Animal Rights Go Veg

7/27/2019 Animal Rights Go Veg

1/21

Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 brill.nl/soan

Framing Animal Rights in the Go Veg Campaigns ofU.S. Animal Rights Organizations

Carrie Packwood FreemanGeorgia State University

[email protected]

AbstractHow much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuadeAmericas meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? Tis study serves as the basis for aunique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by five major U.S.animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. Te findings reveal that the organiza-tions framed the problems as: cruelty and suffering; commodification; harm to humans and theenvironment; and needless killing. o solve problems largely blamed on factory farming, activistsasked consumers to become vegetarian (meaning vegan) or to reduce animal product con-sumption, some requesting humane reforms. While certain messages supported animal rights,

promoting veganism and respect for animals subject status, many frames used animal welfareideology to achieve rightssolutions, conservatively avoiding a direct challenge to the dominanthuman/animal dualism. In support of ideological authenticity, this paper recommends thatvegan campaigns emphasize justice, respect, life, freedom, environmental responsibility, and ashared animality.

Keywordsanimal rights, campaigns, farm animal, framing, ideology, vegan, vegetarian

How much do or should animal rights activists talk about animal rights whenthey attempt to persuade Americas meat-lovers to stop eating animals? Asparticipants in a counterhegemonic social movement, animal rights organiza-tions are faced with the discursive challenge of redefining accepted practices,such as farming and eating nonhuman animals, as socially unacceptablepractices. In problematizing the status quo, activists must decide how to bal-ance the risks and benefits involved with being either too oppositional or toomoderate. For animal rights organizations, this involves deciding how muchtheir messages should reflect a transformational animal rights perspective and

nonspeciesist values or more mainstream animal welfare values and humanself-interest.


2/21

164 C. P. Freeman / Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182

As an animal activist and communications scholar, I argue in favor of ideo-logical authenticity, where communication strategy is grounded in its ethical

philosophy to promote long-term worldview transformation. For animalrights, this would mean constructing vegan campaigns that not only convincepeople to avoid consuming any animal products but do so in ways that encour-age people to respect other animals as fellow sentient beings with the right tolive free of exploitation. In this study, I determine to what extent animal rightsorganizations currently reflect an animal rights perspective, and I make strate-gic recommendations for how they could. I do so through evaluating andcategorizing how five major U.S. animal rights organizations frame problemsand solutions in their vegan campaign materials.

Literature Review

Framing

Social movement organizations must mobilize resources, heed political oppor-tunities, and publicly communicate their ideas through strategic packaging, orframing (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996). Communicators use framingto make ideas meaningful, organize experiences, and guide audience actions(Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986). Social movement organizationsengage in collective action framing, which involves three core elements: diag-nosis (defining problems and possibly attributing blame); prognosis (definingsolutions); and motivation (appealing to shared values to encourage action)(Snow & Benford, 1988).

Frames can be conceived as reductionist presentation strategies that areinformed by ideology, meaning a guiding belief system and normative world-view (Oliver & Johnston, 2005). Ideologies serve as both a constraint and aresource to the framing process, and the resulting frames help scholars empir-ically observe ideology at work (Snow & Benford, 2005). Achieving ideologi-cal transformation requires social movement organizations to follow a framealignment process where they align their meanings and values with those ofthe public while creating new discourses (Snow et al., 1986).

Foucault (2000) suggests that transformative discourse requires people tohave trouble thinking things the way they have been thought (p. 457) andrelies on a criticism of the status quo that is outside the standard mode ofthought, not one that is just a certain way of better adjusting the same thoughtto the reality of things (p. 457). Similarly, Lakoff (2004) posits that changecannot occur without issues being strategically re-framed: Re-framing is


3/21

C. P. Freeman / Society and Animals 18 (2010) 163-182 165

changing the way the public sees the world. It is changing what counts as com-mon sense . . . Tinking differently requires speaking differently (p. xv). Lakoff

believes that advocacy groups should say what they idealistically believe(p. 20), emphasizing their own worldview and presenting a clear set of simplevalues that accurately reflect their philosophy and moral vision (p. 74).

Retaining ideological integrity is also favored in lessons learned from 19th-century human rights framing debates, which recommend that counterhege-monic movements not shy away from demanding rights against discriminationyet remain politically expedient by embodying culturally resonant moral valuessituated in historically familiar narratives/myths (Polletta, 2006; Campbell,1989; Bormann, 1971). o increase frames resonance, activists should: seek

credibility, using arguments that are authentic to their beliefs, truthful, and log-ically consistent; and create salience by appealing to culturally accepted valuesand connecting them to the audiences everyday life (Benford & Snow, 2000).

Animal Rights Ideology

Te modern animal rights movement seeks a deconstruction of the human/animal dualism, transforming society to a nonspeciesist worldview that con-ceives of other animals as inherently valuable beings with interests that deserverespect, just as humans claim to respect each other as subjects, not objects(Regan, 2003; Francione, 1996; Singer, 1990). While animal rightsincorpo-rates concerns about animal welfarebased on sentience, there are importantdifferences in how the two viewpoints view humans in relation to otheranimals. Animal rightscan be defined as a deontological ethic that grants non-human animals the right to privacy and freedom from human intrusion,seeking an end to the domestication, enslavement, exploitation, and propertystatus of nonhuman animals (Hall, 2006a; Francione, 1996; Regan, 1983).Animalwelfare can be defined as a mainstream Western philosophy that regu-lates animal exploitation to reduce the suffering of nonhuman animals underhuman control (Hall, 2006a; Francione, 1996).

