i think that the "acceptance" stage of grief is difficult when it comes to suffering and deaths that are still ongoing, you know? it's one thing to accept the past. it's another to accept pain that is continuing now and potentially into the future.
i am glad to hear this though, and it resonates with me: "I would say, to be fair, that even for most animal activists, as humans, we still do manage to put it aside sufficiently to feel some happiness and joy and lots of good things. I don’t know how, and I’m not sure it’s something I’m proud of, but I don’t think about the suffering all the time. I just don’t. I put it somewhere."
i think that, much like the fact that the five stages of grieving don't happen in sequence, it's also possible to experience multiple conflicting emotions sometimes simultaneously. the joy of love in our life at the same time as the pain of all the death and suffering.
i'm glad you experience the joy you do AND that you are motivated to help end suffering for all sentient beings.
Good post. Thanks Mariann. Yes, one problem with the popular grief model is precisely that acceptance is the opposite of action. The more I think about these issues, the more I realise that focusing on human emotions can become a distraction. How we feel about the suffering of farmed animals isn't the issue; the suffering itself is an objective fact (like avoidable human suffering) and we have a moral obligation to end it.
In Psych 101, my teacher called the third stage “bargaining with God.” Perhaps this could also apply to animals. American society, and the whole globalized world, was founded upon very flawed Christian ideals—long before we knew we all evolved from the same species billions of years ago—in which humans were placed above all other beings on the scale of moral concern. Even for those of us who aren’t religious today, that sense of superiority never left, so we’re bargaining with our own animal conscience to ignore the pain we inflict on other animals.
dear mariann,
thank you for sharing as always!
i think that the "acceptance" stage of grief is difficult when it comes to suffering and deaths that are still ongoing, you know? it's one thing to accept the past. it's another to accept pain that is continuing now and potentially into the future.
i am glad to hear this though, and it resonates with me: "I would say, to be fair, that even for most animal activists, as humans, we still do manage to put it aside sufficiently to feel some happiness and joy and lots of good things. I don’t know how, and I’m not sure it’s something I’m proud of, but I don’t think about the suffering all the time. I just don’t. I put it somewhere."
i think that, much like the fact that the five stages of grieving don't happen in sequence, it's also possible to experience multiple conflicting emotions sometimes simultaneously. the joy of love in our life at the same time as the pain of all the death and suffering.
i'm glad you experience the joy you do AND that you are motivated to help end suffering for all sentient beings.
thank you for sharing!
love
myq
Good post. Thanks Mariann. Yes, one problem with the popular grief model is precisely that acceptance is the opposite of action. The more I think about these issues, the more I realise that focusing on human emotions can become a distraction. How we feel about the suffering of farmed animals isn't the issue; the suffering itself is an objective fact (like avoidable human suffering) and we have a moral obligation to end it.
In Psych 101, my teacher called the third stage “bargaining with God.” Perhaps this could also apply to animals. American society, and the whole globalized world, was founded upon very flawed Christian ideals—long before we knew we all evolved from the same species billions of years ago—in which humans were placed above all other beings on the scale of moral concern. Even for those of us who aren’t religious today, that sense of superiority never left, so we’re bargaining with our own animal conscience to ignore the pain we inflict on other animals.
🤗🤗🤗