Divided, we stand united

Just be yourself. Natural is in right now. How often have we heard the pleas not to change your body or your personality to fit others’ expectations? Yet there are still definite trends in our expectations of these things, and definite pressures to conform to those trends. What are we missing?

First, I want to talk about body shape. Women certainly suffer from the pressure to look a certain way (only a lunatic would deny that). But what’s particularly crazy is the changing fashions in what we are pressured to look like. Not just in terms of clothing, hairstyle, having or not having a tan, etc., but in terms of much less transitory things. Relatively recently, we've undergone the shift from skinny straight-up-and-down, to curvy hour-glass. This is insane. Your weight might be under voluntary control to some extent, but your body shape – short of surgery – is not. For this reason among many others it is just not the sort of thing that should be subject to fashions.

Men haven’t got away scot free on this one either. There has been a shift in ideal from lean muscular to more beefy bulked-up muscular, and that is just as damaging and ridiculous as the corresponding shift for women.

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with having ideals. It’s just that any person’s body ideal should only ever be the healthiest version of themselves, not a picture of someone else entirely unlike them.

What is perhaps even more disturbing is that personality suffers from the same fashion trends. In the modern Western world, it is said that a slight hint of mania does you some favours (see e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/business/19entre.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), and that many successful people score a little higher than average on the scales used to test for psychopathy (see e.g. http://fortune.com/2012/10/26/do-psychopaths-make-good-ceos/). There has also been a little flurry recently over how under-rated introverts have become (http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts), and this seems in danger of descending into a competition over whether introversion or extraversion is “better”.

As with body type, the traits at issue here are often not really under an individual’s control. One argument is that it is useful to know that extraverts are more successful in a particular situation, so introverts could to better by “faking” extraversion. That might be useful advice in the short term, but really, why should anybody have to fake anything? We can all benefit from a little pretence at times, for example feigning sympathy rather than admitting we don’t really care about an acquaintance’s misfortunes. But pretending to be someone else is taking this to a whole new, and worrying, level.

What happens to you if you’re not a curvy extravert, or a mildly psychopathic beefcake? You can either fake it (with the help of surgery or drugs if necessary), you can bemoan your own inferiority and spiral into depression and self-loathing, or…you could try a little self-acceptance. This is really hard, given the social pressure to take one of the first two routes, but it is surely obviously better. And the main thing that makes self-acceptance easier is if we all practice a bit of other-acceptance too. People are different. Get over it.

We have been led to expect people to behave in certain ways, and to deride them for not doing so. We want everyone to be confident (by which people usually mean loud), brim full of energy, and at least making an effort to look how you’re supposed to look (control pants, chicken fillets, fake tan, etc.) But why do we think these ways of being are better than others? They might be better on average in certain types of situations, but they are definitely worse in others.

The really tragic thing here is our total inability to celebrate and respect diversity. Our diversity is our great strength as a society. In evolutionary terms, groups that are too uniform don’t last long. This is because organisms that all have the same weakness are vulnerable to entire populations being wiped out at a stroke. There are plenty of evolutionary facts that don’t translate up to the social level, but I think this one does. Any group that has variety of skills, interests, etc. is much more robust than one where everyone is the same. And it’s so much less boring.

When it comes to physical attractiveness, not only is it ok to be attracted to a look that isn't currently the fashionable one, it’s ok (in fact I think the healthiest thing) to not have a “type” at all.

What is interesting about a new person when you meet them is what makes them unique. That can be both physically and in terms of personality (depending on the context of meeting). So take the time to find out who people are, and don’t do this with a check-list of fashionable attributes that you think they ought to have.

There are many ways of dealing with a problem. There are many ways of being attractive. There are many ways of being good company. There are many ways of showing you care. There are many ways of being in charge. There are many ways of being a useful member of a team. Next time someone does one of these things in a non-standard way, look at whether it actually works, not at whether you have always been told that this is the way to do that thing. Practice other-acceptance. And next time you do one of those things in a non-standard way, think similarly. Practice self-acceptance. By accepting and even accentuating our diversity, we can stand together as a more robust, better functioning, and happier society.

I'm just, like, a really spiritual person?

We've all heard people talk like this, weird question-like inflection included. About how spiritual/enlightened they are, how in line with the universe, or deeply connected to nature or whatever. And we've all heard them slammed by the uber-rationalist types who think it’s all hocus pocus, and damaging hocus pocus at that. Who is right? Is there a middle way?

Well I think certain sorts of “spiritual” talk are dangerous but seductive nonsense (which is the worst kind of nonsense). However, I also think that there is a really important role for the language of spirituality to play, and that losing that would be almost as dangerous. I’ll try to explain this a bit more, but first I’ll quickly give some arguments on both sides that I think are both popular and strong.

First the spiritual person: This person sometimes argues that we are too “scientific” these days. Well that doesn't entirely make sense, but the point seems to be something like our having lost touch with nature, with our emotional selves, and with others as emotional beings too. This, I have a lot of time for. It can be phrased in ways that are patronising, weird, or just plain dumb, but the basic idea is that the 21^st century doesn't have time for people (and indeed plants and animals) other than as means to an end in a bullet-pointed life plan. And this rings totally true.

Blaming science isn't fair, but it’s understandable because they are faced with the caricature voice of modern science in the person of the uber-rationalist. More on them later. But this blaming of science is where it can get dangerous. There’s a certain type of spiritual person who thinks modern medicine shouldn't be trusted, and we’d be better off praying, or eating special herbs while muttering magic words, or drinking water (homeopathy). People die from this. They refuse their meds when they’re really ill, and they die. Then there are the anti-vaxxers – people who refuse vaccinations. This is a risk to all of us because, without high immunity in the population, infectious diseases can run riot and kill many, including those who were medically unsuitable for vaccination for whatever reason. The most vulnerable in society die first, and the rest of us follow. How spiritual. Well, there’s lots of praying, anyway.

Another danger is when spirituality comes in almost cult-like guises that appeal to the psychologically and emotionally vulnerable. This can be positive, when it’s a case of a community taking in someone lonely and giving them friendship and new purpose. However, it can result in brainwashing. People encouraged to cut off other support networks, to engage in potentially dangerous practices like fasting and drug taking. These are the kind of spiritual people we should fear. Their spirituality is a mask for control of others.

So, unsurprisingly, there is good-spiritual and bad-spiritual.

Now on to the uber-rationalist: This person tends to argue that science has everything almost all figured out. We should listen to what science tells us, and that’s that. When this is a counter-argument to the homeopath or the anti-vaxxer, I applaud it. And I love science. It’s amazingly good at what it does. But it was never supposed to do everything. It doesn't tell us how to be kind to others, and how and when and whether to be kind to yourself at others’ expense. It doesn't tell you how to feel part of a relationship, or of a community, and how to love your role within that unit. Only being with people can teach you these things.

And this uber-rationalism is dangerous too. People feel that it leaves something out. They are told that science can tell them everything, and when it can’t tell them how to live a good life that makes them happy (the main thing everyone really wants to know) they are disillusioned and turn away from it. As people turn away, they become mistrustful of science, and they look for answers to all their problems elsewhere. Then they become the kind of people who turn down their medication in favour of special water, and who refuse to vaccinate their children.

So, of course, there’s good and bad rationalist/pro-science too.

We need a balance where science is viewed for what it is, and praised for what it can do, without being held up as something that can solve all problems. But then does spiritualism fill the gaps left by science? I don’t think it does, really. Most of the things I mentioned above are the realm of philosophy, politics, and the humanities disciplines. Spiritual answers to the big questions – “Why am I here?”, “How can I face death without fear?”, “What is wrong with me that makes me feel this way?” etc. – all tend to be false. But that doesn't mean they aren't important, because we don’t have any true answers.

And this is the key place I think spiritual language is essential; it allows us to talk about the big questions. And we need to talk. We are natural story-tellers; our lives are narrative. We need to be able to talk out and make sense of everything that happens to us, and how we feel about it, even if it’s only talking to ourselves. Nameless, wordless struggles are the hardest. They can’t be resolved until we have words to rationalise them, and some struggles are too big to do this with conventional language. What we say might be strictly false, and we might be well aware of that, but if it can give us that sense of resolution, it can allow us to move on with our lives.

There’s a positive side to this too of course. Positive experiences can be just as ineffable, from the beauty of a sunset, to an intense shared orgasm, to a lucky coincidence that averts the disaster you've been dreading, to a piece of music that just fits with everything for you. We can still have these joys without words, but sometimes words can help us to enrich our experience of them, or to share them with others.

It might be that one day we will have words for all of the big things that don’t have a hint of the spiritual about them, and maybe then the spiritual will have had its day. But that day won’t be coming any time soon, if ever. In the meantime, we need the language of the spiritual to help us describe the indescribable; to fit the really big things into our relatively small minds so that we can cope. That can enrich our lives in ways that I don’t have words for, other than to say that it’s somehow…spiritual.

Go on, give us a smile!

Ever been told to cheer up or to smile by a random stranger? If you have, chances are you know how horrible this is. If you haven’t, you may not know that it even happens. It does. It happens a lot. And it’s horrible.

There are other variants too. I and people I know have also been told not to look so worried, miserable or scared. These things have been said by acquaintances, people we have just been introduced to, and by strangers passing by in the street. I have even had a man serving me at a supermarket checkout attempt to not hand me my shopping until I “gave him a smile”. As a grown woman. I wanted to make a formal complaint, but didn't in case the complaint was dealt with by the sort of person who says this kind of thing, and would therefore meet with the response that I was being a miserable cow and should lighten up. (Although probably not phrased like that unless their customer complaints department is really bad).

It seems pretty obvious to me that telling a random stranger to rearrange their face to suit you is really rude. I would not stop a guy on the street and tell him to get plastic surgery because he’s no oil painting, and this is the same thing; it’s telling someone that their face isn't currently good enough, and it should look more like you want it to look. This is obviously going to make the person feel pretty inadequate. Being told you are insulting people by having a face that looks that bad can really ruin your day. And you think it must be really bad for a total stranger to have gone out of their way to point it out. I'm so sorry. Should I wear a paper bag so you don’t have to look at this?

It’s particularly deflating when you are actually in a really good mood. Not everyone who is in a good mood wears a big smile all the time. Especially not while walking down a street or sitting in a park or a café or whatever on their own. In fact, grinning in these situations is liable to really freak people out. Ever done it by accident because you remember something really funny? You get stares. It’s not normal (although of course there’s nothing wrong with doing it – just weird to make it compulsory). If you can summon a particularly freaky-looking grin, that can be a good response to these requests for cheer. It’s hard to do on the spot though, and you can never be sure what reaction you will get.

Being told to cheer up when you’re already feeling good is like being told your happy isn't good enough. It’s worthless happy. Your joy is inadequate. Your good day is insufficient. For a stranger, of whose business it is none.

And don’t even get me started on how it feels to hear this when you really are upset or depressed. I strongly suspect that there are people who have been pushed to extreme acts by just this kind of thoughtless on-street bullying disguised as cheeriness. In fact, next time this happens to you, try telling the person that a friend or relative just died. (If you aren't comfortable with that, a dog or cat would do). This should make them feel really bad. It should. It might stop them putting anyone else through this. If it doesn't make them feel really bad, they’re a psychopath.

If it’s so obviously bad, why do people do it? I've heard “women look so much more attractive when they smile” before. Presumably the thought there is that women’s primary purpose is to look attractive for men, and we will be grateful to be informed that we aren't up to scratch so we can put it right at once. Nice.

But men get this kind of crap too. Not as often perhaps, but definitely sometimes, so that can’t be the whole story. The main other defence of it I've heard is that people are happier when they smile. That’s right; it’s for your own good! Someone is being rude to you in order to brighten your day! Of course! Makes sense now….No; actually, still confused.

I really don’t understand why people go around saying this to others. Believing that you have the right to control the facial expressions of others is egotism to the point of madness. If you really want someone to smile, don’t instruct them to do it. Be nice to them. Make the world better. But remember that sometimes the best way to make someone happy, particularly a random stranger on the street, is just to leave them alone to get on with their lives!

You’re a creep. And you’re a weirdo.

What’s the difference between a creep, and a friendly guy with poor social skills?

This is a question that women face on a regular basis. For every misguided approach, you have to decide whether the appropriate response is kindness and pity, or to protect yourself at all costs. And then afterwards, you either have to wonder about whether you did the right thing, or deal with the fall-out when it’s obvious that you didn't.

One side of this argument says that most men are decent but many of them are inept. Some of them have more serious problems: autism, learning difficulties, or other issues that might make the usual social rules very difficult for them to understand or act on. The best approach is to be friendly, assume the best of people, and not be too paranoid that people’s intentions are bad.

The other side of the argument says that you should never take the risk. Most men will interpret any friendliness (hell, even basic politeness) as an indication that you want to sleep with them, and they will act accordingly. Acting accordingly could be anything from groping, to stalking, to full-on assault. Forget being polite. Forget worrying about his feelings. Just get him away from you.

Most people would probably say that a position somewhere between these two is the appropriate one. I wouldn't. I think that the latter position is the only one we can take. It’s horrible, and society needs to change so that it is no longer the appropriate response, but as things stand, it is a reasonable way to think.