Francione (1996) states that animal welfare: (a) recognizes animal sentiencebut believes nonhuman animals are not as worthy of moral respect as arehumans, (b) recognizes nonhuman animals property status while wanting tolimit the rights of property owners, and (c) accepts trading away nonhumananimals interests in favor of human interests only if the latter are deemedsignificant and necessary. Welfare has been the more popular philosophythroughout history, likely because it does not threaten humanist claims tosuperiority and justifies the humane use of other animals for profit or human

gain (Linzey & Clarke, 2004).


4/21


Posthumanist scholars have recently challenged the rights-based approachto animal liberation based on its reliance upon expanding human rights prin-

ciples that are inherently humanist and that therefore, ironically, reinforce thehuman/animal dualism the movement seeks to dismantle (Calarco, 2008;Derrida, 2004; Wolfe, 2003). While these critiques have legitimacy, I advocateat this stage for a rights-based approach because it pragmatically resonateswith Americans yet is less overtly humanist than a welfare-based approach.But to diminish the humanism inherent in the rights approach, I propose thatanimal rights organizations rhetoric should increase humans connection withtheir own animality and nature by ensuring that moral messages avoid human-ist appeals to a purely humane or anthropocentric notion of civilization and

ethics (Freeman, 2010). I also believe that animal rights organizations mustacknowledge that social nonhuman animal cultures have their own ethicalsystems (Bekoff & Pierce, 2009), often following natures tendencies towardmoderation and necessary harm and avoiding human tendencies toward exces-sive harm and consumption. But in promoting human-animal kinship anddeconstruction of the human/animal dualism, animal rights organizationsshould also embrace diversity by appreciating species variety and individualityto avoid a humanist insinuation that nonhuman animals must resemblehumans to deserve respect (Freeman, 2010; Wolfe, 2003; Birke & Parisi,

1999; Ingold, 1988).Some animal rights scholars and activists argue that animal rights organiza-

tions should align ideology with strategy for increased authenticity and candor,retaining control of the discourse by defining the problem as exploitation andslavery not husbandry and cruelty (Hall, 2006a, 2006b; Dunayer, 2006;LaVeck, 2006a, 2006b; Francione, 1996;). Yet Hall (2006a) notes that themajority of animal protection organizations, even radical direct-action groups,promote welfare, not rights, by primarily focusing on captive animal suffering,when they should shift toward protecting the dignity and habitats of free non-

human animals. And to raise the status of nonhuman animals from propertyto persons, activist rhetoric must animate them (Black, 2003).

Framing Veganism

Regarding food issues, animal rights organization debates center on promot-ing rights (veganism and farming abolition) versus welfare (meat reduction,humane products, and farming reform). Te former deontological argu-ment says that improving an exploitative industry is disingenuous with regardto an ideology that respects animals, a position that is also bolstered by the

pragmatic argument that reforms undermine vegan objectives by assuaging


5/21


consumer guilt and possibly increasing agribusiness profitability by appealingto increasingly conscientious consumers (Dunayer, 2006; Hall, 2006b;

LaVeck, 2006a and 2006b; Lyman, 2006; orres, 2006; Francione, 1996).LaVeck (2006b) claims that through promoting farming reforms, activists aresending mixed messages, counterproductively radicalizing veganism, andintroducing moral ambiguity into situations where the boundaries betweenright and wrong must never be allowed to blur (p. 23). Yet other activists andscholars disagree, citing utilitarian reasons for favoring farming welfarereforms, saying it raises greater public awareness, drives up meat prices, andincrementally leads to abolition (Park, 2006; Singer & Friedrich, 2006).

While less than 4% of Americans are vegetarian, abstaining from animal

flesh (Singer & Mason, 2006; Maurer, 2002), a quarter of Americans say theyare reducing meat consumption (HRC, 2007). Yet vegetarian advocates arechallenged by survey findings revealing that 80% of meat-eaters do not everintend to go fully vegetarian, based on concerns that vegetarianism may beunhealthy and because they like the taste of meat (HRC, 2007). Terefore,researchers pragmatically suggested that advocates promote meat reductionrather than veganism. Yet researchers also concluded that people are moremotivated to eliminatemeat based on an animal suffering/moral rationale,than a health or environmental rationale (HRC, 2007).

Maurer (2002) suggests that vegetarianism, as opposed to meat reduction,will not start growing unless the movement proves that meat is either danger-ous to ones health or immoral. She concludes that promoting concern foranimals and the environment is essential to the advancement of the vegetarianmovement (p. 45) because health-motivated vegetarians may be tempted bythe convenience of a meat-based diet and new lower-fat animal products. Ifvegetarianism becomes just another healthy lifestyle choice for consumers, itloses its ideological edge as a public moral good (p. 126).

Method

Structured by social movement framing theory and Snow & Benfords (1988)collective action framing components, this analysis defines how animal rightsorganizations frame problems and solutions in their food advocacy campaignmaterials. I examine this in context of the frames alignment with animalrights ideology and American cultural values, following Stuart Halls (1975,1997) cultural studies method of textual analysis by examining words andimages in context to uncover the themes and assumptions grounding the con-

struction of ideas.


6/21


My text sample includes all food advocacy materials on vegetarianism/veg-anism and the human practices of farming and fishing, including hundreds of

pieces of electronic and print materials, used by animal rights organizations asof January 2008. Electronic materials include Web pages and self-producedvideo footage and advertisements. Print materials include vegetarian starterguides, pamphlets, advertisements, and collateral items such as stickers,clothing, buttons, and posters.

o be comparable and relevant, the animal rights organizations selected forthis study had: a mission supporting animal rights and veganism in contrast toa more moderate welfare mission primarily promoting humane farming;1

campaigns providing a variety of advocacy pieces aimed at the public; and a

national U.S. presence. Te following five organizations, listed from largest tosmallest, most fully met the criteria for inclusion: People for the Ethical reat-ment of Animals (PEA), Farm Sanctuary, Farm Animal Rights Movement,Compassion Over Killing, and Vegan Outreach.

PEA was founded over 25 years ago in Washington, D.C., as a multi-issuegroup. Now headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, PEA has expanded tobecome the largest animal rights group in the world, with more than 150 full-time, paid staff, international offi ces, and more than 1.8 million members andsupporters. Farm Sanctuary was founded in 1986 and has grown into the larg-

est farmed-animal rescue and advocacy organization in the nation, operatingsanctuaries in New York and California, with more than 100,000 membersand 75 paid staff. Farm Animal Rights Movement, located in Bethesda,Maryland, has seven paid staff and runs annual vegetarian campaigns andactivist conferences; started in the 1970s, it is the oldest farmed-animal rightsgroup. Te youngest vegan advocacy organization, Compassion Over Killing,was founded in 1995 in a Washington, D.C., high school and now has sixpaid, full-time staff. Its emphasis is on truth in food marketing. Vegan Out-reach is a highly-focused group started in 1993; it primarily operates from

ucson, Arizona, with just three paid staff members and a host of volunteersto fulfill its primary mission of handing out vegan pamphlets on collegecampuses.

Findings

Tis section outlines the results of my textual analysis of the animal rightsorganization collective action framing components of problems (includingblame) and solutions.


7/21


Problem Frames

Animal rights organization advocacy utilized four problem frames, which Iwill discuss in order of frequency and prominence: (1) the suffering of animalsdue to cruelty; (2) the commodification of animals as objects; (3) the harmful-ness of animal agribusiness and animal products to humans and the environ-ment; and (4) the needless killing and death of animals for food.

1. Cruelty and SufferingA Farm Sanctuary leaflet says the No. 1 reason to go vegetarian is that foodanimals are not protected from inhumane treatment. Tis is representative ofthe most prominent problem framethe cruelty and suffering of farmed ani-mals. Animal rights organization texts are full of visual and verbal descriptionsof land animals extreme mental and physical suffering in confinement andduring the painful transport and slaughtering process. (PEA was the onlyanimal rights organization that included fish suffering). Animal rights organi-zations often use the words crueltyand suffering, as on the covers of VeganOutreachs two most popular booklets and in its Web address, opposecruelty.org. o assure the public that farmed animals experience pain, animal rightsorganizations cite scientific evidence and frequently compare farmed animalsfeelings to those of cats, dogs, or other popular mammals, sometimes humans.Consider Farm Animal Rights Movements vegetarian postcard, which states,Animals raised for food are just as intelligent, lovable, and sensitive as theanimals we callpets.

All animal rights organizations tend to focus on the worst cruelties in fac-tory farming, specifically the extreme intensive confinement of battery cages(hens), gestation crates (pigs), and veal crates (calves), where the animals canhardly move and the pictures are particularly pitiful, showing bars, excrement,chains, and inflamed, raw skin. Immobility is frequently shown, not only withregard to animals confined in small cages, but hens painfully impaled by wireor stuck underneath battery cages, as well as downed cows and pigs lan-guishing at stockyards or being dragged to slaughter. And almost every factoryfarming discussion describes the many standard procedures and manipula-tions performed without anesthesia, including: debeaking, branding, castra-tion, dehorning, toe clipping, ear and tail docking, and teeth clipping. Videosallow viewers to hear the animals squealing or crying in pain.

As evidence of the poor living conditions and lack of individual medicalcare, animal rights organizations cite the high mortality rates on the farm orin transport, showing carcasses rotting among the living. Videos from Farm

Sanctuary and PEA reveal workers beating to death animals who are sick or


8/21


runts, particularly in the pork, foie gras, and turkey industries. Commer-cially useless chicks in the egg and foie gras industries are shown slowly suf-

focating in trash bags inside dumpsters. And it is common for any section onslaughterhouses to assure viewers that many of the animals, particularly birds,are fully conscious when having their throats slit, sometimes experiencingscalding tanks and dismemberment; Vegan Outreach cites a slaughterhouseworker describing how cows often die piece by piece.

2. Commodification of Animals into Economic ObjectsMost animal rights organizations, particularly Farm Sanctuary, critique howagriculture treats farmed animals as economic objects instead of sentient, indi-

vidual subjects. For example, Farm Sanctuarys Sentient Beings campaignleaflet states that animals used for food in the United States are commonlytreated like unfeeling tools of production, rather than as living, feelinganimals. Farm Sanctuarys farmed-animal treatment brochure explains thatwhen they are no longer profitable, they are literally thrown away in woodchippers and garbage cans.

o emphasize the commodity status of farmed animals, Farm Sanctuarysvideo on downed animals explains that calves may sell for as little as one dol-lar but can be left to suffer for days for that dollar. PEAs Vegetarian Starter

Kittells the story of a downed cow left suffering all day at a stockyard becausestaff veterinarians would not euthanize her, lest they damage the value of themeat; she was eventually shot by a butcher and her body was purchased for$307.50. Farm Sanctuary and Vegan Outreach especially like to quote indus-try representatives who describe farm animals as profit-making machines.

o express visually the impersonal business of mass-producing animals,animal rights organizations often show factory-farmed animals en masse,especially with long shots of warehouses revealing a repetitious sea of similar-looking animals. At other times, closer shots reveal that each pig or calf has a

numberabove his/her crate or a numbered tag on his/her back or ear indicat-ing that he/she is nothing more than a replaceable unit. Farm Sanctuary jux-taposes these industry images with photographs ofnamedsanctuary residentslike Phoebe or ruffl es.

3. Harmfulness of Animal Products and Farming to People and EnvironmentEach animal rights organizations vegetarian guides and Web pages containseparate sections on health and environment. All animal rights organizationsexcept Vegan Outreach prioritize human health as a major benefit of vegetari-

anism, second only to showing compassion for nonhuman animals. Messagesdiscuss how a plant-based diet is not only healthy, but often healthier than a


9/21


standard meat-based diet, especially in preventing obesity and major diseases,citing the position of the American Dietetic Association. Animal rights orga-

nizations often characterize animal-based diets as unhealthy. For example,Compassion Over Killing and Farm Sanctuarys veg guides say that animalproducts are the main source of saturated fat and the only source of choles-terol for most Americans. Farm Sanctuarys guide also debates the bone-building myth of dairy by saying that studies suggest a connection betweenosteoporosis and diets that are rich in animal protein, while CompassionOver Killing emphasizes the unnaturalness of humans drinking another spe-cies milk. Both guides also list the antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains that arefound in animal products, and Farm Sanctuarys brochures warn against

harmful pathogens like salmonella and E. coli.PEA is the only group emphasizing health messages regarding weight and

sex appeal. PEAs veg guide page on weight loss features a doctor stating thatmeat-eaters have three times the obesity rate of vegetarians and nine times theobesity rate of vegans. PEA creates a positive association between vegetari-anism and sex through its annual sexiest vegetarian contests, while creatinga negative association of meat with sluggishness and impotence.

While they prioritize personal health, PEA, Farm Sanctuary, and FarmAnimal Rights Movement sometimes mention populist public health issues

such as world hunger, farm-worker illness/injury, and rural pollution. Forexample, Farm Animal Rights Movements Well-Fed World campaign seekshunger-policy reform, promoting plant-based diets as a key component toreversing starvation rates as worldwide consumption of unsustainable animalproducts and factory farming increases. And Farm Sanctuarys economyWeb link describes how corporate agribusiness pollutes rural communitiesand fails to bring promised economic benefits.

Of increasing popularity is an appeal to peoples concerns for how our foodchoices affect the environment, especially when it threatens human well-being.

PEA, Farm Sanctuary, and Farm Animal Rights Movement produce printand online pieces framing animal agribusiness as environmentally destructive,commonly featuring photos of factory farm pipes spewing manure into cess-pools. Farm Sanctuarys Veg for Life print pieces mention environmentaldegradation, using verbs such as eroded, ruined, contaminated, compromised,mismanaged,and ransacked. PEAs Chop Chop leaflet visually equates a porkchop to trees being chopped, providing details on meats association withexcessive resource use, global warming, pollution, and damage to oceanic life.Farm Animal Rights Movements Bite Global Warming campaign is built

around a 2006 United Nations report listing animal agriculture as an even biggerculprit in greenhouse gas emissions than transportation, a fact increasingly


10/21


cited by many other animal rights organizations as climate change becomes acritical issue.

4. Te Killing and aking of Life for Foodo demonstrate the less frequently used right-to-life frame, here are examplesof how PEA, Farm Animal Rights Movement, and Farm Sanctuary prob-lematize death. PEAs Chew on TisDVD lists moral rationales for veganism,including: because no living creature wants to see her family slaughtered;because no animal deserves to die for your taste buds; because they dontwant to die; and because commerce is no excuse for murder. PEA oftenstates that vegetarians savemore than 100 lives each year. PEAs teen book-

let twice mentions that even free-range animals all have their lives violentlycut short. One page is titled Bottom Line: Meat is Murder; this retro sloganof the movement was rarely used by PEA and never used by other animalrights organizations.

Farm Animal Rights Movement has a World Farm Animals Day campaignto expose, mourn, and memorialize the innocent, feeling animals in factoryfarms and slaughterhouses. Farm Animal Rights Movements use of death tollstatistics ensures that each life counts. Te text describes the suffering anddeath as pointless, emphasizing meats needlessness, bolstered by the cam-

paigns slogan Saving billionsone bite at a time. Necessity was mentionedagain in several of Farm Animal Rights Movements Meatout campaign post-cards, saying that each vegetarian saves up to 2,000 animals from deaths thatare unnecessary.

Similarly, Farm Sanctuarys FAQ section states that people have the choicenot to kill, as meat is not necessary for them as it is for some other animals. ItsVeg for Life leaflet says that nearly 10 billion farm animals needlesslydieevery year. Life is emphasized in Farm Sanctuarys campaign title Veg forLife and in its new advertisement and -shirt slogan End the slaughter.

Tere are lives on the line. In a move reminiscent of Farm Animal RightsMovements idea of mourning the dead, Farm Sanctuarys tribute section onthe Web memorializes deceased sanctuary residents with stories signifying thateach individuals life mattered.

