Hunters

Tomorrow is the first day of this year's fox hunting season. I live out in the sticks and it's a prettty big deal here.

So, last night, as I was reading about the Banyan Deer in Geoff Mead's new book, "Coming Home to Story" a sharp juxtaposition began to strike me. The Banyan Deer is a Buddhist parable of courage and respect; you can find a shortened version of the story here.

Today, the news is about possible amendments to the fox-hunting bill. It is, it seems, a badly written, almost unenforceable piece of law.  Commentators are saying that we shouldn't waste Parliamentary time on the debate. I remember back to the days when fox hunting was configured along battle-lines of social class and privilege...

And so the debate is shifted from how we conduct ourselves in the world - within both human and 'other-than-human' relationships - to questions of technicality. The last time I used this image on P-D a commentator noted that the conversation, at that time, had simply become one of people telling others what was right or wrong. It seems to me that, dialogically, this kind of advocacy pattern is an easy 'let-off' for all of us.

As long as we can distract ourselves from the fundamental issues all is fine...

But the lesson of The Banyan Deer is to walk straight into the heart of the matter and then stand by your principles.

However, difficult that might be.   

Comments

[Sarah Bird]

I'm in a dilemma about fox-hunting - a family one. My nephew and niece will go hunting on Boxing Day and I'll be at their house. Usually I'd just say "no, I'm not coming, I'm against that" and my relationship with my brother and his family would continue in its usual polarised way - I'm left wing, you're right wing, we never engage with each other (and this makes me sad). I've been pondering what to do to bring about change... even perhaps going to the hunt? How can I do that in a new way? Your post has given me even more food for thought ...

[Steve Marshall]

I wonder what possibilities there are to configure the conversation in a new way. The dialogic position of 'opposer' also invites respect for the other and their view. It asks 'How does this fit?' and brings an awareness of the integrity another's position and the impossibility of fully understanding it.

I've followed the hunt (as you can see...!) and I don't get it... But I think I support the tradition and notice my own confusion as I think about the destruction mankind causes - and I'm part of that... So who am I to criticise? My decision, it seems, is to raise the issue as authentically as I can while respectfully staying in relationship with people who hold a different view....