Criticizing means: On what grounds?

At first, Jen and I entertained the notion of directly supporting the protesters; however, deciding against this, we thought it prudent to engage the crowd that had gathered. Coming upon a neighbor who, from his position on a distant corner, was expressing his anger over the protest to another individual. Jen and I took this as an invitation to join the discussion.

Jen began by accepting this gentleman's premise that protests such as these do not have the desired effect - the opposite is true, according to him -, and inquired about what forms of actions would produce substantive discourse on the topic. The response given rested on a dubious assumption given the lengths that these individuals were going to advocate for this cause. 

A plethora of "other, more important" examples of animal exploitation, according to this gentleman, ought to to be the focus of protest: killing cows for their flesh and environmental degradation, for example. I immediately challenged him on his implied assumption that the protesters weren't also involved in these protests; he found it difficult to defend presuming such. Jen, being more polite, continued with this point. However, seemingly surprised by our challenge, he began to rant. 

My central point was simple: Don't assume things about the protesters. Engage them in a conversation as a means to have your questions answered. Jen, again accepting the sincerity of this man's argument, wanted to better understand how we could craft this message in a way that would appeal to him. Unfortunately, sincerity was not driving his anger, bias was. Another, more rational, individual entered the conversation, and we began a conversation about means. This was more substantive, although the first gentleman remained obstinate. As Jen had a discussion with the second gentleman, I continued with the first.

We all have a self-interested reason to challenge those who would challenge the dominant paradigm about the ethical status of nonhuman animals. These protesters were attempting to chip away at this paradigm by examining certain practices that are engendered from our collective assumption that nonhuman animals are merely things to be used for our ends. I emphasized this point, suggesting that it is for this reason that this man is angry, not the protest per se, and it would be progress if he were to admit this. Not wanting to entertain my point, we began a protracted conversation about rights. 

He argued that he had a "right" to privacy, which these protesters were violating. As the police were now on scene and defending the protesters, I rebutted his contention with the simple claim that their legal right to protest trumped his right to privacy (however he was conceiving of it). Failing to defend his argument, he approached the police officers and engaged them. As he left, I said, still emphasizing my central point: "Go and speak with the young lady (one of the protesters), she's very friendly and she will be happy to explain their reasons for being there." 

(As an aside, one of the protesters was masked for prudence sake I'm sure. The angry man took this to suggest cowardice. I wonder, however, given this man's desire to avoid any direct conversations with the people he so enjoyed criticizing from afar, who is the coward?)         

After he left, two other gentlemen joined the ongoing conversation between Jen, myself and the second man. Both were respectful; one was in agreement with the protesters. After a few brief remarks, the protest ended with shouting back and forth between some in the crowd and the protesters themselves, with the police intervening. The comments on both sides were juvenile. 

Regarding offensive demonstrations by 18th-century abolitionists, William Ellery Channing wrote: 

"The great interests of humanity do not lose their claims on us because sometimes injudiciously maintained. We ought to blame extravagance, but we ought to also remember that very often it is the indifference of the many to a good and great work, which hurries the few who cleave to it into excess."

It's difficult to find any fault in the above stated quote. At a deeper level, our judgment of a protest ought to be predicated on the justness (or unjustness) of the action(s) being questioned. Questioning the effectiveness of a protest, while presuming the invalidity of the claims being made, isn't reasonable given that it is engendered from a position of bias. Whatever I have to say about those within the anti-choice movement is predicated upon a fundamental disagreement about their premises. If I challenge their means, I do so in the knowledge that I am actually disagreeing with the argument. 

My issue with some of those who gathered around the protesters is with their deluded assumption of impartiality. Objectivity is a fiction. When we witness something, or hear a message, our viewpoint is situated in a context of belief, experience, and self-interest.

I subjectively judged the protesters' actions. On the grounds that I often challenge PETA, I think that some of their excessive display's may not be efficacious. However, as I accept their underlying premises, I am able to understand why they believe it's necessary to do X and Y. In the case of the anti-choice movement, I disagree with their arguments; however, if I were to agree, I would understand their passion and thus I can grasp their reasons for doing X and Y.

At it's surface, the issue with the protesters was a critique of means, which turns on effectiveness, however construed. More fundamentally though, it is a commentary on our nature I think. We delude ourselves quite effectively. Our assumptions, however baseless, provide a justification for it all. It's an interesting realization.       

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox