Effective Images in Advocacy: Do We Know What Works?
A few months ago a friend posted an article on Facebook about the role that eye contact plays in the development of our feelings of love, specifically between adult humans. The article, and the idea in general, made me wonder if it could guide us, as activists, toward being more effective at reaching people, at activating their natural compassion for animals into action, into motivating them to go vegan. Can we get people to bond with animals through our choice of images?
When Mary asked me for photos to use in her pamphlet, she wanted eye contact. Many people are drawn to those kinds of pictures, and humans specifically change their behavior when they are watched, even if it is fake eyes “watching” them. So perhaps implanting the image in their mind of these animals watching (making eye contact) could impact their behavior and influence them to do the right thing? If eye contact with another species can also help people bond with those animals, feel love for them, perhaps that will also motivate them.
Activists have long questioned the best type of image for activism. The graphic pictures are horrifying, but they are the reality, they are the truth of captive animals. As with photojournalists covering the difficult reality of war, it’s not pretty, but it also can’t be denied. People see those pictures and they don’t want anything to do with it.
This can backfire on activists, when the gruesome pictures cause people to turn away from the message entirely. Yet many people assert that the reason their minds were opened to the issues of animal exploitation was through gruesome images. These are also high-drama images, and high-drama elicits strong reactions, which can lead to action in the part of the viewers. We already know that emotions play an important role in our decisions.
Others champion the use of images showing the animals and their potential lives if they were free of exploitation (Lee Hall talks about this in Chapter 9 of “On Their Own Terms“). There is solid logic here too – by portraying animals in situations of abuse, you are situating the animals as victims in the viewers mind, and while the viewers are likely to be horrified, these types of pictures don’t suggest an alternative. On the other hand if you portray animals living on their own terms, the viewer will automatically compare the “should be” (wild and free) image to the “actual” (captive and exploited) reality (even without gory pictures in hand) and see both what is wrong and what should be. However it is not especially easy to do this with all species of farmed animals (chickens are an exception, of course); to be clear, Lee Hall’s focus was advocacy for wild animals, it is my inclination to see if the visual idea of “on their own terms” can be applied to rescued farmed animals.
I have found with the pictures I take at the sanctuary that vegans adore seeing the animals doing something that displays their personality, their curiosity, and perhaps their independence, or their “themness”. A horse picking up a brush from the floor. A cow checking out a goose. A goat jumping from hay bale to hay bale. A rooster on the lookout for predators as his hens nibble on food nearby. A pig carrying a rake over to the mud puddle. These are the pictures that get the most love from vegans. Are those pictures appealing specifically to vegans, I wonder?
Some believe (based on Vegan Outreach’s experience, I believe) that the juxtaposition of graphic and non-graphic pictures is most effective. Whether it is most effective or not, it is certainly the most common.
Yet there is almost no data available that tells us which type of image is most effective in reaching people. Most activists make their decision based on their own preference, and assume that what works for them is universal.
I would be interested in actual data. My focus (no pun intended) is on the sanctuary animals, but within the non-graphic images, knowing which type were more effective would inform the choices I make in my annual Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary calendar, and in the images I use on the blogs I contribute to.
Yet even if we had these numbers, they would be general numbers. Knowing our audience is perhaps more important. Humans are complicated creatures, so while trends and averages are helpful, going against the grain isn’t necessarily a waste of time or the wrong decision.
In conclusion: we don’t have a clue! But a lack of data doesn’t preclude thinking about our choice of images, and making strategic decisions. We can predict reactions, if not effectiveness, and if we know which reaction we want to elicit, it will help drive our decisions.
What are your thoughts? Your own preferences? What images impact you the most, and has that changed as you have learned more about the issues, and more about the animals themselves? What is your experience with different types of images in your own activism?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
My feeling is that people who are not already vegans will turn away from the horrifying imagine before engaging with text; if the photo/animal is cute, they might stay and absorb some information.
I think, like me, every vegan can remember that one really graphic picture which opened their eyes to true suffering and started them on the path of change. But, maybe like me, they too can remember some engaging non-violent pictures that reminded them why they do it. All it takes is one beautiful picture of a rescue animal, a wild animal, a domestic animal, to keep me in this fight.
Excellent post.
I also find that many, if not most, veg*ans who made their choices based on ethical factors tend to believe what worked for them will work for everyone else if they insist long enough. But people, as you say, are complicated. What makes one person feel compassion may make another feel a host of other emotions which may or may not even be directed at the intended target.
Both types of images are effective, depending on who is viewing them. Since there is no way to ascertain who the viewers will be, I think mixing them is a good strategy, although, I suspect, viewers who respond in undesirable ways to graphic images will skip the content and move on in spite of the positive photographs.
Regarding positive images, I find the ones whose subjects face the camera to be the most attractive because they give viewers a glimpse of the “who” behind the eyes looking back at them. Just as much, I like images of animals (domesticated or wild) engaging in something that portrays the joy of freedom. For instance, I framed the photo you took of piggies running full tilt at the sanctuary a couple of years back. It’s been hanging in my living room and has been the subject of many positive comments, many of which have to do with surprise at the fact that piggies can (or would want to) run like that. People are so used to seeing them standing in place that catching a glimpse of them in motion, looking like they’re having the time of their lives, makes them do a double take. In short, images of animals at play or running like mad just for the joy of it, for me, at least, create a connection, an awareness that they, like us, want the same simple things from life.
Before I was vegan, back when I was a half-assed vegetarian, I’d get mail from PETA that always showed horrific images of animals being tortured. I remember thinking it was too much to look at and I’d toss it away (I recycle them now). I simply didn’t want to know. Once I started to really learn about vegetarianism and then made the transition to veganism, I wanted to know more about the suffering we humans cause to all non-human animals. So, I started to look at those photos …
Now that I’m hyper aware of the suffering our daily actions cause the non-human residents of our planet, I no longer feel that I need to look at every awful video and photo. I’m converted! I agree with Marina’s comment about positive images – I love your photo of Tally running and Malcolm leaping across hay bales and piggies running. I love witnessing those actions whenever I’m at the sanctuary. I also agree that the juxtaposition of the positive and negative images works well. I’ve seen a lot of those over the years and they send a strong message.
Great, thoughtful post, as always, Deb.
Great comments everyone! Lots of food for thought. It’s interesting (but expected!) that even with just four comments so far, we have a range of opinions and experiences. It is part of why I would love to see some data that somehow measures effectiveness of different images, if that was even possible. It is too hard, as individuals, to separate out our own feelings/reactions from what might work for the majority. Then again, our feeling/reaction are part of what would make up the body of data, and can’t be discounted either. It’s definitely an interesting question!
@LisaS – despite (or maybe because of) being so visually focused myself, I went vegetarian and then vegan without ever seeing a single graphic image! Or positive image, for that matter. Any images at all. It was all words – vegetarian through a conversation, and vegan through a vague comment I read online – for me. Though like Sheryl, I did look at some of the images after going vegan, so that I could learn the reality. I expect I’m very much in the minority!
@Marina – thanks again for posting the article that got me thinking about this! Very interesting to hear the reactions of people to the picture of petey and otis running at the sanctuary. Definitely good to know! And very good point regarding advocacy in general. I think someone said that to be an effective communicator, we have to be really good listeners, and this is true with advocacy as well. Doesn’t mean we have to skip the ethical argument, but we’re not robots any more than they are, and it pays to remember that!
Hi Deb! I guess I was generalizing a bit based on my experiences. I actually became vegetarian because of photos I saw of CAFOs, but vegan through conversations with vegan friends. At this point, I avoid pretty much any graphic picture of suffering – I already know, I’m already vegan, I don’t need to torture myself.
No worries, Lisa, I think it is a valuable generalization, because most people do need the images as part of what motivates them to change. I had actually forgotten that I’d managed to avoid all images until I read your comment! And then I thought it pretty funny that I see images as so important in advocacy despite images having nothing to do with my own path to veganism! :)
That is kind of funny!! I try to avoid showing people pictures, though, unless I know they are serious about change. That may sound weird… but there are people like my mother who is constantly cutting meat from her diet (“for health reasons”) and will say things like “I hate to think of the animals suffering” who I worry that if she saw some of the more graphic images would be so turned off by the whole thing that she would give up the little bit of changing that she has already accomplished. I guess it’s a fine line… maybe it comes down to gauging the audience.
(sorry I’m thinking out loud now!!)
OR maybe it’s about focusing our advocation to the people we can make a definitely difference with: family & friends, because we can best figure out how to approach them. My mother may not be able to handle the images, but I recently just helped to convert my cousin from lacto-vegetarian to vegan thanks to showing her some AR websites she had no idea about.
There’s not good answer here, is there?!
Sorry, I was just rereading my post & it is CHOCK FULL of typos! Sorry about that!!
Nope, no good answer! That is, I haven’t yet seen one answer that is universal. I think that your answers for your advocacy with your family and friends is exactly the right answer – you’re tailoring it for what they need, what they can handle, what will hopefully work for them. And that’s so important!
My mom is really open to vegan food, and has often said that if it weren’t for my dad (who is open to vegan food when I’m there, but not so much when I’m not, mom says), she might go vegan. I know it’s because she has an easier time not gaining weight when she’s eating vegan, but I’d take what I could get, honestly. However, I also know that with my mom, she’d have a hard time socially…she is part of the gourmet club, and can’t imagine giving that up. She goes to cocktail parties and would feel odd not trying stuff (plus, she likes to try stuff).
So last time we were talking, she mentioned the WSJ article on veganism. Turns out her gourmet club *might* be interested in trying a vegan meal. I gave her tips on how to encourage them to do an entire year of vegan meals, and part of what I told her to use on her (somewhat staid) gourmet club members is the fact that Oprah and Martha both had vegan shows. The sort of “everyone’s doing it now!” approach.
For my mom, and quite possibly for her gourmet club, this really makes a difference! And that’s not so unusual for humans in general – we tend to go along with the crowd on things like this. Lots of interesting psychology there!
Anyway, all that to say – sounds like whatever you are doing is working! Good job, and keep it up!
Also, Mary Martin wrote a post on that very thing today! (www.animalperson.net)
Our moms sound very similar – interested & excited by vegan food at home (my mom LOVES to bake and has so much fun modifying recipes to be vegan!) but doesn’t want to commit to it 100%. Some of that is social, definitely. She is exceptionally uncomfortable using labels like “vegetarian” around her friends – she’s not really even comfortable calling me “vegan” to her friends! Like it’s some sort of dirty word or something to be embarrassed about it, or maybe she is afraid that they will pass judgment on her because of me?
Whatever that reason is, I think that it is a testament to the fact that if you are vegan solely for health reasons (weight loss, lowering cholesterol, etc.) you don’t have that same ethics slant that those who do call ourselves (proudly, I might add!) “vegans” have. It doesn’t give you the same motivation to proclaim it to those who will listen. Although, without the ethical point of view, can you really be considered a “vegan” the same way ethical vegans are? Would the analogy be: “vegetarians for health reasons” are to Agnostics as “ethical vegans” are to Catholics???
***
I am proud to live by my ethical values: I will tell anyone who will listen about ahimsa (I am a practicing yogini for 13 years) and how my diet is just an extension of that life force. I’m not saying that I am superior to anyone, just that I am proud to say “I believe” in something then to live my life as an example of what I believe. I respect anyone who lives in according to their beliefs, even if those are different from my own.
I also saw the pictures/videos after going veg. I registered somewhere for something or other that I’d gone veg and next thing I knew I was on the PETA mailing list. The first publication I got from them floored me (graphic images). Following suggested links on their website left me an emotional wreck from which I have yet to completely recover (and it’s been over a decade). At the time, hubby was veg at home, because I’m in charge of all things food, and omni at work and when out at restaurants. I showed him what PETA had dumped on me and shortly after he went veg on his own. I love that he did it for ethical reasons. Makes me love and appreciate him that much more. :)
I know so many people with similar stories regarding being on a PETA mailing list, and how it ended up impacting them and their husband/wife/roommate.
I know what you mean about how those graphic images just stay with you for years and years…I was talking to another friend (Sheryl) about this today as well. There are some things we’ll never get out of our heads, I’m afraid. It’s not a trauma I feel we need to re-inflict on ourselves, that’s for sure!
But it does make a pretty good argument for the power and longevity of the reaction the graphic images bring forth.
Thanks for bringing this up, Deb. I’ve been thinking and writing about images and language lately, and my belief is that there is no one way to reach everyone at every stage in the evolution of their awareness. I actually am finishing a follow-up post about this, and now I’ll include this.
I was at a PCRM event recently, and I don’t think I’ve ever had anything to criticize about their work. They know who their audience is and they cater to it in the substance, style and language of their message. They were giving away calendars and each month was an animal–a beautiful photo. And overlapping it for no more than 20% of the page was a photo of the same species, but suffering. I said to the PCRM person, “Who thought that was a good idea? I’m not putting that in my guest room.” And I didn’t take one. My point is that we have to look at what the individual communication is meant for. What are people going to be doing with it? Who is the audience? Advertisers do that, networks do that.
I guess the question is: If you don’t know your audience and it’s . . . as many people of all kinds as possible and you have only a brief moment with them . . . how do you make the biggest impact? How do you get their attention? It would seem that images would indeed rule the day. It makes sense. It also makes sense that there would have to be balance, as most people don’t have the ability to take in a sustained barrage (redundant?) of grisly images.
I wonder – how well do we know how to package the message even when we know our audience really well?
For instance, with PCRM, what made them decide on the juxtaposition of images, when they presumably knew their audience, and should have been able to predict negative reactions to that calendar? Or were you one of the few that refused the calendar? (And hey, you have a calendar in the guest room already! :D)
From a “market your message” standpoint, I wonder if we’re mostly just shooting darts blindfolded?