5. Blame Component: Agribusiness First, Consumers SecondIn problem frames, animal rights organizations identify the most blatant cul-prit as factory farms, claiming that the agribusiness industry perpetuatesand hides its cruelty, killing, pollution, and destruction. Animal rights organi-

zation messages only sometimes blame animal agriculture or free-rangefarms; for example, collateral materials from Farm Animal Rights Movement


11/21


and Farm Sanctuary specifically ask people to fight factoryfarming, which isa distinctly different message from end animalfarming. o a lesser extent,

the government and the legal system are mentioned for failing to protectfarmed animals, but only a few of the animal rights organizations, particularlyFarm Sanctuary, propose legal solutions. Most calls-to-action ask consumersto boycott animal products, as this is considered more worthwhile than work-ing with an untrustworthy industry and ineffectual government regulatoryagencies on welfare reforms.

Animal rights organizations do not usually blame meat-eaters directly, andthey typically insinuate that consumers are caring people who are kept inno-cently ignorant of factory farm cruelty. Yet even the animal rights organiza-

tions many positive messages about consumers compassion suggest, by default,that newly educated consumers would now be guilty of supporting animalcruelty if they continue to buy animal products. A few messages, however,more overtly accuse meat-eaters of being responsible parties in theproblems ofanimal cruelty and environmental destruction. For example, a Farm AnimalRights Movement poster shows a cow slaughter illustration and reads, Its afilthy business. Tey couldnt do it without you, and PEAs Chew on TisDVD declares that people should go vegetarian because: Its violence you canstop; No animal deserves to die for your taste buds; and It takes a small

person to beat a defenseless animal and an even smaller person to eat one.While most animal rights organization environmental appeals take a posi-

tive approach to asserting the power consumers have to save the earth, PEAsometimes uses a more accusatory tack. Its online environmental sectionclaims, Meat-eaters are responsible for production of 100% of this waste. Govegetarian and youll be responsible for none of it. And PEAs Chop Chopleaflet boldly asserts: Tink you can be a meat-eating environmentalist? Tinkagain! declaring, Teres no excuse for eating meat.

Solution Frames

Te most popular solution animal rights organizations propose is for consum-ers to eat feweror noanimal products, but Farm Sanctuary also promoteshumane farming reforms via government and PEA promotes some voluntaryreforms by industry and retailers.

1. Consumers Going Vegan or Reducing Consumption of Animal ProductsTe most common solution by far proposed by all animal rights organizations

is for consumers to stop supporting animal agribusiness and go vegan. Whileevery animal rights organization uses the term vegetarian more often than


12/21


vegan, they imply veganism through all the dairy- and egg-free recipe andproduct suggestions. Farm Sanctuary and Farm Animal Rights Movement

favor the termplant-basedin environmental and scientific messages, presum-ably because it has fewer sociopolitical identity connotations. Most printmaterials make direct calls-to-action: Choose veg foods (Compassion OverKilling); Kick the meat habit (Farm Animal Rights Movement); and Govegetarian (PEA and Farm Sanctuary). And consider these vegetarian-pro-moting URLs: Meatout.org, Veganoutreach.org, Goveg.com, Vegforlife.org,Vegkit.org, and ryveg.com.

Much of the time, animal rights organizations, especially Compassion OverKilling and PEA, are consistent in their solution for consumers to eliminate

animal products, but Farm Sanctuary, Vegan Outreach, and sometimes FarmAnimal Rights Movement occasionally suggest less sweeping changes, askingthat consumers simply reduce the amount of animal foods eaten. Farm Ani-mal Rights Movements Meatout Mondays campaign, despite the title, stillpromotes veganism. A vegetarian solution is not specified in all of Farm Sanc-tuarys factory farming and stockyard cruelty messages; in some cases, FarmSanctuary requests only that consumers avoid certainfactory-farmedproducts,such as: foie gras, veal, pork, and battery-caged eggs. Farm Sanctuarys emphasison promoting compassionate choices may leave the consumer with the

open-ended option of determining which food items qualify as compassionatechoices.

Vegan Outreachs most popular booklet Even If You Like Meatsuggests thatconsumers reduceconsumption of animal products, in particular eggs and themeat of birds and pigs, as those animals suffer most. Te cover requests thatpeople cut meat consumption in half, and inside it says, opposing factoryfarming isnt all or nothing and consumers should eat less meat to help pre-vent farm animal suffering. In this way, it avoids using the word vegetarian,suggesting that individuals just do what [they] can.

No animal rights organization ever proposes that people switch to so-calledhumane animal products. All vegetarian starter guides and Web sites havesmall sections dispelling the myth that free-range farming is truly free-rangeor cruelty-free, mentioning that these animals still experience painful mutila-tions and uncomfortable transport and slaughter.

2. Farmed Animal Welfare ReformSome Farm Sanctuary campaigns demand legal humane farming reform, mak-ing federal and state governments blameworthy for allowing cruelty. In Farm

Sanctuarys video Life Behind Bars, spokesperson Mary yler Moore proclaimsthat crates should be banned in the U.S. as they are in other countries. Farm


13/21


Sanctuarys Web page explains that it works on statewide referenda to institutecrating bans as well as federal legislation to protect downed animals at slaugh-

terhouses. Furthermore, Farm Sanctuarys Sentient Beings campaign seeksimproved legal subject status for farmed animals, following Europes lead.Rather than working forgovernment-based legal reform, PEA tends to pres-sure corporations to reform voluntarily. PEAs campaigns request that theKentucky Fried Chicken fast-food chain and Safeway groceries mandatehigher welfare standards from egg and meat suppliers and that yson Farmsand kosher slaughterhouses use less painful killing methods.

Discussion

In support of ideological authenticity, I advocate for some animal rights orga-nization collective action frames to undergo a frame transformation alignmentprocess (Snow et al., 1986), enacting Foucaults (2000) notion of critical trans-formation and Lakoff s (2004) idea of reframing. In this prescriptive section Ianalyze animal rights organization frames for their alignment with animalrights ideology and explain how, and to what extent, animal rights organiza-tions did or could construct transformative, nonspeciesist frames that resonateon some level with a largely speciesist American public.

Evaluation of Problem and Solution Frames

1. Cruelty Problem Frame and Solutions of Veganism and Industry ReformWelfare reform solutions, rather than veganism, make logical sense to mitigatethe proposed problem of factory farm cruelty, but they fail to align with animalrights ideology, as reforms still allow industry to exploit nonhuman animalsfor profit.Te industry reform solution muddles and weakens the correspond-

ing vegan solution by suggesting that industry can improve its animal useinstead of insisting that animal use isthe problem (LaVeck, 2006b). Further-more, the cruelty problem frame often highlights the worst or most abusiveaspects of factory farming. By doing so, it implicitly makes less painful ormore mundane practices of farming animals, such as captivity and use, seemlessproblematic or even unproblematic by comparison.

Te logical solution to a problem frame of cruelty and commodification isfor consumers to financially support less inhumane animal farms, but themost popular solution animal rights organizations have constructed is for con-

sumers to end cruelty by going vegan.Animal rights organizations, however,have often tried to align the problem of cruelty and commodification, more


14/21


logically, with a vegan solution by explaining that a greedy and uncaringindustry will not stop cruel practices, and, furthermore, that it cannotstop

because its profit motive dictates poor animal welfare to remain viable in aglobal market. When animal rights organizations messages included this eco-nomic argument against industry reform, then veganism, rather than humanemeat consumption, became the more logical solution to cruelty.

A consumer-based vegan solution to cruelty does not make as much senseif animal rights organizations propose it along with an industry-based welfaresolution. Tis combination of rights and welfare solutions might make moresense if animal rights organizations explained that the two are unrelated byclarifying that veganism is the most ethical consumer solution and that welfare

reforms are a separate solution aimed at having industry mitigate the mostegregiously cruel practices while society at large transitions from an animal-based to a plant-based diet.

2. Te Commodification Problem FrameTe commodification problem frame could more logically fit a vegan solutionand animal rights ideology if animal rights organizations emphasized howallfarming is inherently objectifying, rather than just emphasizing thesufferinginvolved in industrialized mass production. In many cases, however, animal

rights organizations cited standard factory farming practices to indicate howthe mass production of animals commodifies them and prioritizes profits,which implicitly excludes critiquing traditional forms of animal husbandry/fishing. I draw this conclusion because even when animal rights organizationsargued against free-range farming, they often did so by claiming that mostof these farms were not truly free-range, which implies that real free-rangefarms would not be objectifying.

3. Te Killing Problem Frame

Te lesser-used frame of killing and taking of life for human food is theproblem frame that best aligns with animal rights ideology, as well as a vegansolution, as it constructs farmed animals subject status as being equal to dogs,cats, or even humans, all of whom it is illegal to kill for food in the UnitedStates. Adding anecessityangle could bolster this frame, as it makes sense thatif Americans do not needto eat animal products to survive, then they cannotmorally justify the killing of fellow animal subjects. Some animal rights orga-nizations occasionally mentioned meats needlessness, or implied it by notingthe healthfulness of veganism, but necessity and choice should be highlighted

as central to determining when the idea of taking anyones life becomesimmoral and when meat does indeed become murder. Tis is supported by


15/21


Halls (2006a) contention that activists should not demonize predation over-all, as carnivores have no choice but to be predators and humans may need to

be omnivorous in extreme situations.

4. Te Problem Frame of Harm to Humans and the EnvironmentAnimal rights organizations link meat and animal cruelty to other salientissues such as public health and environmentalism. While self-interested argu-ments about human health risks are a legitimate concern, animal rights orga-nizations should not make anthropocentric frames the main concern (andmost animal rights organizations did not, except Farm Animals Rights Move-ment), as it does not authentically reflect the animal rights organizations pri-

mary motivation to protect nonhuman animals. Environmental harm frames(when altruistic rather than anthropocentric) have a greater potential to fitanimal rights ideology, especially by emphasizing protection of wildlife andtheir habitats (Hall, 2006a). All animal rights organizations expressed someconcern for wildlife, especially oceanic life, in their environmental sections.I think, however, that animal rights organizations have missed an opportunityto highlight the inherent value of nonhuman animals and directly conveyanimal liberation goals of protecting free/wild nonhuman animals fromhuman exploitation or unhealthy interference.

Additional Recommendations for Animal Rights-Informed Frames

In addition to emphasizing a problem frame of harm to nature and free nonhu-man animals, I recommend that animal rights organizations frame food prob-lems around injustice, with a subcategory of cruelty/suffering. Ten I suggestthat animal rights organizations engage audiences with the following individualand collective solutions: 1. (values-based) recognize the mutual subject status ofallanimals, including a compassion subcategory; 2. (consumer-based) eat a

plant-based diet to avoid exploitation and unnecessary killing, including a healthangle; and 3. (citizen-based) work collectively to solve food issues and replacethe broader speciesist society with a just and sustainable one.

