Compassionate Communication for the Planet: Asking People to Pick Up Their Butts

Posted on May 11, 2011 by zoeweil

Ever since I was in high school, if I saw someone throw their cigarette on the ground, I responded. Sometimes I would pick it up and hand it back to them and say, “Excuse me, you dropped this.” Sometimes I would honk if I was behind someone who threw their butt out the window. (And once, stopped as we were at a red light in Philadelphia, the driver got out, picked it up, ran to my car, and apologized to me.)

I was recently in Florida, and I saw a man throw his butt on the sandy ground at the hotel before ascending the steps to the outdoor bar. I called out to him saying, “Excuse me, would you mind picking up your cigarette butt and throwing it in the trash?”

He was miffed, but he walked over and bent to pick it up, commenting that he wasn’t the only one (there were several butts on the ground). I said I knew, but that I’d seen him throw his on the ground. He got very testy and leaned towards me with the butt at my face saying, sarcastically, that he’d love to do that for me.

I walked away, shakily, wondering if my efforts had done any good.

I thought about Kim Korona, one of the graduates at the Institute for Humane Education who speaks so kindly and compassionately to people. I wondered if she would have spoken to this man, and if so what she would have said, and what his response would have been.

I reflected upon my goal. Truth be told, for years my comments stemmed more from my irritation that smokers don’t consider throwing their butts on the ground to be littering (and this made me mad), than from a sincere desire to use the wisest, most effective means to keep the planet from being trashed. I could just remove the butts myself, if my goal was simply to keep that inch of ground from being littered. But my comments were meant to wrong, and perhaps embarrass, the person. But now my motivation is deeper. I’m trying, in my own way, to be a humane educator all the time, and this means attempting to use my best communication skills to convey the importance of treating ourselves, each other, other species, and the environment with respect. My hope is that in speaking to someone, he or she will be less likely to litter, more likely to consider the consequences of their choices. Perhaps this is naïve, but I feel like I have to try, and now I make every effort not to let my irritation seep into my voice and comments.

What, if anything, would you have said or done? What is MOGO (most good) in this situation?

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: citizen activism, compassionate communication, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , | Comments Off

Words Do Hurt…And Help

Posted on April 11, 2011 by zoeweil

There are two powerful and important videos circulating on YouTube produced by youth. The first is a brave and moving film from a vulnerable 8th grader who confronts her bullying by sharing it with us with a plea for awareness that words hurt:


The second is a beautiful, powerful, and loving response from a 20-year-old who reaches out:

What’s revealed in these two, short videos is the power of words to both harm and heal and the power of communicating to make a difference. As these films go viral, which I’m sure they will, I expect that we’ll begin to see the power of this medium not simply to inform, but to transform, in ways that our bullying prevention programs have yet to accomplish.

Thanks Alye and Erika.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind: Raising a Humane Child in Challenging Times
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: changemakers, compassion, compassionate communication, courage, integrity, youth activism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

The Scourge of Hateful Commentary – The Call to Be Kind

Posted on January 26, 2011 by zoeweil

Yesterday, Yahoo! News placed an excerpt from my book, Most Good, Least Harm, (that had been posted awhile earlier by Simon & Schuster under the title “10 Easy Ways to Become a Better Person”) on their front page. I found this out when my and the Institute for Humane Education’s websites got a surprisingly large number of hits, and when I started receiving hate mail.

The excerpt was from the end of Most Good, Least Harm in a section which offered a short summation about how to make choices that do the most good and least harm to oneself, other people, animals and the environment. The section was titled, “10 Principles for MOGO Living,” (MOGO being short for doing the most good and the least harm).

Personally, I would never have chosen the new title, “10 Easy Ways to Become a Better Person” for a number of reasons. First, I don’t teach about being a better person; I teach about making choices that do more good and less harm to ourselves and others. Second, the 10 principles are about choices that create a better world rather than better people. But despite the fact that the title could have been off-putting for a list about making MOGO choices, it was hard to believe the staggering outpouring of vitriol that followed. I have never been called so many names before, by people who know nothing about me other than from a short excerpt, taken out of context and given a misleading title, from a book I wrote that is meant to offer people ways to make their lives more meaningful while contributing to a healthier, more just, and more humane world.