I’m not really PCRM’s audience, though I’m a member. A lot of their material has graphic images. But on a calendar? I thought that was such a strange idea. And yes, it doesn’t really matter for me because I have my Poplar Spring calendars. And by the way, guests always comment on them and find them beautiful and touching. I don’t think I’m shooting darts or PCRM is. I think if you spend enough time listening to people, they let you know what their preferences are and how they make decisions. And by enough time, I mean a lot. I’m not talking about a list of demographics, although I think you can generalize (such as: young people–but not too young–say, college students, have a greater tolerance for or even appreciation of graphic images and strong language). I do also think that generalizing is intuitive and anecdotal, but I haven’t followed the links above to see if there’s any evidence to back them. Finally, individuals are just that, so my personal advocacy strategy isn’t that relevant. The question here is about the masses and time spent and effectiveness and efficiency, and for that, I have no answer.
Oh oh! I DO actually have data on this! Non-published, but still scientific.
I ran a research study my senior year of college as a senior thesis looking at the efficacy of persuasive materials using AR pamphlets. I used COK and PETA pamplets. One group had a batch of mostly gristly images, the other had mostly cute adorable happy pictures. The textual content was as similar as I could get it. I looked at the degree to which they were emotionally effected, and how their views changed before and after. I can’t remember the results perfectly, but I believe that there was no statistically significant difference, but that the gristly images were slightly more persuasive.
I’m not at home, but when I get home, I’ll find it and put it somewhere you can reach it.
Oh, that’s fantastic Jennie! Looking forward to it! I was hoping someone would have some data hidden away somewhere!
That ‘s extremely interesting and useful, Jennie! Please do post here the results of your research, that would be really helpful. We all have our own experiences and ideas, but we need research such as this to test whether they are really sound or not. Thank you!
This is great Jennie and so interesting! You should definitely publish it- we need more research on this sort of topic. I think I may have some ideas for venues for you to get it out into the world. I couldn’t find any contact information on your website, but please email me if you are interested in hearing some ideas: cglasser@humaneresearch.org. In the meantime, can we have a sneak peak of your findings?
There are plenty of surveys and studies on victim blaming and denigrating the victim, and I think it would be applicable in this situation. As in there is a chance when people see abused nonhumans, especially when the animal does not/is not able to defend themselves, they blame the victim for their predicament rather than acknowledge their own complicity in that suffering.
Change of Heart by Nick Cooney has ample supporting evidence on this issue and how best to foment behavior change.
I prefer images, both soft and hard, that are provocative but that capture the individuality of the subject. Eyes speak a lot, so the more expressive, the better in making people stop and think (of what I don’t know, which is why accompanying messaging is so important….though sometimes unnecessary).
Anecdotally: I’ve passed out “Why Vegan” pamphlets on a number of occasions on the street, and I’ve often noted the reaction to blame the victim. If I’m being honest, I noted it in myself in my pre-vegan days. You see a picture of something very gross and horrendous and conflate the conditions with the animal in those conditions. I’ve handed people pamphlets and had them quickly hand them back or just not take them at all, accompanied by a “Yeuch!” reaction. To unawakened eyes, it can look like “look at that filthy animal in that horrible situation!” (and I feel terrible just for writing that, btw. But that’s my attempt to describe what might be going on mentally with the reaction to grisly photos.)
But my experience is also that a mixture of gross and beautiful pictures would be more effective than either on its own. The juxtaposition can lead people to draw the right conclusion; i.e., that unexploited and cared-for animals are beautiful and they have a true capacity for happiness, but that, unfortunately, instead very terrible things are done to them and they live in misery.
The interesting thing regarding the victim-blaming, though, is that so far the psychology doesn’t seem to translate when the victim is an animal. This is both data based – Jennie’s study showed the pamphlets with graphic images to be more persuasive – as well as purely through random observations – Oreo’s Law, Patrick, the cat in the garbage can, etc etc. Maybe that’s skewed by the fact that I have a lot of vegans in my FB and Twitter stream though.
Maybe for companion animals, that might be true, but I don’t believe it is always true for the most commonly abused group of nonhumans, farmed animals.
I’ve read articles involving rescuing chickens, turkeys and other farmed animals from horrible situations…reading the comments, I’ll often see some victim blaming going on.
This is why more actual studies are needed.
Jennie’s study showed graphic images to be more persuasive, though there was no statistically significant difference in the reactions between graphic and non-graphic images. That’s just one study, but it gives some interesting insight. And it was specifically on farmed animals.
But there are many questions it brings up, such as audience.
Put simply: we don’t know, and we can’t say whether the victim blaming plays a part with regards to animals the way it does with humans. We just don’t have enough data. The studies regarding humans are interesting, and they *might* provide insight, but we can’t assume that human-human will be the same as human-nonhuman, especially when the small amount of actual data we have appears to show the opposite.
The few studies done on the subject of graphic descriptions, photos, and videos of animal cruelty indicate they are effective animal advocacy tools. See here:
http://www.humanespot.org/content/credibility-shock-advocacy-animal-rights-attack-messages
http://www.humanespot.org/content/ucl-study-subliminal-messaging-more-effective-when-negative
http://www.agmanager.info/livestock/marketing/AnimalWelfare/MF2951.pdf
Thanks for those links. I will try to remember to sign up for the humanespot so I can look at those articles this weekend. One thing I don’t think they’ll cover is the comparison between effectiveness of graphic vs non-graphic images.
Graphic images are commonly used, I just wonder whether we’re using them because that’s what’s been used in the past, or whether they really are the most effective image type to use. (I’m not convinced there is An Answer, because there are too many variables, but I’d still like to see more studies like the one that Jennie mentioned she did for her Senior thesis.)
Deb, here is a blog post summarizing those articles, that you do not need to register to see: http://www.humanespot.org/content/shock-advocacy-part-3-4. But do register (it’s free!) to see the articles in more detail. Plus, we have great free animal advocacy focused resources for registered users.
Thanks Carol!
Recently I saw the 70-minute YouTube of Gary Yourofsky speaking to a class of Georgia Tech students in July 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4. During his talk, he shows two graphic films (one of slaughterhouse scenes and one of the Conklin Dairy abuse).
He also did a 30-minute Q&A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIkC4OJEx3c&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Granted, Gary didn’t balance these gruesome scenes with photos of pigs playing in a sanctuary setting, so it would be hard to know whether the students responded better to one than the other, or even whether they would feel the most empathy with a combination of good and bad images.
I wonder, Deb, would you consider writing to him via his website http://www.adaptt.org and asking whether he’s discerned a pattern in the responses to his presentation? I believe he is always trying to improve on his message to make the most impact.
He posts emails from students and faculty on his website, and I read some of them, but the people writing the emails don’t necessarily pinpoint the grisly scenes in the films he showed as reasons why they decided to care about animals and change their habits.
I’m surprised I hadn’t heard of Gary ’til I came across his speech. I am very impressed by his presentation, and I hope he has a good reputation in the ethical vegan community and is warmly embraced. (In saying that, I realize that PETA and he split up after a 3-year association; it sounds like the parting has worked out for the best for all concerned.)
Has he ever done presentations where he didn’t show graphic images? If not, he’ll have little to add other than that he uses graphic images and that he feels his talks are effective (“The best” is how he describes them on his website…), but with no comparison or control group, it’s not telling us much.
Not to discount him or his talks (I haven’t yet watched one, and I don’t know if I will, between the length and the graphic images), I’m just saying that we have a lot of people who have chosen their particular technique and have whatever success with it, but that’s not data of the kind that will provide insight into whether x is more effective at a than y is.
I’m pretty sure that every technique will have *some* success. But without some studies like the one Jennie did to better understand reactions and effectiveness/persuasiveness to different techniques, we’re going in blind.
FWIW, I just heard about a recent survey by a group doing video outreach and they reported that viewers said they were more affected by graphic videos than by non-graphic ones. I presume the vast majority of viewers were non-vegetarian.
We (Compassion for Animals) have found that letting viewers know that we’re available to answer questions after they watch a short graphic video seems to very useful. My impression is that often were it not for the discussion afterward, the viewer would merely be left in a state of vague disgust and despair, but with the post-viewing conversation (and literature and sometimes free food) we may give viewers some sense of empowerment and doable steps they can take immediately. Possible take-home messages from this might be: a) the context in which a video (and perhaps image) is shown may make a difference, b) following displays of disturbing problems with ideas for practical steps toward a solution may leverage the effect of the images.
I often hear “this works best” and “we don’t know what works best because we’re all unique.” Both sentiments have merit IMHO. One can make and use valid generalities – if we had nothing in common, we couldn’t do advocacy of any sort or even have a functional society – but we should also be cognizant of the uniqueness of individuals and circumstances. So we can use techniques that seem to be generally effective, but – at least in interactive situations – be prepared to change and be flexible; if something’s not working in a given situation, we can change based on our audience, real-time feedback, intuition, etc.
FYI, for the past two years CfA has been employing the “pay per view” techmique where we incentivize people to watch a short graphic video by paying them a dollar or two. We think it’ been efective enough to keep doing it regularly. We’re going to try a variation on this technique next month, where we’ll pay people a bit more to watch a screening of Earthlings. There will be a discussion afterward.
Do you remember the name of the group that did the survey on the videos? Did they publish this somewhere?
I’m starting to think we should all take an intro course into some kind of field that teaches people the theory behind market research. Or something like that. If we understood better how this research was done, we’d be better able to collect information that might be useful!
We need information on the audiences. Seems like a lot of the graphic images are for groups/situations that target college-aged audiences. With the pay-per-view, you have an opportunity to see who chooses to view, and get some general information. That might provide some high level information.
We are missing the meta-data.
Deb, I can get that info for you.
Though we show “pay per view” videos most often at colleges, our cumulative audiences have been widely diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, and self-identified political views, background, and profession. Our fairly consistent experience has been that the impact of graphic videos is profound. Granted, there are plenty of caveats: what works at a tabling event may not work on Facebook statuses; we don’t typically track the behaviors of viewers six months down the road (there are some challenges in doing that; we’ve thought about it a lot), and so forth.
For a while before PPV, we showed non-graphic videos such as sanctuary chickens enjoying their day. One practical problem was that people assumed this was how life was on farms, and even when we used signage and explanations, I’m not sure we negated that strong (and perhaps self-protective) association.
As has been pointed out, many people will not watch the graphic stuff. Hence our trying out various incentives, and our new “plan B” of non-graphic videos for those who won’t watch the graphic stuff. And to reiterate, I think the after-viewing discussion, in which we try to emphasize doable solution steps (recipes, cooking and food-buying tips, etc.) increases the effectiveness of the videos.
As an adjunct to data, or while we’re waiting for more, I hope these field reports are useful. Again, this is for tabling outreach, and I would be cautious about extrapolating these observations to other forms of outreach. And of course, “your mileage may vary.”
FYI, as an aside…At video outreach tabling events, often when people say “I could never watch that,” I’ll ask why not, or if they’re already vegan because they don’t want to partcipate in suffering that is too horrible to watch – or something like that, depending on many factors including body language, tone, gut feel, etc. – and that often leads to a productive discussion. So at these events sometimes we can leverage people’s initial negative reactions into positive outreach.
My problem with the field reports is that they’re always generic. “Wide audience” and “profound impact” just aren’t telling me much, but then field reports aren’t asking much.
Sheryl watched “Born to be Wild” last night…it had a profound impact and drew a wide audience, and it is basically the complete opposite of Earthlings in image choices and editing style and imagery.
But do we take that to mean that movies like “Born to be Wild” are the most effective advocacy tools?
This is why I’m saying that we need data. Field reports tend to report “what I’m doing is working for some people.” Okay, it IS good to know that, but what about if you did something else? Would it work better for more people?
Is “Born to be Wild” about farm animals? We’re always looking for ways to improve our effectiveness, and regularly consider and try out new footage. So far, Meat Your Meat / Farm to Fridge-type video has worked best in terms of generating responses and productive discussions about farm animals and diet over the last three years, but we’re not married to anything, and we also want to show videos at venues where graphic footage is not allowed, and to audiences that we think would be less inclined to watch graphic stuff.
Nope, it’s about orphaned orangutans and elephants who are raised to be released back to the wild. I used it only as an example of a video with non-graphic images, not something that would be applicable to vegan advocacy.
I’m not sure anyone has bothered to make a non-graphic video, though Dan Piraro did a cartoon based video, and Inchworm Productions did that segment on Poplar Spring with some narrative.
Deb, we have a video The Emotional World of Farm Animals that is completely soft and not-graphic. It aired on PBS as well. We give it free to teachers, along with a study guide.
Even with the fact we track teacher response via survey after they use the study guide, we’ll never ever know that out study guide CAUSES behavior change. But that won’t stop us from putting in the time and money to printing the study guide and film and offering it free to educators.
That’s great! I am glad that there’s a non-graphic option out there. Is it available for advocacy groups (like Gary’s) to use?
I LOVE The Emotional World of Farm Animals, and the school program sounds fantastic! The challenge with non-graphic farm videos at tabling is that people walking by glancing at a segment of the film think it’s a happy farm. For Pay Per View, the challenge is that the video has to be 4 or 5 minutes, although we can also pick a 4 to 5 minute key segment; we’ve talked about doing this with The Emotional World of Farm Animals as a “Plan B” for people who won’t watch graphic stuff. Any segment you’d recommend? We’ve had some luck showing Maxine’s Dash to Freedom, but nothing like what we’ve seen with paying people to watch graphic video. At an environmental fair later this month we’re going to play A Life Connected continuously and also do Pay Pew View with a condensed version of Farm To Fridge, our usual PPV video tehse days. We’ll see how that goes…
I LOVE The Emotional World of Farm Animals. The lame cow Jessie at the beginning touches my heart. But then, so do pigs Susie and Val, and piglet Freddie, and on and on. OK, I’m wiping away the tears, having just now watched it for the fourth time in as many years. Maybe Gary Y. could incorporate some of these scenes in his future talks, though he limited by the class bell.
I found out some info about the survey, but I’m not privy to all the details (some of which are apparently private). Basically, at a college, viewers of a graphic video about farm animals reported being more affected by what they watched than viewers who watched a non-graphic video of a lecture about the same subject.
