‘SALT’ THE MIND: Should vegans empathize with meat-eaters?
Research shows that when people are given space to safely express themselves about divisive issues — and extended empathy and confirmation they’ve been heard — they’re more willing and able to critically engage with ideas they find threatening, and even question or change their positions entirely.
EMILY MORAN BARWICK: The polarization surrounding veganism tends to raise complementary defenses on both sides, resulting in confrontational interactions. Yet, multidisciplinary research indicates there are ways to have constructive communication about divisive issues like veganism…
Research across multidisciplinary fields (including social, behavioral, clinical, organizational and political psychology, conflict resolution, political science, and addiction intervention) indicates that when we take the time to understand what’s behind our defenses — and connect on our commonalities— we have a chance for constructive communication about divisive issues like veganism.
Let’s start with a key commonality of human psychology: the need to feel heard. It’s hard to listen when you don’t feel heard. It’s hard to see from another’s perspective when you don’t feel seen. And it’s impossible to be open and receptive when you’re having to defend yourself.
So while it may seem counterintuitive, the most important part of talking to people about veganism is to listen to them. We usually enter these interactions with our minds focused on what we want to say, rather than on listening to the other person.
Yet, research shows that when people are given space to safely express themselves about divisive issues — and extended empathy and confirmation they’ve been heard — they’re more willing and able to critically engage with ideas they find threatening, and even question or change their positions entirely.
Of course, in order to non-judgmentally listen to the concerns of others, we too first need to feel heard. So if you’re struggling with the idea of empathizing with people who eat animals, you’re not alone.
What about when it comes to the rationalizations many people use to justify eating animals? Surely that’s the time to shut down empathy, whip out your list of logical fallacies, and hammer home the harms of animal agriculture, right?
Research into advocacy messaging by the nonprofit Pax Fauna suggests this approach may be a major source of disconnect between animal advocates and the meat-eating public…
When we dismiss these objections, or immediately counter them with logical refutations, we’re communicating to the other person a complete invalidation of and disregard for their core values—core values that we likely share…
When our values and needs are affirmed, it creates more space for open-minded self-reflection and engagement with ideas that would otherwise feel threatening to our sense of self — a phenomenon explored within social psychology and cognitive neuroscience.
We thus not only increase their defensiveness, but we also miss the crucial opportunity to connect with them on any shared values5 underlying their objections.
Rather than jumping to refutation or probing the soundness of the other person’s logic, we can try asking questions to better understand the values and needs behind their objections.
The underlying needs may be to have a sense of belonging, community, and acceptance. All of these values and needs are valid and significant.
For example, in the case of culture-based objections, we may find the underlying values are honoring family, upholding tradition, or respecting other cultures.
While we may not agree with how someone is fulfilling their needs, nor how they’re honoring their values, we can validate the needs and values themselves, opening space for discussing alternative ways to fulfill and honor them that don’t involve the exploitation of other animals. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: