TOPIC: Sustaining the vegetarian practice

[Guest guest]

This topic came up recently, that the animals don't care why

humans don't eat them. In fact, the animals don't care if

humans never THOUGHT about eating or not eating them.

 

Often we talk reflectively, introspectively, personally about

our experience as vegetarians,and sometimes we;re a little

rhetorical. Sometimes that rhetoric is pretty good, with

some great, effective, powerful sound bites.

 

But how analytical is it?

 

That, I think, as a 25-year vegan, is a big question for

evaluating some of the statements vegetarians make

about other vegetarians (and their motivations) and

other (unrelated, but personally cherished issues and

viewpoints).

 

Are we prepared to understand the issues, not only

for animals, but for human beings who haven't yet

become vegetarians. (And yes, veterinary diseases

MAY become a major reason why people become

vegetarians, even though many animal rights advocates

decry our reliance on health motivations for converting others.)

 

But another question comes along, too.

Will vegetarians be able to volunteer at a level which is

effective in getting HIGH QUALITY information out to the

public?

 

What vegetarian-leaning cultures ARE there?

Africa, Middle East, Far East, Near East, India.

What happens with these populations as they

are impacted by 'Western ways' and the

opportunities for technological development

and personal training in management and technology?

 

Our eyes are windows on the world, and Westerners

have only the transplants to watch.

 

My own business works with vegetarian businesses

from India, but as these people become India's minority,

the privileged position of vegetarians and nonhumans

may be lost, and great suffering will result.

 

Why does this happen?

 

Who in THIS particular list has some expertise in that topic?

Alternatively, the psychological question for all human populations

everywhere is: 'What factors are associated with a high retention

rate for vegetarian practice?'

 

I've listened to a number of vegetarian psychologists,

both vegans, including Dr. Ken Shapiro (PsyETA, MD)

and Dr. Rachel MacNair (Feminists for Life, MO).

I've also read The New Vegetarians by vegetarian psychologists

Dr. Paul Amato and Dr. Sonja Partridge (in manuscript from

the authors, and my groups and I participated in the book's

preliminary surveys).

 

Recidivism is a big issue in the West, in areas where

vegetarianism is NOT (yet) the rule, but the psychological

dynamics may be different in modernizing cultures which

have a PAST history (the old culture) of having encouraged

vegetarianism -- a good thing that vegetarianism, but

antinomian rejection of the past -- for the sake of

modernity and the unknown future -- can be quite powerful,

and a difficult engine to slow.

 

Animals die in the process, and human health is compromised.

 

We do know that some pretty solid social-psychological

configurations existed in 'traditional societies' which encouraged

vegetarianism, including their religious and ethical systems.

Modernity challenges these, and rejection of part is rejection

of the whole, for most persons, and simplistic thinking

often seems to reign.

 

Attempts to reconfigure worldviews intentionally complement

popular efforts to understand their world in modern terms,

silently importing traditional perspectives to the extent

that these gestalts are not rejected or critically assessed.

 

When ethical vegetarian Hinduism goes, when empathic Jainism

fails, when traditional vegetarian Buddhism wanes or becomes

something different or even commercial or faddish, what

pro-vegetarian forces remain?

 

Does society need a SOLID worldview as a rationale for

ethical vegetarianism? I think so. Therefore, I have

some critical thoughts about degrading the 'web of action'.

I believe that, if we don't have reason to reject something

(other than cognitive dissonance), we can allow it to

coexist with us (if it's noninjurious). If the injurious

behaviors of its adherents are not functionally related

or logically related to its ideas, then we have some

issues to resolve, although the noninjurious gestalt

is not in itself the enemy.

 

Maynard S. Clark