While I do think it’s helpful that both choices covered the same subject area, there are so many variables that could explain the disparity (e.g., how good was the lecturer, does a lecture provoke more or less of a response than other types of non-graphic videos, etc.) that this survey by itself is only of minor use. Still, there it is. :)
Deb, I was thinking…your post about vegan bake sales probably portrayed what they are like better than anything I’ve read. If you want, I’d like to invite you to the Arlington County Fair in August, when we’ll probably show graphic “pay per view” videos to 300 people. It may be interesting to report on, and if so, it would be the first time to my knowledge that the essence of this type of outreach would be conveyed to the public.
I watched “Born to be Wild” last night, and it was amazing. Incredibly moving, and an absolutely inspired film. It got me thinking again about this whole issue – aside from Emotional World of Farm Animals, there’s really nothing out there, no options on the non-graphic side for video. You mentioned that the problem with most of the non-graphic clips is that people assume this is how farms are.
If we compare that to something like Born to be Wild, which made it blindingly clear that these were not animals meant to be captive, but which (if done poorly) could have given people the mistaken impression that this was what zoos were like…well, I do wonder what the impact would be on people if we had more non-graphic videos that had a strong message. I don’t mean to imply that EWoFA doesn’t have a strong message – I haven’t seen it, so I can’t say anything at all about it.
Now your pay-per-view set up is a little different, because it is so short. That might pull some of the “subliminal messages” aspects that some people have mentioned somewhere in the comments above, with negative messages having a stronger impact.
But, there’s the audience of people like me, who will walk away from having to see those images and won’t be able to read graphic descriptions.
Also, when you think of the type of images/videos that go viral, that people want to share with each other…it’s the dog who is best friends with the deer, things like that. We just don’t have anything that has a strong enough message at this point. Hopefully someone will work on something like that.
But for your non-graphic video, would a cartoon work? Dan Piraro did a really nice video a few years ago. I asked him at the time if he was going to make them available on dvd, and he said he didn’t have the resources for that, but was happy for anyone to use them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q
It’s just over 5 minutes long. Not sure if it would work for you, but in case you didn’t know about it or had forgotten about it…
I’ll think about the Arlington Fair. I’m not trained in gathering this information, so I’m not sure how much use anything I’d get would be!
I like Dan Piraro’s cartoon video, but as I recall that was mostly about health and physiology and we’re trying to concentrate on the ethical side. But my memory could be off; correct me if I’m wrong; I may need to watch it again. So far, the best short non-graphic video I’ve seen that deals with farm animals / veganism is Maxine’s Dash to Freedom; granted it has very brief glimpses of factory farms. We may play with excerpts from Gary Y’s or Tom Reagan’s speech or A Life Connected, if we can get permissions and find the time. Eventually we could offer a choice to people who won’t watch the graphic stuff.
FYI, the one dollar incentive (we’ve occasionally tried two dollars) makes a much bigger difference in viewership rates than I would have ever imagined. It’s like night and day. I don’t know why one dollar makes such a difference. I think the novelty may be part of it.
Also, sometimes when people initially say no, they change their mind after a brief conversation (e.g., “watching the film can be empowering and help you end the suffering that you don’t want to watch”) and letting them know that they can opt out at any time. 95 percent of the people who watch, despite trepidations, watch until the end. The fact that it’s only 4 minutes long may help.
Minus this hand-holding and personal attention, in my experience the results change considerably. For instance I think the number of people to date who have watched a link I’ve posted on FB to a graphic video may be zero.
BTW, anyone want to guess what viewers’ most common rationalization for meat-eating is after they watched the video? (This is usually expressed politely if not tentatively, not as a provocation.)
Deb, you underestimate your reporting skills. :) Seriously. Your stories on the Poplar Spsring animals, for instance, are amazing. But maybe the fair would be interesting regardless. I mention the Arlington Fair specifically because often we are at peak capacity with three booths and six chairs, and the range in ages of viewers is from about seven (with parental approval!) to seventy. Anyway, it’s not until August…
You’re right, I forgot that it was focused on challenging the “isn’t it natural to eat animals” question.
I’d guess that the rationalization is that one person can’t make a difference…
I’ll think about the Arlington Fair…maybe I can learn something about how to collect data in the meantime…
Addendum…We’re considering another variation of the “pay per view” video outreach. Even if a graphic video is, on average, more effective than a non-graphic one, it’s not very effective on an individual if s/he doesn’t watch it. So we’re considering having a non-graphic video as a second option for people. We have to work out the details and so forth.
I was talking to my fellow volunteers about that this morning. Thinking of all the videos that go viral – it’s not earthlings, but it is the dog and deer playing together, things like that. If those are not at all effective in getting people thinking about animals in new ways, it is still pointless. But if they do have an impact, just aren’t as persuasive, then they might be the best choice, because you’ll reach more people with them.
This is why we need data!
The misery chickens, goats, pigs, cows, turkeys, rats, rhesus monkeys, elephants, dolphins, and other animals feel at the hands of their oppressors simply dwarfs the pain, discomfort, and horror I feel when I see graphic images of suffering. To live a fully conscious life, at some point a person will have to become aware of what is happening to animals by examining violent images or reading vivid descriptions of that violence. Two of my friends went vegan many years ago after reading books about slaughterhouses and neither had watched any of the films until recently.
Part of the challenge in advocacy work is to overcome the dysfunctions in our culture, i.e. that to demonstrate compassion is to be weak. I try to present information about the necessity of animal liberation without diluting it and hope it fosters empathy. I focus on the concept of animals as individuals and don’t use graphic visuals, though I make that material readily available.
My experience with my community is to ease into the terrible truth. I begin with the environmental impact of animal agriculture, then speak about the animals themselves. In group discussions when someone is brave enough to candidly express their distress, we confront those uncomfortable emotions together with honesty. Awkwardness and uncertainty is a natural part of that honesty. Sometimes the feeling of guilt is what makes people shut down. I try to emphasize that I am also on a lifelong process of learning and hope to cause less harm with my everyday choices, that there’s no blueprint, that there will be obstacles but the great satisfaction is in the journey of discovery itself–and that truth is worthy of our protection if we love justice.
I’ve yet to give the same presentation twice. Each group is different. I observe the individual responses and try to respond so that our interaction is based on curiosity and a strong desire to find ways to take specific actions to improve how we live on this planet. To me, the key seems to be not a catchy marketing campaign to sell animal liberation but creating an optimal environment for a heartfelt dialogue that naturally brings out the best in all the participants.
I’m not sure what you are referring to by a “fully conscious life”, but I can certainly assert that not everyone has to see violent images or read violent imagery in order to go vegan.
I’d actually like to see a catchy marketing campaign that sells animal liberation. If nothing else, maybe then we’d have some research and actual data to base the decisions we make in our work on!
What you do, sundog, reminds me of what I envision the film Peaceable Kingdom: Journey Home does. Caveat: I haven’t seen it yet, but I did see the original version.
I would think that James and Jenny and Harold and Howard would have lots of interesting impressions on the feedback they get from viewers of their movie at indy film festivals. I know they make time for audience reaction after each showing.
@Deb
When I say a “fully conscious life,” I mean a gut-deep connection or awareness to the world outside myself and then to know that I must act. Explicit knowledge of the violence expands my empathy for other species and humans who struggle toward liberation. To feel that connection encourages me to actively participate against oppression. It’s an antidote against sliding into fear, hopelessness, or complacent inaction that rationalizes waiting for others to take action.
@Olivia
I’ve watched the original Peaceable Kingdom and the new version, which is an extraordinary exploration of animals as individuals. It challenges the accepted norm that human exploitation of animals is legitimate, especially if we minimize their suffering. The film also tells the stories of how former animal exploiters questioned their way of life and found the courage to abandon the tradition of exploitation and create a new life journey.
Brutal images are not the focal point–as they are in many other documentaries–but do serve, by juxtaposition, to nurture the viewer’s understanding of animals as individuals unjustly dominated by humans. The film certainly is an inspiration to me. By the way, it’s playing at the Finger Lakes Environmental Film Festival on April 14.
Thanks Sundog, that sounds like what I experienced when I went vegan. I suppose I am guilty of assuming everyone is similarly awakened to all forms of oppression as part of their path to veganism! I guess that’s more the “ideal” than necessarily how it goes for everyone.
Most of us have explored many avenues in an effort to find what strategy and tactics are most effective in reaching people’s hearts and minds and actions.
We know that reasons for changing are individual. And we know that timing is everything: they have to be ready.
We also know that in order for someone to stick with the outward change he makes as a result of our message, he has to believe in and want to LIVE the underlying principles of justice, of compassion, of unselfishness.
Most of us also believe that being vegan and promoting the abolition of industries that exploit animals are key steps that lead to animals gaining the right to live in peace and not to be categorized as property.
I’d like to mention another approach to this subject that doesn’t involve showing images — beautiful or graphic — and that doesn’t start with veganism or abolition, but with securing legal rights for animals FIRST.
Perhaps it sounds preposterous to insist that laws be in place before unjust systems can be dismantled. But it’s worth considering the message of David Cantor, founder of non-profit group Responsible for Policies for Animals. David believes it’s essential to use the words “animal rights” in the “right” way, so that the term will be understood by all, just as “human rights” are generally understood — and are codified, country by country (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights).
In RPA’s most recent newsletter, THIN ICE (which can be found here: http://www.rpaforall.org/ThinIceFallWinter2010.pdf) Cantor writes an essay titled “Getting Rights Right.”
Here are a couple of controversial points he makes:
“Rights must be established before it can be possible to abolish the injustices that harm, kill, and oppress nonrights-holders – abolitionist animal advocacy and veganism (non-participation in animal use), like the animal-welfare system, are not effective strategies for establishing rights.”
“Leading with bleeding – horrifying visual images of nonhuman animals suffering at human hands – powerfully stimulates outrage, revenge, punishment, emergency action, us-versus-them – mental frames not conducive to the struggle for rights. Mental frames conducive to rights include justice, fairness, respect, rule of law, forgiveness – human traits and concepts reinforced through reason. Visual images bypass reason. Words promote the long-term dedication required to establish rights; visual images
promote reflexive short-term action incapable of affecting rights or other institutions.”
What Cantor says here reminds me of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1852 anti-slavery novel, UNCLE TOM’S CABIN, which told a poignant story that brought to the fore in readers such natural, noble qualities as reason, fairness, respect, justice.
Each of us here is busy with our respective animal-related projects. But I hope we can take time to read Cantor’s essay, reflect upon its long-term approach, and be open to incorporating its substantive ideas into our own approach to advocacy.
None of us here wants to be right just so we can say we are right.
We truly want to do what works over the long haul.
We truly seek to be patient, deep thinkers, not in-a-hurry, superficial doers.
We truly desire to raise the spiritual, moral, and emotional IQ of the world.
We truly aim to secure legal, lasting rights for animals that, once in place, cannot be reversed by future generations.
I trust each of us realizes the value of pausing … getting quiet … listening to the voice within … letting new ideas sink into our consciousness, just as we are asking of the millions who we trying to reach, to educate, to elevate.
Rather than wishing for our own studies, perhaps we can utilize information gathered by the industry themselves:
“K-State researchers conducted a large keyword search of major U.S. newspapers and magazines, looking for references to animal welfare, animal handling, animal care and related terms appearing from 1982 through 2008. They found that during that time, media coverage of farm-animal welfare issues grew steadily. Animal-welfare coverage related to pork production, for example, increased by 181 percent between 1999 and 2008, while poultry coverage increased 253 percent during the same period.
The researchers then cross-referenced the volume of media coverage with fluctuations in meat demand. They found no direct impact on beef demand, but determined the coverage correlated with long-term reductions in demand for pork and poultry. They estimate that pork and poultry demand increases over the last decade would have been 2.65 percent and 5.01 percent higher, respectively if media attention in the fourth quarter of 2008 was at equal levels as the first quarter of 1999.
Beef, however, didn’t benefit from the hit on pork or poultry demand. The researchers determined that when consumers responded to negative media coverage, they shifted their purchases away from meat altogether, rather than shifting, for example, from pork to beef.”
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/latest/Consumers-notice-negative-press-120213939.html
Added to this, I’m in one of the states that is attempting to ban/gag images of farmed animals. I can’t help but think that it’s because images do convey the misery that “food animals” endure and this puts their operations/profits at risk. These investigations and disclosures have made consumers shun their products. And since images have been so effective that heavy-handed legislation is being proposed, I’d say this is a significant reason to continue on this path…
I have done a fair amount of leafleting to know that many people do lOOk with their eyes, minds and hearts quite open to information regarding what they see. It certainly does get attention and persuades a different frame of thought. Yes, there are some people who view the first few pages then return it with callous indifference. But most do want to know more about the chicks stuffed in plastic bags, the beaks being seared, the pigs in the cages, etc. In this way I think images are vital to educate people… BTW it’s how I got here too.
And I think it’s this redirected mind that sends most of us vegans and animal righters to fawn over the images of peaceful animals, like those beautifully photographed by Deb… I know they refuel me every time! It’s because we’ve fully connected that that’s the way it ought to be. But most of us had to go through the brutal step of acknowledging what actually IS. I think exposing reality is a vital tool and it would do more harm than not by sparing truth from naive eyes.
And thanks Olivia for those links to David Cantor’s views and theories. I’m never one to have a closed mind to more effective ways to get to our goal. ;)
Bea, the reason studies would be helpful is because we have almost no data on what *kind* of images are most effective.
The industry study tells us that media coverage has an impact. It doesn’t address anything else. That’s valuable to know, but it’s not what I am questioning.
I would say most people who are currently vegan are going to say that they viewed graphic images before going vegan. But of course that’s going to be true, when there are almost no pamphlets or websites that don’t have graphic images!
We are doing it because others before us have, and those are the resources we have to work with. But you know and I know that the most common complaint of vegans who post graphic videos on their fb wall is that the non-vegans won’t watch them. Why is anyone surprised? I won’t watch them now, and I didn’t watch them before. I am shocked that anyone does.
Are we severely limiting our audience by only reaching people who can stomach the gore?
This is why, imo, some studies would be helpful. Until then, we’re in the dark.
Points well taken… And I do see why studies could re-direct us to better ways. But in lieu of those what’s the right course? To continue as is, because that’s all we know (and it *might* work sometime)? Or abandon this and risk a new/more effective way? I’m lost too. When I choose which image/video to post on FB or blog I double and triple-think myself every time. Shock or sentiment? I’m never certain of either. :/
Well, we do know that the graphic images work for some people (could even be many or most), and those are the resources we have available. There’s no point imo in throwing out one tool just because there might be a better one someday. We work with what we have.
As for posting to fb…it’s a difficult question, and maybe it’s something you ask your friends – do they watch the graphic videos? The non-graphic ones? Do people hide folks from their feed because of graphic video postings? (I have hidden groups that constantly post graphic stuff!)
The thing is with FB “friends” that I also know in the RW – They are as apt to block my posts as I am to censor their “Mafia” and “Farmville” game requests. With so little in common I often wonder why the effort? But I know the only way to even hope to enter into “that” conversation someday is to keep tolerant of others today. Today’s Farmville player – Tomorrow’s animal rescuer… You never know!
Yeah, I block all apps like that! I wish I could block the Questions too, because there are some people who are clogging up my feed with Questions…
Something that Facebook might be making more obvious to us is that our delivery or our content can actually prevent our message from going out. I’m sure we’ve all hidden someone who posts 500 times/day or something similar…granted we don’t usually know who has hidden our feeds, so we don’t get that kind of feedback, but the mere fact that we can hid the feed of others…well, it just makes us more aware.
My advice, in general, would be to mix it up. Don’t make your friends dread your posts, even if sometimes your posts are the difficult ones. As long as it’s not all you post, I think most people are okay with it intermittently.
FB is pretty interesting in these connections. I read somewhere that the clickthrough rate is much higher on FB than Twitter. This makes sense to me. We are not usually dealing with the same volume on FB as on Twitter, so we spend more time on each post. And those posting on FB are more likely to be a personal connection on some level, even if it’s the person you lived next door to 15 years ago but don’t really have anything in common with! So we value what they’re saying more than the sometimes random people we’re following on Twitter. So these can be powerful connections, when it comes to outreach. I think it’s worth the effort in that sense.
Deb, you are right that everyone responds to those graphic videos and images in different ways. I personally remember wanting to become vegetarian at a very young age, and when I realized that just as much suffering and exploitation was involved in the production of eggs and dairy, I knew I had to become vegan. But I didn’t need a graphic video to help me make those decisions. For me, the very thought that there were animals suffering for the food I was about to eat was enough to make me go vegan. And likewise, I still remember how wrong it felt for me, even as child, to eat the flesh of another animal.
For me, the mere description of those videos has always been enough to leave me disturbed for days. And in fact, it was the description by Stephanie, of what happens to male chicks on egg farms that made me become vegan. I watched just the *trailer* for “Earthlings” a couple months ago, and ended up in a depressed state for at least a week. And I don’t use the word “depressed” lightly. And then I feel even worse that I can’t bring myself to watch what billions of non-human animals actually suffer every year…
For a long time, I was very confused as to why everyone around me didn’t feel the same way I did. Why is it that while I felt it was intrinsically wrong to exploit and kill animals, others (my family were big meat eaters) felt that it was a natural part of life? At first I thought it might be a lack of empathy on their part, but then I know people who seem to possess an almost endless amount of empathy toward other humans, but refuse to do so for non-human animals. I think for some people videos and images of animals (graphic or not) do help in making that connection and bringing about that realization that non-human animals deserve just as much empathy as humans. But others, I think, are just so entrenched in their ways that nothing will change their minds.
And then you also have to realize that some people just might not be able to deal with the fact that they have been complicit in the mass torture, exploitation, and killing of so many animals. As soon as you realize that animals are not lifeless machines, but are in fact feeling, thinking and sentient beings, just the same as humans, you have to be able to come to terms with the fact that you were involved in their suffering, that you consumed their flesh, their children’s nourishment & their ovums and zygotes, that you wore their fur & their skin, that you just watched as they were enslaved and forced to perform humiliating “tricks” for your entertainment, and that you stood by while they had horrific and gruesome experiments performed on them so that you wouldn’t have to deal with a headache.
No one wants to accept that they were a part of that, so I can understand why some people, when presented with such evidence, become extremely defensive to the point of combativeness. Why even when they see with their own eyes what they are a part of they refuse to do anything about it. How could anyone even live knowing they were a part of that? So instead, the mind creates this reality, this defense mechanism, where animals are not really living creatures at all. They are, instead, automatons, machines that can move and make noise and have babies on their own, but still not quite living.
I was a part of that, and I lived. Most vegans were a part of that at some point in their lives, and they lived. I think part of our goal should be figuring out a way to help people understand that you can still live knowing you were a part of that. That it can start with something as simple as changing your eating and shopping habits, and that it *is* that simple. Deb, you quote a Mother Jones article your April 20th blog post,
“[...] you don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.”
I agree completely that for those people, the ones who are so entrenched in their practices, simply showing them a graphic image or video is probably just going to strengthen that urge to deny that animals feel. Instead we need to be showing them that an alternative exists, that they have the opportunity to make up for what they were a part of, and that it is not even something that difficult if they really think about it. How to do that, though, is the question.
Beautifully put, Haidar.
One of the most disturbing things for me, aside from knowing of the agony the animals endure and the injustice of treating them as property, is my inability to understand why compassionate family members and friends don’t seem to want to wake up.
Their attitude reminds me of the Navajo proverb: “You can’t wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.” And also of how a friend recently elaborated on it: “It’s possible to awaken those who are asleep but not those who are pretending to be asleep, and it’s sometimes good to let people know someone knows they’re pretending.”
Olivia, that proverb is the perfect way to explain the situation we find ourselves in. I think when people are ignorant of some horrific action they partake in and then are shown the truth, there are two ways they can deal with it. Accept responsibility and make the proper changes, or recoil and feign ignorance—go back to sleep. Sadly, I’m beginning to think most people choose the latter…
I know most of my family know the truth about how animals are treated because I have shown them the videos. I know they know that animals can feel and think, as most of them have pets that they faun over and love just as if they were any other member of the family. And they know that being vegan can be just as healthy as, if not healthier than, being an omnivore. So why they pretend to be asleep I just don’t know. When they know deep down that they could lead richer lives following their conscience, you have to wonder in amazement why they don’t. And like you said, sometimes knowing that is just as frustrating as knowing the actual suffering non-human animals live through every day.