Firstly, isn't this really paranoid? Well yes maybe. The vast majority of these types of encounters will mercifully lead to nothing more than an awkward conversation. That in itself shouldn't be underestimated. It might well leave you feeling horrible for a few days, and questioning what you did wrong in the longer term. But admittedly it’s not that bad. But it is also undeniable that occasionally something much worse happens. And if something worse does happen to you or one of your friends, then what? Then you are to blame. You are to blame for encouraging the helpless man, and you are to blame for not listening to your instincts in the first place and getting away. Or so says our victim-blaming society. And therefore so says everyone you know, and so says the voice in your head. So really, if you are wondering whether someone is a creep, I think it’s better to get yourself and your friends out of the situation by whatever means you can. Don’t wait to see which of you he follows home, and exactly what he does when he gets there, so that you can make an informed decision about how he really deserves to be dealt with. Just don’t take the risk.

What about the men? If a man really is unable to follow social rules in this respect, for whatever reason, he is going to face some pretty cruel treatment from women on a regular basis, and that will have a serious impact on his life. If he doesn't mean it, isn't it really unfair? I think this is a disservice to men. It’s a disservice to men who genuinely do have problems understanding social rules, but nonetheless work really hard to act in accordance with them. It’s also a disservice to the image of men within society, as puppets controlled entirely by their sexual urges and unable to engage in any social interactions not mediated by that. Nonetheless, with the best will in the world, nice guys trying hard will come across as creeps sometimes, and I am recommending hurting them. I don’t do so lightly, but I don’t think there’s much choice as things stand. You are risking worse than hurt feelings if you don’t.

Is there a way of making things better so that all this mess doesn't have to happen at all? Unsurprisingly, the solution is straightforward, but the execution of it is incredibly complex. We need widespread social change such that our public spaces are not seen by both genders as meat markets in which men hunt women. Change such that the social rules are not so complicated and contradictory, with one side telling you that you should respect women and treat them as people, and the other saying it’s expected of you to prey on them and see them as fair game who it’s a bit of a laugh to abuse. You should be a feminist. You should be a player. No wonder a lot of guys struggle to sort out how they should behave.

There will always be social interactions that don’t run smoothly. Many of these will result in bruised feelings. Some may result in unintended intimidation. But currently these things are institutionalised as standard incidents, like the ones you learned about in foreign language classes at school. The creepy chat-up is like asking the way to the train station, or booking a hotel room. It’s something you expect to deal with as standard. That’s what needs to change. Until then, protect yourselves, protect your friends, and don’t be ashamed of that. It’s not cowardice, it’s not cruelty, it’s not paranoia. It’s just the only sensible reaction to a bad situation in a world where change is long overdue.

Our survey says: Anyone but those guys!

Just a short post this time, and maybe a bit of a UK-centric one (sorry). This is about voting, given that we are going to vote in the European (and in some places local) elections in a few days time. Should you vote? Yes Why? See below.

It’s often thrown out there (particularly at younger women, or people from any other group that used to be denied the vote) that you should vote because someone fought for your right to do so. Suffragettes suffered so that you could put a cross on a bit of paper, and you can’t even be bothered to do that. My teenage response was always “well I didn't ask them to”. It’s horribly selfish, but there’s something to it. I think the someone-fought-for-your-vote argument is a bit of a red herring. But it’s close to something important.

What really is important is why anyone ever thought it was worth fighting for. What made them think it mattered so much? Quite simply because a vote is power. Individually, it’s not much, but collectively it is. That’s democracy.

Think about a world in which women (or any other group) didn't have the vote. How would that change politics? Well, with no fear of losing votes, government can implement policies that are unfavourable to women. Issues that women care about specifically just don’t even make it onto the table for discussion.

So what happens now, in a time when young people are particularly bored and/or disillusioned (understandably) with politics, and express that by not voting? They lose their voice. Issues that affect young people more than others are not even debated; policies that disadvantage young people can be implemented without fear. Your vote may not feel like much, but it’s the nearest thing you have to a gun to the head of the government. “Do/don’t do this, otherwise you’re finished.”

What about the argument that a single vote is too small to make a difference? Well that’s easily countered; other people vote as well! It only works if enough people vote, but all you can do is get out and vote yourself and trust that others will do the same. The more people that do it, the more others will follow; that’s how collective stuff works.

