clearly defined limits of either theme or length, they invite you to attempt a One Sentence Capsule that contains all of the insights, experiences, understanding and perspectives that led you to make major changes in your life. For example, "So, in a nutshell, what made you decide to become a Vegan?"

Beware of all questions that begin with "So, ..." The questioner is signaling a lack of time or interest for listening to all the antecedent details; s/he is in a hurry for you to cut to the Bottom Line, the Final Summation, the Simple Solution, without bothering with nuances, values and feelings. The message is "Don't burden me with what may have cost you many hours of intellectual and spiritual effort.".

More than one organization has succumbed to the pressure to define "Veganism in a Nutshell." The outcome is typically a destructive oversimplification cast in negative terms that reduces a broad, life-enriching philosophy to "a diet." e.g. "Vegans are vegetarians who do not consume dairy products or eggs."

Truly, the only thing that fits properly in a nutshell is a nut.

The Last Word

The model of Questions and Answers as a teaching instrument has been abundantly utilized, and the power of the paradigm has been acknowledged for centuries in the context of spiritual instruction, whether it appears as Catechism or Talmudic exploration.

Probably the last word in "hard questions" and "soft answers" is found in antiquity. The Talmud tells of two distinguished sages who dealt in different ways with a formidable question. An irreverent scoffer asked Rabbi Shammai if he could teach him all there was to know about the Torah while he stood on one foot. Rabbi Shammai, understandably annoyed, brusquely dismissed the impudent questioner. But Rabbi Hillel, a man of greater patience, accepted the question, and created an answer for all time. "There is just one message in the Torah," he replied: "That which causes suffering to you, do not do unto others. The rest is commentary. Now go and study."

When people ask us to tell them all there is to know about the essence of Veganism while standing on one foot, Hillel's reply can still serve as a gentle, respectful, beginning of our answer. Then we can invite our impatient questioners to study.