“And then you also have to realize that some people just might not be able to deal with the fact that they have been complicit in the mass torture, exploitation, and killing of so many animals. As soon as you realize that animals are not lifeless machines, but are in fact feeling, thinking and sentient beings, just the same as humans, you have to be able to come to terms with the fact that you were involved in their suffering, that you consumed their flesh, their children’s nourishment & their ovums and zygotes, that you wore their fur & their skin, that you just watched as they were enslaved and forced to perform humiliating “tricks” for your entertainment, and that you stood by while they had horrific and gruesome experiments performed on them so that you wouldn’t have to deal with a headache.”
You’re right Haidar – Most have an impossible time owning the contributions to all the horrors you mentioned.
When I first realized what we were doing to animals I too went into severe depression (guilt?). And I was totally convinced that if the world ever just all of a sudden, unanimously acknowledged these realities – We’d all go blooming mad! I still believe that this truth had, all at once, would destroy us.
I try to use this analogy in relation to people/culture changing one by one… At their own “sane” pace. One hour of Earthlings barely touches the tip of the iceberg and countless people are in pain for weeks/months after watching… Goodness knows what would happen if everyone was moved that radically all at once. (?) Sometimes I dream of this happening – But in truth I know it’s going to be a slow progress forward, accomplished in a way so that shock and rage will transform into integrated compassionate living. Thereby setting an example of what an honest conscience can live with.
I know that family can be the most disappointing… But as the very wise Gary Loewenthal says: “Don’t change your family. Change the world!”
Bea, it’s funny but I wonder the exact same things. What would happen if the whole world suddenly came to the same realizations that we as vegans have come to? I think you’re right that instead, that change will most likely happen gradually over time. The only question is how long? After all, unlike racial, gender & sexual oppression, it seems that the exploitation of animals has been around since the dawn of humanity…
As to that quote, I’ve spent more time trying to convince family members to go vegan than I have strangers and yet still found less success, so I’ll take that advice to heart.
Hi Haidar – You said – “After all, unlike racial, gender & sexual oppression, it seems that the exploitation of animals has been around since the dawn of humanity…”
I’m not a history wiz… And the problems with going back to anything ancient is that a lot of “facts” are based in speculation. (?) I’m thinking though that oppression of the female and anyone “different” from the “clan” or “tribe” goes back a long ways too. Probably since the “beginning”. And it was only some very wise philosophers/teachers along the way that helped re-route the course of our thinking…
That said, I think the super-duper challenge with ending the oppression of nonhumans is that they are totally unique from other victims, in that they can’t speak for themselves or “revolt”. That makes us the “liberators” having to be that much more clever, convincing, “daring” and vigilant in trying to get others to acknowledge these violations. Add to this that nonhumans are also a source of nourishment… And we indeed have the “longest struggle” set before us.
The good news is… No matter how small the change – I see it all the time. I’m part of it – So are you, and countless others. The tide has been turned… The momentum of reason and truth is ours! And there is no way it will ever stop advancing towards the justice we all seek. It’s inevitable! ;)
Of course you’re right, what I said was speculation (as it was meant to be, but I probably should have written “it seems to me” instead of “it seems”). I included gender oppression in that list because some historians believe that in ancient cultures, particularly ancient India, women enjoyed equal status with men. But even in places like India, where vegetarianism was widely practiced, the consumption and usage of cow & goat milk was still standard practice. You’re right that many other forms of oppression, xenophobia for instance, have also been around since as far back as we can see, but maybe that is why those forms of oppression are still practiced on such a massive scale. The US border serves as a testament to this country’s xenophobia, and in this country, calling undocumented workers “illegals” is still widely accepted…
Hello Haidar – Very good point about “xenophobia”… And no I didn’t mean to challenge you in what you said about exploitations from a historical perspective. I too often think that at one time we may have originated with a much more respectful attitude towards all who live – And with this mutual humility it probably was the perfection of “world peace”, that many could now describe as Eden. That to me does seem like it would be our purest state – Uncomplicated and without compromise to the insignificant yet war-inspiring prejudices we’re now held in the grip of. This “othering” as to who comes from where, what color/sex/species someone is – has ruined the tranquility and harmony we all deserve… Sadly, it’s turned what could have been everyone’s paradise into a living hell for most. And thus we fight on to restore the garden. :/
Very interesting conversation going on, everyone! The talk of the origins of othering and ‘isms reminds me of “The Ecology of Freedom” by Murray Bookchin. It’s a bit of a slog to get through, but he has some pretty interesting ideas on that topic, which you might enjoy reading about! His view is that the first othering was humans separating themselves from nature, whereas they had previously seen themselves as an integral part of it. And once that first othering started, it essentially cascaded. It’s been quite a few years since I read the book, so I can’t remember in detail what kind of sources he used (i.e., how much was speculation), but it might be worth checking out!
Bea, I like the analogy to the garden. I completely agree that peace and harmony can only come through mutual humility. And Deb, thanks for the recommendation, I’ll have to add that to my summer reading list! While we did go off topic, this has been a very interesting conversation. To bring it full circle I’d just like to add that maybe part of our cause as vegans should be to cast down that “otherness,” to show people that we aren’t so different. I look at the photos in Marji’s most recent post and all I can think is “Virginia and Sadie look as fierce and loving as any other human mother I know!”
No worries, Haidar, the interesting side conversations usually end up adding more than strictly staying on topic!
But now that you did bring it full cirlce, I find that the side topic of “otherness” brings up more questions with regards to images. Specifically with regard to graphic images, are they likely to encourage seeing the victim as “other”? (Universally, not just if it is a non-human animal.)
Of course, as always, this likely depends a great deal on the individual…still it’s interesting to think about.
Hi Deb – Thanks for the suggestion re: Murray Bookchinan. With the help of a Google search I can now more accurately catogorize my political views! I was a “libertarian” for many years… But became disenchanted then abandoned all political labels. Never realized there was a more pure version of the “leave us alone” philosophy before… Gives me much to ponder over regarding my political affiliations. (cool!)
With thoughts to “othering” – The first time I ever heard of this was through reading The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir. It all made perfect sense to me! Of course decades ago I never made the full connection to the “othering” I was guilty of concerning my animal kin. Ah! Hindsight filled with such bitter-sweetness… :(
Glad you like the garden Haidar! I’m certain nearly everybody desires such a place of harmony where life can thrive… It’s just most don’t realize the “green thumb” way to get there is through acknowledging our connections – Not our differences. This is very clear to see as you pointed out, by honestly lOOking at Sadie and Virginia. They ARE as fierce and loving as any human mother could be – Dare I say (?) perhaps in many instances even more so. (?)
But I think getting back to the origin of this discussion on images… I think most people are conditioned not to look or see things in the nonhuman world in accurate ways. My theory is that we were over loaded with anthropomorphic images as kids (deliberately?) – Then our “adult brain” kicks in and shuns any association with “them”. “They” represent our vulnerable child-like state. We also might remember it as an instrument of our being duped… (And a reminder of our betrayal to them.)
To close the circle even more… Could we also say that the way sexists view women as objects of worship (the saint) or depravity (the sinner) – Might people be conditioned to see nonhumans the same way? Either as “happy” fantasy “magical” beings – Or just “resources”? In any case, I’m more in agreement now than ever – We definitely need research in this field – There are so many questions not yet answered. :/