There seem to be two distinct categories of vegan advocacy methods, one logical and the other more intuitive. The first is a direct Q&A, emphasizing critical thinking, clarifying arguments and identifying logical fallacies. The second is more discursive, nonjudgmental, and personal. The first is transactional and the second is relational; in the first, persuasive argument is paramount, and the second, the relationship is more important.

Books like Eat like you Care, and comics like Vegan Sidekick are very much of the first type. Prof. Francione’s book is a series of short chapters intended to provide answers to each of the many questions and objections raised by non-vegans. Vegan Sidekick, much beloved by his fans, is also a prolific series of cartoons about non-vegan fallacies, logical inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

The other method, the intuitive type, is demonstrated by psychologist Melanie Joy. Dr. Joy talks about explanatory constructs and attempts to reveal deep psychological structures in thinking. Never does she talk about logical fallacies. Another author who might also fall in this category is Will Tuttle. Less science, and more spiritual and anthropological than Joy, Dr. Tuttle’s approach traces our human inheritance of violent social structures and guides us towards a more peaceful way of being.

Although I have set these up as two different types of advocacy, radically opposed, there are approaches that merge the two. For example, Prof. Sherry Colb’s book Mind if I order the Cheeseburger takes 13 non-vegan objections at face value and answers them with patience and empathy. Colleen Patrick-Goodreau’s approach is also very similar to Sherry Colb’s. The difference between the first argumentative method and the second explanatory method is not one of content but the delivery of the message, and perhaps more important, how the message is perceived by the audience.

But even gentler approaches like Colb’s are not as radical as the framework of nonviolent communication as described by Marshall Rosenberg. As Rosenberg’s method is essentially based on communications experience and scholarship, it has much in common with Joy’s approach. But looking at Joy’s sources for presentation linked above, I can see that NVC is more radical still.

Here are some examples of the ways in which the teachings of nonviolent communication (NVC) are radically different from the way many advocate for veganism.

1. Do not judge non-vegans as wrong

Even at the very outset I find myself baffled. How often have we said that it veganism is the right way? That it is wrong to be a non-vegan? How on earth can we do vegan advocacy without making non-veganism ‘wrong’?



There are a whole slew of internet memes for judging animal use as morally wrong. For example:

Aside from that there are the ubiquitous virulent judgments on social media. For example, this one on the people who attend or take part in the rodeo:

Avoiding judgments is an essential feature of NVC. Our judgments of non-vegans are apparent when we diagnose their resistance to going vegan. Not just obvious judgments as in the screenshot, but even subtle judgments, like saying that a non-vegan is ‘making excuses’ when they might say they have health concerns about going vegan.

So why is wrong to judge non-vegans? Is there a difference between judging the doer vs. the deed? As in, loving the person but hating that they contribute to animal cruelty or use? Actually NVC does not seem to differentiate between the person and the action when it comes to judgment and evaluation. According to NVC, it is not useful to judge either one. When we judge, evaluate, diagnose, label or criticize, we are not connecting with the other person at that moment, what they are feeling or thinking. So judgments are things that interrupt the connection between people. Note that according to NVC, it is not only the negative judgments that are blocks to connection and empathy, positive judgments also act in a similar way.



It’s not that Marshall was against discernment, but he advised specifically against moralistic judgments, which is what we tend to do in vegan advocacy.

“I’m all for judgments. I don’t think we could survive very long without them. We judge which foods will give us what our bodies need. We judge which actions are going to get our needs met. But I differentiate between life-serving judgments, which are about meeting our needs, and moralistic judgments that imply rightness or wrongness.”

So how do we talk to someone, a non-vegan, without judging them or what they do? Marshall says that we begin by empathically connecting with the person to find their feelings and needs for doing what they do. Then we talk about how the actions are making us feel (afraid, angry, sad) and how they are not meeting our needs for justice and safety.

It is important here not to confuse value judgments and moralistic judgments. All of us make value judgments as to the qualities we value in life; for example, we might value honesty, freedom, or peace. Value judgments reflect our beliefs of how life can best be served. We make moralistic judgments of people and behaviors that fail to support our value judgments; for example, “Violence is bad. People who kill others are evil.” Had we been raised speaking a language that facilitated the expression of compassion, we would have learned to articulate our needs and values directly, rather than to insinuate wrongness when they have not been met. For example, instead of “Violence is bad,” we might say instead, “I am fearful of the use of violence to resolve conflicts; I value the resolution of human conflicts through other means.” (Nonviolent Communication, p 17)

Does this sound too far-fetched to be accomplished? When Marshall recounts NVC conversations with felons incarcerated for repeated child molestation, and understands their feelings and needs, then I have to say that it is not too far-fetched to empathically connect with a non-vegan. (Speak Peace page 101–102; see below, #5).

Judgments are said to be a reflection of unmet needs of one’s own.

“All moralistic judgments, whether positive or negative, are tragic expressions of unmet needs.”

When we have a judgment of a non-vegan, what might the unmet need be? Perhaps we need to be understood or to understand, or maybe we need to be effective in our advocacy. An important and relevant need is shared-world or shared-reality. Our feelings of dread, outrage, and profound disappointment are signals that we do not share the same reality as the rest of the world.

NVC’s critical point is that the judgments get in the way of effective advocacy and getting in touch with our own feelings and needs is conducive to effective communication.

2. Do not focus on winning the argument, or having non-vegans lose the argument

I have to admit that despite extensive education in the sciences and other areas I did not know all my logical fallacies until I came to vegan advocacy. I have now begun to think that the core of vegan advocacy is identifying and exposing logical fallacies.