What about the argument that there’s no-one worth voting for? I sympathise with that one, I really do. I think everyone does. But look at it this way: some parties are more worth voting against than others. So vote for the least bad option, and see it as a vote against all the others. It sort of is. It’s a completely fair answer to “who do you want to win?” to say “anyone but those guys!”

There’s a real danger at the moment that certain smaller, more extremist parties (who shall remain nameless) could have a real shot, given people’s disillusionment. Other people will be voting for them. You can’t stop that. All you can do is vote for someone else; that’s the power you have to neutralise their effect. Even if your vote is only damage limitation in that case, there’s nothing wrong or insignificant about that.

So get to the polls. You are very unlikely to regret it if you do, but you might well seriously regret it if you don’t.

Hideous kinky?

Talking about sex, in particular the eye-openingly wide variety of different things people enjoy, has never been so widely accepted. These days we are freer to express ourselves and indulge what we really want, largely free of prejudice and sanctimonious tutting. From Ann Summers parties, to the culturally ubiquitous Fifty Shades of Grey, we have never had so much freedom. Or so they tell us. But the real picture seems much more complicated than that. My particular concern is that society is now creating a pressure towards particular kinks that is just as pernicious as their earlier condemnation, if not more so. An unwillingness to discuss the topic seems at least partly to blame. I’ll get to that via a couple of other interesting things that seem to be happening at the moment.

The first interesting thing is the conversation in the media and elsewhere about pornography. In particular, there is a concern that young people feel under pressure to behave in the way that porn stars do, because this is their only (or at any rate most graphic) representation of what sex should be like. This is of particular concern in relation to pornography involving violence and humiliation. Feminists have stressed that a generation of young boys is reaching maturity with the belief that women like to be hurt and humiliated, and the conditioned response to be aroused by that happening because that’s the kind of porn they have been using, and it’s habit-forming. [See e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10441027/How-porn-is-rewiring-our-brains.html]

Another interesting thing is a parallel conversation about consent. This is a topic worthy of a whole other blog post (which I may write at some point) but from rape re-enactment porn [see e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22643862] to Robin Thicke singing “I know you want it”, there’s definitely some confusion around the idea.

The final thing to mention before I get to the main point is sex toys. By that I mean not just dildos and vibrators, but the full range of paraphernalia on sale, including various BDSM equipment. Apparently we are buying more of all this than we used to, suggesting perhaps that sex has got a whole lot more…creative…for want of a better word. It seems very likely that this is linked to the more widespread use of harder and more diverse kinds of porn, although I doubt it is as simple as the one causing the other.

So is any of this a problem? The standard liberal line, and one I have always supported, is that consenting adults can do whatever they like as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. However, I now think this is naïve. It is just another way of closing a door on a topic that some people just don’t want to think about. We have moved from “it’s all disgusting, let’s not talk about it” to “it’s all just a bit of fun, let’s not talk about it”. But we desperately need an honest open dialogue. For one thing, some practices can be dangerous (for example erotic asphyxiation, blood play etc.). For another thing, consent can be difficult to establish. Moral dilemmas abound here, as many people within niche groups like the BDSM community have known for a long time. If more extreme practices are becoming more mainstream, these things can’t be brushed under the carpet by the media and the general public.

But my main concern here is changing expectations, potentially resulting in people feeling coerced (not directly, but via social pressure) into trying things that really don’t interest them. Is this really happening? I think it is.

Our cultural stereotype of the ideal partner is usually described by phrases like “an absolute freak in the bedroom”, “likes it dirty”, “a real bad girl/boy” etc. Our image of what is sexy has become largely dominated (no pun intended) by kink. What does this do? Well it creates a standard to live up to, as these images always do.

What if someone (male or female) happens to really enjoy “vanilla” sex. Maybe they even favour the missionary position sometimes; then what? It seems that now we view that person as a prude, as sexually repressed, as stuck in the past, as inadequate, unerotic, in short really really boring. How will they ever attract a partner, let alone keep their interest? Do they even know how to use half the stuff on sale in the average sex shop? If not, do we view them as inadequate and worthy of ridicule? It very much feels like things are moving in that direction.

Worse, what about the kids growing up with this as their main image of what sex should be like? It would be nice to think that they could decide for themselves what they really like or want to try, and leave the rest, but I think the reality is that what you really want (certainly when you are younger, and for many people right through their lives) is to be normal. So people try to do what they think their partner will expect of them, and keep doing it until they like it, or at least get used to it.

What I would really like to know is, if we could somehow remove the influence of the media and peer pressure, what would people really want? It is likely that some would still really want to be tied up, whipped, etc etc, and, if they can find others who want to do that for/with them, that’s totally fine. But also many people would want something far simpler, and far more vanilla. And we seem to be in danger of forgetting that there’s nothing wrong with that either.

