Violent Images and the Animal Defense Movement

Introduction
In this post, I will present my perspective on the tactic of instrumentalizing graphic footage of animal suffering and slaughter. My position is that it is sometimes acceptable depending upon the context. Most importantly, I believe this footage should most often be representative of "common practices." In contrast to the position Dani makes in a recent post on The Vegan Ideal, I believe that this approach is often effective at jump-starting one's journey toward the vegan ideal and does not necessarily carry the "subtext" that less (aesthetically)horrific are "more acceptable." But before I critique what I perceive as a totalizing reduction made by Dani, who I for the most part agree with, I will cover some essential background.

Is using violent footage unethical and ineffective in achieving a political end?
In a recent post on The Vegan Ideal, Dani agreed with a comment made by brownfemipower on the Vegans of Color blog. Brownfemipower expressed her frustration with the exploitation of graphic images of oppression because they are disrespectful to the suffering being involved and because it is ineffective:

We wouldn't dream of using that sort of tactics for humans–for the simple ethical reason that it is a real fucking being that has to be hurt and violated so that we can achieve our goal... [and anyway,] people aren't going to change their minds and suddenly care about and activelly protect animals because they're grossed out... more often than not, people either get off on that shit.

In response to her comment on the post, I wrote in defense of sometimes using violence footage. I suggested that what is disrespectful/oppressive to people (radically self-aware beings) is not oppressive of "animals" (animals who lack an abstract conception of "self," shame, and pride) in the same sense because it makes cannot and will not ever make a difference in their individual or collective well-being (not taking into account the efficacy of the tactics).

Moreover, I argued that not only can one not equivocate between people and "animal" in this context, but neither is it correct to say that these tactics don't even work:

many (if not most) AR people came to the movement through witnessing violence in video. It’s so jarring that if you’ve never seen it before and won’t sit down to read a book about it. Killing and eating “meat” is so naturalized, as Breeze mentioned, that sometimes such a jarring is the only way to get people to think-outside-the-steakhouse.

At the same time, I admitted that such violence footage can backfire if overused as it can reaffirm the naturalization of "animals" as food and horrific/dumb/suffering bodies that are less valuable than human(s) (bodies). In other words, by never using violence footage we may never de-naturalize (or de-stabilize) the idyllic image that slaughter is a necessary component in an "animals'" life, yet, if all we do is use this footage, we reinforce the regularity, predictability, and determinacy of this violence--that is, it becomes completely "natural."

Has outrage against violent footage been appropriated to further violence?
However, while I disagreed with bfp on these two points, I agreed with her insightful statement that, often, violent footage is framed so that it is

not centering the needs of animals on any level. It’s centering activists need to get people to stop eating animals. If anything, this video *exposes* the problems with the animal rights movement more than anything else–because in all, this is not a terribly ‘cruel’ way to die–Which shows that you don’t really have to stop eating meat to stop violence against animals–you just have to find more human ways to kill animals

Many organizations and advocates use the most gruesome footage to push for regulation of the worst forms of violence because it is the most immoral (largely because of the "gross factor"). This is especially true for those who merely seek "humane" standards/alternatives.

This point has been addressed by animal studies historian Erica Fudge. Fudge points out how in the 21st century we often assume we are more "humane" or are less cruelty to animals (i.e. we generally no longer set cats on fire in the streets), but this is (partly) untrue. We only think this way because the killing has been made invisible--placed behind the walls of factories and laboratories away from public scrutiny. Further, Johnathon Burt notes that efforts to makes slaughter more "humane" often meant streamlining the process--making it more efficient, and by extension profitable. The irony here, is that the more"humane" slaughter could become for individual animals, the more enormous the scale and rate would become, and thus, lead to an "inhumane" system in which millions of farmed animals are slaughtered in a matter of seconds. Further, these regulations proposing alternative methods of slaughter result in making killing more acceptable: 1) animals are more often longer suffering in the process, 2) animals (are less apt to)demonstrate less resistance and agency, and 3) it seems peaceful or even eerily heart warming!