The irony was that I’d already written a post for today. It was a short piece with links to several newspaper articles, one of which was the Wall Street Journal’s recent excerpt of Amy Chua’s new book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, which elicited massive amounts of hate mail itself. I’d read that excerpt, and I, too, felt hostile toward Amy Chua. Now I know better than to judge Amy Chua by an excerpt. I pulled my blog post and wrote this instead.

It can be satisfying to vent our anger, especially from the safety of our computer keyboards, but it is damaging, not just to the recipients of our anger, but to all of us. When we fail to dig into information deeply and explore thoroughly, and when our discourse becomes crass and cruel, we close doors to understanding and learning.

I’ve learned from this experience to be ever more careful about my responses to what I read in the news, and to try, ever more diligently, to be kind.

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm and Above All, Be Kind

Like our blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Filed under: accurate information, compassion, compassionate communication, integrity, MOGO (Most Good), perspective, values | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

John Mackey, Whole Foods & Boycotts, Part 2

Posted on September 9, 2009 by zoeweil

I’ve received a bunch of comments on my blog post about the Whole Foods boycott. Most are positive. But one commenter wrote this:

“How can a blog called ‘Humane Connection’ defend a CEO who has bragged about cutting his healthcare benefits and is trying to deny healthcare to millions of Americans? There’s nothing humane about this particular posting.”

I wouldn’t say that I defended John Mackey. Rather, I opposed an organized boycott of Whole Foods based solely on John Mackey’s personal opinion about health care reform. I imagine that if we were to base our shopping choices on the opinions of the CEOs of the companies who run the stores we frequent, we would find ourselves with few places to shop. It’s hard to believe that there wouldn ’t be big areas of disagreement on issues important to us. Which is why I reiterate that the purpose of organized boycotts is to oppose policies and practices of corporations, not opinions of its leaders. If the person who commented is boycotting Whole Foods to influence its policies, more power to him; but that, in my opinion, should be the only reason for organized boycotts. By all means, support those companies you like and withhold your support from those you don’t, but be wise about promoting organized boycotts.

Many years ago, a friend of mine contacted John Mackey repeatedly because Whole Foods was selling foods that were the products of extreme animal cruelty. She was persistent. And John Mackey eventually took her up on her call to learn about the effects of his food choices, both personally and as a grocery CEO. Mackey then became vegan and changed some of his store policies (against external pressures) so that the animal products sold in Whole Foods would be more humanely raised.

All those people who want to influence Mackey to reconsider his views on health care reform, please do so. Be polite and persistent and offer your best arguments. And listen to his perspective, too. Not just what others say he believes, but rather what he himself has written or been accurately quoted as saying.

~ Zoe

Image courtesy of ilovemypit via Creative Commons.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: citizen activism, compassionate communication, MOGO (Most Good), systemic change | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Want Real Communication? Leave Your Agendas Behind

Posted on August 5, 2009 by zoeweil

During the communication sessions during our residency week at the Institute for Humane Education we do an activity called “Spectrum.” Participants find themselves on a linear spectrum of choices that they make in relation to animal protection, human rights/social justice, environmental preservation, and consumerism. After doing the spectrum four times around these separate issues areas, people begin to notice something: often, an individual will feel a wee bit righteous about their great choices in relation to “their issue,” but suddenly find themselves making less compassionate and less intentional choices around an issue that deeply concerns someone else, but with which they are not personally engaged.

When we do this activity we ask people where they stood on the spectrum a decade earlier, and more often than not the person was making less humane choices. When I ask why they moved along the spectrum, it’s never because someone was hostile or judgmental toward them. Usually, they learned something, read a book, saw a film, or were inspired by a friend, colleague, teacher or family member.

Initially, this activity can make people feel exposed and vulnerable, but in a safe learning community, this vulnerability usually dissipates and along with it any sense of judgmentalness. That’s when Joanne comes in. “Joanne” is my fictional neighbor, a composite of several people I know in rural Maine who live simply, largely out of necessity. On the consumerism scale, Joanne lives lightly. But for those members of our group who are especially concerned with animal protection, Joanne is on the other end of the spectrum. Her family hunts, fishes, and breeds dogs who live outside year round.

I let the group know I’m going to get Joanne, who has graciously agreed to come talk to them and answer their questions. Before I step out I tell them to try to learn from Joanne, to treat her respectfully, and to build a bridge where there might seem like a chasm of separation. When I come back in, dressed in different clothes, I am Joanne.

Our group is usually respectful, but Joanne can tell when questions are really just opportunities to teach her what’s good and bad, right and wrong. Some are genuinely curious about Joanne, her family, and her lifestyle, while others really just want to change her opinions. Joanne, like all of us, knows the difference, even with the most well chosen, friendly words.

Khalif Williams, our executive director at the Institute for Humane Education, watched the activity unfold and reminded us of something so very important. We need to leave our agendas behind for real communication and understanding to happen. We need to focus on the relationship we can forge with someone, not on teaching them what we know or trying to make them be like us. When true relationships develop, so does true learning and the possibility that we can all grow and change in positive ways.

~ Zoe

Zoe’s busy with Residency this week, so this is a repost, originally posted 8/25/08.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: compassionate communication, MOGO (Most Good), positive choices | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Racism of the Blind

Posted on August 3, 2009 by zoeweil

I’ve often wondered what racism looks like if you’re blind.  In societies in which the color of our skin is still a powerful force in the way we are perceived and treated — our privileges and opportunities as well as our obstacles and challenges — what would happen if we could not perceive color?  Would we still find ways to create “us and thems ”?  Would some other factor emerge that we would use to separate ourselves?  Sadly, I think the answer is yes, as we can witness in cultures in which skin, hair, and eye color are consistently the same, while religion, ethnicity or class takes the place of color in our hierarchy of acceptance or rejection, inclusion or trepidation.

We find a dozen ways to create thems, carrying our agendas, our fear, and our sense of rightness and righteousness into the wider world.   Those outside our circles — however we come to define them — become other, the enemy.  This summer at our residency training, one of our students shared this quote: “An enemy is someone whose story has not yet been heard.”

Can we listen, like those who are blind, instead of perceiving what we set out to see with our eyes?  The final line of my favorite e.e.cummings poem is this: “Now the ears of my ears awake; now the eyes of my eyes are open.” The eyes of our eyes perceive a greater truth than the narrow vision we’re taught to accept as real or important, and the ears of our ears allow us to hear our perceived enemy, so that she may become our friend.

~ Zoe

Zoe’s busy with Residency this week, so this is a repost, originally posted 9/4/08.

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: compassionate communication, discrimination, third side thinking | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off

Hostility Toward Good: Don’t Criticize a Good Deed — Go Do One

Posted on June 24, 2009 by zoeweil

David Ashby, a 14-year-old boy from Orlando, Florida, is walking from his home to Washington, D.C. to raise awareness about homeless children. You can read about this remarkable young man here. Then read the comments. They begin with such venom and vitriol, it’s hard to imagine that the authors of these criticisms read the same article I did — about a boy who cares enough to dedicate his summer to walking 1,100 (southern!) miles, without knowing where he’ll sleep or what he’ll eat each day. When I read such comments I always feel so sad and frustrated, but I am not surprised by them. Unfortunately, finding fault with good deeds is all too common. People who work to protect animals are often criticized by others for “not caring about people” or “wasting time on animals.” People who give money, rather than food, to those who are homeless are criticized for aiding and abetting their potential cigarette, alcohol or drug habits. Recently, brilliant and inspiring humane educator Christopher Greenslate , who has changed the lives of his high school students and helped them to become effective and engaged change agents, was criticized for sending his students a ‘bad message’ because of his tattoos and piercings.

Sometimes our critiques are important, as in the case with the well thought-out commentary on cause marketing I mentioned in a previous post. They help us make wiser, more efficacious choices about how to make a difference. But too often they are just mean-spirited, as in these few comments about David Ashby. One of the criticisms of David is that he could do more for homeless children by getting a summer job and donating his earnings directly to them. But I don’t believe this is true. Were he to work all summer and donate his earnings to the homeless he would do something good, certainly, but the contribution would be minor compared to what might ensue from his walk. Gaining media attention for the travesty of child homelessness in the richest nation on earth has the potential to do so much more than a summer job ever could. It has the potential to influence changes in systems that perpetuate homelessness among children. Thank goodness for kids like David. Thank goodness that they think of creative ways to draw attention to pervasive problems so that we can solve them at their roots.

How much easier to criticize others than to plunge into good work ourselves. If ever you find yourself ready to criticize a good deed, go do a good deed instead. Take that energy and make a positive difference.

~ Zoe

Filed under: changemakers, citizen activism, compassionate communication, human rights | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

“Obama the Socialist”? It’s Time to Stop Name-Calling

Posted on June 19, 2009 by zoeweil

I have a friend who identifies himself as a libertarian-leaning Republican. We engaged in many heated debates during the election season, and he’s not happy with Obama’s presidency thus far. He keeps calling Obama a socialist. And I keep asking him to quit it with the name-calling. Name-calling is knee jerk. It stops conversations and limits our capacity to work together and create solutions. And it’s childish, too. President Obama is called a socialist because he wants to prevent our economy from collapsing into a depression and thus is investing taxpayer money into what has previously been privately funded. It’s legitimate to challenge this, and we should do so. But name-calling isn’t a challenge, and it doesn’t further answers. It’s small-minded, and carries no vision. President Obama is called a socialist because he wants to provide health insurance to all Americans. It’s legitimate to challenge health care in the U.S., too. Our health care system is replete with so many problems, and whether health care is a right is a topic that should be debated, but we get nowhere when we hurl a charged expletive and take sides based on a word. Obama is called a socialist often simply because he’s progressive-minded. Or he’s called a socialist because it’s a bad name to many, and some people have gotten on the bad-name-bandwagon because they don’t like Obama.

Next time you hear any name-calling, challenge it. Ask the name-callers questions. Challenge them to think more deeply and to come up with better answers to the actions they’re criticizing. Do it without judgment or hostility. Do it as a humane educator eliciting critical and creative thinking.

~ Zoe

Image courtesy of purpleslog via Creative Commons.

Filed under: compassionate communication, critical thinking, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

What is MOGO Communication?

Posted on March 25, 2009 by zoeweil

I find it very challenging to consistently communicate effectively and non-judgmentally about those issues that passionately concern me. In a recent blog post I wrote about my friend who didn’t want me to say anything about her McDonald’s lunch (not that I was going to); but, what if I had such great communication skills that I could share information with people that they did want, even though they might not realize it? What if, without judgment, I could provide useful information and hopefully some inspiration that would be welcomed?

I became a humane educator largely because it is such an energizing and heartening form of changemaking. Usually, students are eager for information about the challenges we face and the effects of their choices in meeting those challenges. But talking to friends and family is different, and I generally avoid bringing up issues that might lead to defensiveness or discomfort.

But I don’t think this is a good solution. I think I can do better. And I think the answer lies in recognizing the subtle impact of my comments and words; listening more than I speak; asking questions because I want to learn from the other person; and letting go of any agenda to change someone else. This, I think, would representMOGO communication.

~ Zoe

Filed under: compassionate communication, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Lipstick on a Pig

Posted on September 11, 2008 by zoeweil

At the risk of adding yet another comment on the endless, ridiculous commentary on Barack Obama’s remark about John McCain’s economic policies (that his policies, no matter how he tried to recast them, amounted to putting lipstick on a pig; the policies were still a pig), I feel compelled to say this:

In a Washington Post editorial we read: “Mr. Obama’s supposedly offending remark was not only not offensive — it also was not directed at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.” Indeed, Obama’s comment was not offensive to Governor Palin, but it was – hear me out – offensive to pigs, even though pigs are not capable of taking offense to human language.

The expression “putting lipstick on a pig,” like so many expressions (“She’s a cow,” “What a dog,” “He’s chicken,” “She’s a weasel,” among countless other pig expressions), subtly perpetuates our perception and treatment of animals. These expressions subconsciously influence how we view other species: as lazy, stupid, worthless, cowardly, untrustworthy, fat, ugly, etc. They lead us to believe that these animals are not worthy of consideration, protection, or kindness. They are ours to use and exploit because they are, after all, just animals.

This is not a criticism of Obama – we all use these expressions; they are embedded in our language and culture. But it’s worth asking, in all the hoopla that has surrounded Obama’s remark, whether, although it was utterly innocuous in relation to Sarah Palin, it was really harmless after all. Given that hundreds of millions of pigs are tortured, and I use that word intentionally, in our modern agricultural systems, perhaps we might want to find new ways of saying what we mean without perpetuating the oppression of other sentient species.

~ Zoe

Filed under: animal protection, compassionate communication, language | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 426 other followers