The ideal future would be one that is more genuinely accepting of different tastes, rather than one where sexual desires are dictated by fashion. Particularly given fashion’s tendency to become progressively more extreme by a process of one-upmanship. So we need a real honest conversation about sex. Not just one where people are free to admit what they would like to try, but also one where they are free to admit that they wouldn't.

Baa baa black sheep, have you any succulent flesh for me to feast on?

As you might have guessed from the title, this is a post about vegetarianism. But it is also about the way of thinking that allows most people to go from “aww cute little lambies!” to “mmm, roast lamb” without missing a beat. It’s a way of thinking I believe I've seen elsewhere and no good comes of it, so it’s worth a closer look. Vegetarianism is just one example; an important one I think.

I became a vegetarian for environmental reasons (global warming, better energy efficiency of growing arable crops versus grazing animals etc). I didn't think there was actually anything wrong with killing and eating animals in principle, and I had no particular emotional reaction to the idea of eating meat; it just seemed rationally better not to.

I had always wondered why I wasn't repulsed by the idea of eating meat; why we all aren't. There must be a moment in childhood when you find out what meat is, and it seems like that should be pretty traumatic and put you off for life. Yet I remember no such moment, and other people I have talked to mostly don’t either. I wondered whether, when I stopped eating meat, I would develop an emotional disgust-response to the idea of it. And I did. It’s why I think that happened that’s interesting, so enough of the autobiographical wittering, and let’s look at that.

When we are doing something that isn't really right, I think the subconscious reasoning goes something like “I do this, and I'm not a bad/stupid/thoughtless person, so it can’t be a bad/stupid/thoughtless thing to do”. Sometimes you hear people say things like this out loud. I've met people who think “well I've always eaten meat” is a justification of some sort, and I'm sure you have too. Once you stop doing the thing (eating meat in this case), that line of thought is cut off. Then you can think about the thing itself, without your self-image getting in the way. If there’s one thing that clouds all of our judgement, it’s self-image.

I said this applies to things other than vegetarianism, so what do I have in mind? One example is abusive relationships. There’s a tendency to think something like “I wouldn't get taken advantage of because I'm a strong and smart person, so given that I'm in this relationship, it can’t be one in which I'm being taken advantage of”. And then you don’t leave. (Of course I'm not implying that strong and smart people don’t get into abusive relationships. Learning that they do sometimes can be the way to get out without destroying your self-image).

I have seen the same reasoning applied to drunk driving. An acquaintance off her face on chardonnay was giving a group of people a lift home. Someone suggested she was in no fit state, but she told us that she doesn't drink much because of her religion. Presumably the thinking was “I don’t drink much because I'm not that sort of person, so I can’t be drunk”. Again, self-image (and admittedly booze too in this case) gets in the way of seeing what is actually going wrong.

This thought pattern is a kind of what George Orwell called doublethink. You can learn to live with the tension between believing something to be wrong (or at least having a nagging half-conscious sense that it is) and explicitly denying it. In this case, the trick is pulled off because of the way self-image gets in the way. We don’t even need an Orwellian oppressive regime to tell us what to think; we can do doublethink all by ourselves. It seems possible that learning to think in this way could leave us open to manipulation by a regime that relies on such contradictions, à la 1984, but I’ll leave that thought as a vague suggestion here. The examples of self-manipulation in the cases of abusive relationships and drink driving should be enough to show that this way of thinking can be dangerous.

Is there a way to stop ourselves thinking this way? Probably not entirely, since it seems to be something we take to so naturally. But being aware of that fact by itself arms us against it to some extent. Knowledge is power (over yourself, as much as over others).

To close, I want to bring this back to vegetarianism. What I have said would make sense of the idea of initiatives that challenge people to go veggie for a month just to try it. You don’t just learn what other options you have to eat, you erode that image of yourself as a meat-eater, making it harder to think “I eat meat, so it can’t be bad”. Why not push yourself further? Try reflecting on the fact that you are munching on dead stuff – “mmm, tasty corpses!” – and see if your emotions towards meat change. And if they are changed so easily, why should your new thoughts be any less valid than the old? If you eat meat just because it doesn't feel like a bad thing to do, or because you've always done it, I dare you to try it and see what happens.

Then you can enjoy watching those spring lambs playing in the fields without getting hungry. If you look at them in the right way, they just aren't food!