Finally, another concern is that people may become desensitized to the violence by becoming over-exposed to it. Just as with potential pacifying context of "humane" slaughter (which supposedly aided the Nazis in carrying out their genocidal policies) that dresses violence in innocent clothing, people no longer feel the aesthetic pull of outrage. The fiery passion is extinguished in a cool, euphemistic mist. The violence becomes"natural," as I mentioned above, by taking on the characteristic of normalcy--the very characteristic violent footage is attempting to de-stabilize!
- - - - -

Breaking free of the epistemology of ignorance
Now that I have clearly presented my (empirical) premises and position in general, I can delve into where I disagree with Dani. In his/her post, Dani makes an excellent point in response to his/her reading of bfp:

It's likely that most viewers would fail to realize the true significance of the exploitation going on in the background. The violent oppression that is the exploitation of im/migrant workers by the U.S. agri-food complex and government immigration policy cannot easily be picked up by a video camera. However, if we need to see an overseer out in the field whipping a child worker before we take the situation seriously, then it is us who lack connection and compassion.

What Dani is saying is that if we cannot "see" the (systemic) oppression going on, we lack an epistemological connection, we are "blind" to the exploitation of Others. This "epistemology of ignorance" is not accidental, in part because it is so institutionalized, a sort of no-sense common sense. We see it, but we don't see it. because we cannot perceive it, no affect of compassion resonates within our flesh.

Where I think Dani's analysis/argument goes awry is when s/he writes very plainly (and without much care to anticipate an objection). Here, Dani states that more explicit violent footage

does not tell people they need to stop exploiting other animals. The subtext of focusing on the most violent imagery is to suggest that an idyllic farm scene is not oppressive, or at least not oppressive enough to be concerned about.

In other words, by requesting more gore or violence in the presented footage, activists suggest that the less visible violence is less morally problematic. Dani, however, does not attempt to seek out nuances here. Any and every use exploitation of violence of footage implicitly contains this subtext:

what should really concern us is that because one form of exploitation appears less painful and less obvious it is considered more "humane" or acceptable...As long as we're insensitive to the least of their oppression, we are insensitive to their oppression as a whole.

While I believe this comment is saturated in insight, I believe it could use qualification. To whom does this "form of exploitation appears... more "humane" or acceptable"? Just the audience, or both the audience and the purveyor? The audience may not "get it" (the oppression), but this is mostly problematic if it occurs within a social vacuum. Quite likely, the footage will be accompanied by an "animal right"advocate who explains why all exploitation is wrong, no matter how unharmful it looks. Those who commented on the blog, I assume, were coming from this perspective: the heightened level of gore/violence doesn't matter morally, but it does make a difference aesthetically in moving a person to see the unseeable

Why using violent images work some times with some people
But Dani (seemingly) condemns all use of this type of footage in the post. I assume this because potential counterarguments are never even addressed, let alone acknowledged. It is here where I disagree. I see this (seemingly) absolute dismissal of the use of violent (often honestly explicit) images totalizing and reductive. A complete dismissal of the tactic, by the same logic, is arguably attempting to euphemize what is really going on. But I know this is not what Dani and bfp are arguing so I am not going to clump their position in with those of the PC police.

As I mentioned before, extreme forms of violence can disrupt our sense of normality/acceptability. It invites us to ask more questions: Why am a I disturbed by blood but not twitching legs? Is there a moral difference?. It can shock one into awareness. I am aware and concede that this tactic will not affect everyone positively and thus should not be carelessly applied to everyone, every time, everywhere. Yes, sometimes the more subtle (i.e.suggested) violence is, the more horrific and evocative it can be. Nonetheless, more explicit and violent footage serves as a useful tool for some people, sometime, in some places.