1. Recommended Problem FramesInjustice. As the main problem frame, injustice would be transformational,asking Americans to reconceptualize the accepted practices of animal agricul-ture, fishing, and meat-eating as unacceptable practices on the basis that theyare, in most cases, unjust, exploitative, and unsustainable. Tis frame transfor-

mation alignment process could be complemented by promoting popular val-ues of respect for life, freedom, and the sentience of individual animal subjects.


16/21


Justice, rights, and freedom resonate with American values of promoting life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Extending justice to nonhuman animals

requires appealing to moral consistency and compassion so people extendtheir respect for the lives of sentient fellow subjects (humans and companionanimals) to nonhuman animals used for food.

Te injustice frame should incorporate ethical aspects from both nature andculture by highlighting nature and societys mutual appreciation for freedomand some allowance for necessary violence. Te injustice frame should statethat animal agriculture is unfair and unnatural because it includes breedingfellow subjects in captivity, growing them to suit ones needs, and exploitingtheir bodies and offspring for ones own benefit. Te exploited subject does

not have the natural opportunity to leave the situation and survive on his/herown, nor the freedom to own his/her body and control what is done to it.Animal agriculture fits more easily into an injustice frame, especially one thatrelies on naturalness and freedom, than does the practice of hunting/fishinganimals for food. If animal products are required for human survival, as theymay be in some regions, and always in the case of wild omnivorous andcarnivorous nonhuman animals, then hunting is more justified in naturesethical system. Hunting/fishing does not involve the captivity and lifelongownership that agriculture does, so it is not associated with exploitation and

enslavement.Te injustice frame, as I am recommending it, is not specifically anticorpo-

rate/industry as much as it is antiexploitation, antienslavement, and antikill-ing, whether the perpetrator is a corporation or a single person. And whileanimal rights organizations anthropocentric, populist appeals to agribusinesssworker exploitation and rural pollution area projustice frame promoting egal-itarianism, their reliance on anticorporate sentiment implies that family ani-mal farms are justifiable because they benefit the middle-class farmer and treathuman workers and other animals more fairly.

Cruelty and suffering. Te cruelty frame could be reconceptualized as a sub-category of injustice, widening the scope of cruelty to mean suffering not onlypain but also suffering the injustice of being enslaved and used. Similarly,animal rights organizations could place some blame on the meat-eating pub-lic, sayingtheyare cruel to create a market demand for animal products, know-ing that it subjects fellow animals to unnecessary suffering and death. Asuffering frame is best used to complement a solution that asks humans to seeother animals as fellow subjects and to value their sentience, so it shouldemphasize emotional/mental pain, not just bodily pain.

Rather than highlighting factory farm confinement, animal rights organiza-tions should emphasize the suffering involved in death and in other basic


17/21


agricultural or fishing practices that are standard (and often economicallyimperative) in allfarms/fisheries, including smaller ones. But since anti-instru-

mentalism is hard to construct visually, the challenge becomes finding imagesthat encapsulate suffering without the visual discourse being too reliant onanti-industrialism.

2. Recommended Solution FramesRespecting the subject status of fellow sentient animals.Animal rights organiza-tions can continue to include their common analogies between farmed ani-mals and other nonhuman animals with subject status, such as dogs and cats.But to deconstruct the human/animal separation inherent to speciesism, ani-

mal rights organizations should follow PEAs lead and more frequently com-pare nonhuman animals to the human animal (and vice versa). Furthermore,animal rights organizations should openly acknowledge that humans are ani-mals by saying human animal or humans and other animals (which noanimal rights organizations did) and avoiding dualistic phrases like peopleand animals, (which PEA and Farm Sanctuary used a few times). Yet human-animal frames should blend ideas of kinship based on evolution and sentiencewith ideas of diversity to celebrate the fact that all animals possess uniquetraits and need not resemble humans to deserve respect (Freeman, 2010). So

instead of privileging fellow mammals, vegan advocacy should more frequentlyfeature birds (as Compassion Over Killing and Vegan Outreach did) and fish(as PEA did).

Eating a plant-based diet. Promoting an organic vegan diet is preferred tosuggesting that consumers just reduce animal product consumption, as vegan-ism more closely aligns with the anti-instrumental values of animal rightsphilosophy and the recommended frames of justice toward domesticated andwild animals. o aid persuasiveness and avoid harsh ultimatums, veganadvocacy could suggest a transition period, as many did, rather than succumb-

ing to meat-reduction messages that imply it is okay to continue to supportsome nonhuman animal exploitation. Furthermore, animal rights organiza-tions should continue to appeal to humans self-interest in health (physicaland mental), as it is essential to the argument that killing animals is unneces-sary for human survival.

Working collectively to solve problems and change the system. Animal rightsorganizations favored the individual, market-based solution of changing onesconsumption, but sometimes animal rights organizations more overtly engagedaudiences as citizens, as when Farm Sanctuary suggested that people demand

legal reforms or when animal rights organizations asked the public to joinin activism. Market-based consumer solutions should not be suggested in


18/21


isolation from addressing broader, systemic issues in American culture, poli-tics, and economics that support legalized exploitation and an animal-based

diet over a solely plant-based one. While not being too utopian, animal rightsorganizations should describe a moral vision (Lakoff, 2004) of the kind ofnonspeciesist, sustainable society that Americans can create together byrespecting animal freedom.

In Conclusion

Tese animal rights organizations make a vital contribution to the movementby providing a variety of persuasive rationales that encourage nonhuman ani-mal protection. But the discourse of these organizations often leaned towardwelfare/husbandry in its frequent critique of factory-farm cruelty and occa-sional solutions of humane reform and the reduction of meat consumption.Animal rights organizations most represented animal rights values when theypromoted ethical veganism and respect for nonhuman animal sentience, con-demning commodification and unnecessary killing. o increase ideologicalauthenticity, I recommend that animal rights organizations problematize theinjustice and exploitation inherent in growing someone for food, comple-mented by promoting values of freedom, life, respect, compassion, health, andenvironmental responsibility. A posthumanist path to sowing the seeds of jus-tice will rely on convincing humans not only to respect the sentience andindividuality of other animals, in all their splendid diversity, but also to respectthe animality in themselves and envision a more cooperative place for thehuman animal in the natural world.

Notes

1. Tis does not preclude the animal rights organization from supporting both reform andabolition of farming, but I deemed an organization such as the Humane Society of the UnitedStates as more welfare-oriented because it leans toward humane reforms rather than veganactivismmore so, for example, than People for the Ethical reatment of Animals, which openlyclaims to promote animal rights and veganism, while also calling for humane farming reform.

References

Bekoff, M., & Pierce, J. (2009). Wild Justice: Te moral lives of animals. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Benford, R.D., & Snow, D.A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overviewand assessment.Annual Review of Sociology,26, 611-639.


19/21


Birke, L., & Parisi, L. (1999). Animals becoming. In P. Steeves (Ed.), Animal others: On ethics,ontology, and animal life(pp. 55-73).Albany: State University of New York Press.

Black, J.E. (2003). Extending the rights of personhood, voice, and life to sensate others: Ahomology of right to life and animal rights rhetoric. Communication Quarterly, 51, 312-331.

Bormann, E.G. (1971). Forerunners of black power: Te rhetoric of abolition. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Calarco, M. (2008).Zoographies: Te question of the animal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York:Columbia University Press.

Campbell, K.K. (1989).Man cannot speak for her(Vol. 1). New York: Greenwood Press.Derrida, J. (2004). For what tomorrow: A dialogue (cultural memory in the present) ( J. Fort,

rans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Dunayer, J. (2006, October). Serving abuse. Satya, 52-53.Foucault, M. (2000). So is it important to think? (R. Hurley, rans.). In J.D. Faubion (Ed.),

Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984(pp. 454-458) (Vol. 3). New York: Te New

York Press. (Original work published 1981).Francione, G. (1996). Rain without thunder: Te ideology of the animal rights movement. Philadel-

phia: emple University Press.Freeman, C.P. (2010). Embracing humanimality: Deconstructing the human/animal dichot-

omy. In G. Goodale & J. E. Black (Eds.),Arguments about animal ethics(pp. 11-30).Lanham,MD: Lexington Books.

Hall, L. (2006a). Capers in the churchyard: Animal rights activism in the age of terror. Darien, C:Nectar Bat Press.

. (2006b, October). Animal rights and wrongs. Satya, 24-27.Hall, S. (1975). Introduction. In A.C.H. Smith (Ed.), Paper voices: Te popular press and social

change, 1935-1965(pp. 11-24). London: Chatto & Windus.

. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.HRC. (2007). Advocating meat reduction and vegetarianism to adults in the U.S. A report bythe Humane Research Council. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from http://www.humanespot.org.

Ingold, . (1988). What is an animal?London: Unwin Hyman.Lakoff, G. (2004). Dont think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. River Junc-

tion, V: Chelsea Greene Publishing.LaVeck, J. (2006a, September). Compassion for sale? Satya, 8-11.. (2006b, October). Invasion of the movement snatchers. Satya, 18-23.Linzey, A., & Clarke, P.B. (2004). Animal rights: A historical anthology. New York: Columbia

University Press.Lyman, H. (2006, September). Straight talk from a former cattleman. Satya, 28-31.Maurer, D. (2002). Vegetarianism: Movement or moment? Philadelphia: emple University

Press.McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D., & Zald, M.N. (1996). Comparative perspectives on social

movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Oliver, P.E., & Johnston, H. (2005). What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social move-ment research. In H. Johnston & J.A. Noakes (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements andthe framing perspective(pp. 185-203). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Park, M. (2006, October). Calculating compassion. Satya, 14-16.Polletta, F. (2006). It was like a fever: Storytelling in protest and politics. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Regan, . (1983). Te case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

. (2003).Animal rights, human wrongs: An introduction to moral philosophy. Lanham, MD:Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.


20/21


Singer, P. (1990).Animal liberation (2nd ed., revised). London: Random House. Original workpublished 1975.

Singer, P., & Friedrich, B. (2006, September). Te longest journey begins with a single step.Satya, 12-13.

Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). Te ethics of what we eat: Why our food choices matter. Emmaus,PA: Rodale, Inc.

Snow, D.A., & Benford, R.D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization.International Social Movement Research,1, 197-218.

. (2005). Clarifying the relationship between framing and ideology. In H. Johnston & J.A.Noakes (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 205-211).Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Snow, D.A., Rochford, Jr., E.B., Worden, S.K., Benford, R.D. (1986). Frame alignment pro-cesses, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51,464-481.

orres, B. (2006, September). Te odd logic of welfarism. Satya, 40-41.Wolfe, C. (2003).Animal rites: American culture, the discourse of species, and posthumanist theory.

Chicago: Te University of Chicago Press.


21/21

Copyright of Society & Animals is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Animal Rights Go Veg

Documents

Transcript of Animal Rights Go Veg