The reason people do not have much sympathy for im/migrants is because of the epistemology of ignorance. They do not fully comprehend the suffering they go through, they have not lived it through narrative and images. In fact, people are constantly attempting to justify why their position is okay--this is called post-hoc moral reasoning. The use of violent images is one useful way because it makes a reductio ad absurium argument--taking a moral position to the point of horror (i.e. if animals are subordinate to humans, can we lock them up in dark cages, rape, and force feed them garbage?). These scenarios force people to confront their moral intuitions, to decide whether to accept the horror, to qualify subordination, or to reject all subordination. Further, if one qualifies the limits of subordination, the vegan cause has a "foot in the door" to winning this person over to a more radical position of rejection subordination in the future by the very fact the person has also conceded once before.

Let's run through an experiment of the ad absurdium:
For instance, arguably, the conscious avoidance of using more explicit and violent images is equally complicit making invisible the reality of animal oppression. Why should people only be exposed to the less explicit forms of oppression/violence and not all facets of oppression? This logic (without having been given any further elucidation) taken to its extreme has us ask the following:

• Should we avoid talking about/showing genocide because we would be suggesting manslaughter is not enough to be concerned about?


• Should we avoid showing veterans with body-parts blown-off because the subtext would be that making a person kill another person is not worthy of moral concern?


• Would it really have been better if Palin was sanding in front of the farms' road sign and no turkeys were even present, no violence visible?


• Maybe we shouldn't even address killing animals since it is so bloody and violent.

These absurd scenarios call upon a person to at the very least think about and qualify his/her statement (i.e. "Wait, that's not what I mean! Let me clarify..."). In some cases that person may even change his/her mind and agree with the shortcomings of a political/moral position. Of course, someone could always avoid answering the questions, but most often the people who lack enough passion of inquiry and need to defend are unlikely to change their minds as they are already indifferent. That is, they lack the deep seed of care which forces one to respect the (moral) concern of another and ultimately take a side.

Conclusion
In short, I agree with bfp and Dani that exploiting violent images can be detrimental in some contexts. For example, it may 1) imply that some other forms of exploitation are okay so long as they are not visible, 2) desensitize one to the violence and "naturalize" it, and 3) turn-off someone to considering compassion because the footage is may be traumatize. Where i disagree is with what I read (from the curtness of their comments) as their universal condemnation of all use because of a totalizing reduction that clumps vegan advocates in with those who merely want to ameliorate guilt, ugliness, and inhumanity through "humane" standards for oppression.

Now that I've left my two cents, I encourage people to leave their own as well. (NOTE: this post has a lot of relevance to future posts I will put up on deconstructing dichotomous thinking in the AR movement). Read more!

A Tale of Power & (Di)vision

This following is a response to a post called "A Tale of Power & Vision" by Dani at the excellent vegan blog, The Vegan Ideal. In this post, the following video is used as a model of "how our 'pessimism' and 'pragmatism' works to foster apathy and how 'power' and 'vision' can get us where we want to go."



Although, I honestly wish the world we inhabit were as simple and straightforward as the world in the video, there are three nagging faults within it that I'd like to address:

1. The video's over-simplistic and flawed depiction of the "present" and the "future." Not only does this suggest that the "present" is static and discontinuous with the "future," but it also posits a single future. Yet, there are a plethora of competing futures. Almost everyone is oriented toward some future, or past in the future. The issue isn't just leaping to the other side. Most of the "battle" is convincing everyone else that your future is the best one. If everyone else can't be motivated, another future will be selected over yours.The video ignores the very difficult task of convincing others to share your vision/future. In fact, only two actors--not the power of the community--find a solution to transcending the "present."

2. The presumption that if two people reach the other side that others will gleefully embrace their example. Convincing others to share your vision is an enlongated process until a "tipping point" is reached. Such an event requires considerable popular support. If popular support for a future is necessary for change, for the future, then it is critical to nudge the "present" nearer to the future that we seek. The problem is not that "pragmatists" are "pessimistic" and/or lack a vision, but rather that the apathetic and opposition feel no (moral) compulsion to cross the gap to the future or cross the gap at all. "Pragmatic" methods supplement vision and power in getting people to first discuss (on their own terms) whether such a move is desirable. Once the tipping point is reached, pragmatism outlives its usefulness; but until then, it facilitates the (incremental) acceptance of the proposed vision.

3. Mis-representing "pragmatists" as apathetic. In the video, "pragmatism" sides with pessimism and produces apathy. However, in the real world, those who work on reforms and other "pragmatic" measures (that are not vegan outreach) are usually among the least apathetic and the most active. If pragmatists were so pessimistic, there would be no campaigns, discourse, and stunts for criticize some "vegans" to criticize. In real life, the "pragmatist" might not get to the other side-- s/he might keep falling into the hole--, but s/he would at least not stop trying and recruiting others to join him/her from achieving his/her goal. Arguably, those who reject reforms and make a career or campaign out of defeating those efforts are also pessimists. Labeling and stigmatizing allies who care enough to do something as "pessimists" does not advance animal liberation.

While many "abolitionists" believe reforms and any methodology other than vegan outreach is "counterproductive," I believe that such a castigating and monolithic position is at least as much, if not more, counterproductive. Simplistic, strawman depictions of Other activists like these are offensive because they ignore all the passion and action Others have taken. Just as there is a difference between opposing troops and the war and supporting troops and opposing the war, these characterizations mock the people who are often pouring more of their lives into activism for animals than those who oppose their methodologies (however, misguided they are assumed to be).

One might instead call this video "Power & (Di)vision." This (di)vision isn't rooted in the dissent of constructive criticism, but rather the bisection of a continuum of methodologies into categories like "abolition"/"vision" and "welfare"/"pragmatism." Besides distinguishing "right" from "wrong," these dichotomies obstruct one from imagining how each approach may complement the others. As feminists have stressed, one needn't be "either/or" oriented; one can often chose "both/and." As social constructions, dichotomies are created not to elucidate the world so much as to divide and conquer it. Dualisms serve as tools of wor(l)d order: they abject the undesirable so as not to contaminate the divine. How imaginative is a (di)Vision that ignores all nuance and complexity in positions? How creative and transformative can a (di)Vision be if it polices a fixed world of "good"versus "bad"? Dualism serves not transformative dialog, but irreconcilable struggle.

We ought to be humbled by the complexity of the exploitation and oppression of human and animal Others, not arrogantly assuming that we have the one and only right way. Only those in the future will be able to judge which methods were the most effective. In the present, we ought to appreciate the differences others are making in others' lives. Expanding compassion never heeds to a dead end, but rather it is volatile and responsive to new opportunities. If "welfarists" open new doors and shut others, "abolitionists" can open still more. Those who support a monolithic movement are the ones who are often unimaginative and pessimistic of opportunities. If we disagree with their discourse or tactics, we can mount a critique via the attention they have received. Rather than attempting to obstruct and castigate their work, we can build-off of it, improve it, makingits weaknesses visible to the public. Even still, whether we like it or not, people are going to pursue methodologies we disagree with--one cannot sqaush dissent. In the end, the success of this movement will be achieved through cooperation and sensitivity, not in-fighting and arrogance.


* It is also noteworthy that "pessimism"and "pragmatism" are marked as fat while "power" and "vision"and everyone else are thin. The cartoon obviously exploits 21st century popular prejudice against "fat" people, playing with the trope that "fat" people are lazy, inactive, dim, and useless. This, I believe, is yet another reason to be skeptical of the "optimistic," "visionary," and "powerful" message of the cartoon.

** Although I am critical of some of the positions expressed on The Vegan Ideal, as a whole, I think it is among the most invaluable vegan blogs out there. I encourage everyone to explore some of the topics (like neoliberalism and anti-oppression) discussed therein. Read more!