Exploitation on Both Sides
Oppressing in the Name of the Oppressed
Alex Williams | Pacific Lutheran University
In the past week, we discussed at length the ethics surrounding the treatment and consumption of animals in the modern food industry. We heard from experts in the field like Dr. Emmerman and watched more testimony in documentaries. Obviously, we expect all of these people to be trustworthy and deliver accurate information- after all, we're talking about sweet, innocent animals! Unfortunately, not even animal ethics movements are left unscathed by profit motives and systematic oppression.
Oppression and the Absent Referent
 |
| An example of the verbal obfuscation of "chicken" |
We tend to put value judgements on different types of exploitation and oppression; the Holocaust is more important than the exploitation of animals through the food industry. This is due primarily to anthropocentrism and speciesism. In this way, social justice movements in favor of animal rights and welfare are both hampered by and assistant to oppression. The former is expected, the latter however is an often overlooked consequence of modern social justice that lacks intersectionality and consciousness. We can see the problem of the absent referent and this hypocritical and cyclical oppression articulated perfectly in the example of PETA.
Not So Ethical?
One of the most widely-known culprits of this hypocrisy is PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Despite dismal rates of euthanasia at their affiliated shelters and rampant exploitation in the forms of misogyny and even ableism, PETA remains a leading authority among animal rights activists, which perfectly exemplifies the issues with misinformed social justice movements.
Aside from being a main stream perpetrator of direct animal violence, PETA also has a problem with exploitation. After watching the film Okja, we discussed the idea of exploitation on both sides of animal ethics movements. In this film, the Animal Liberation Front- a militaristic social justice opposition to the industrial Mirando Cooperation- demonstrates predatory rhetorical techniques in the ways that they exploit the main character, Mija, and act against her will. She is torn between being exploited in favor of her friend by the ALF or in opposition to Okja's wellbeing by Mirando. In many ways, PETA employs similar tactics. They utilize absent referents and other rhetorical methods in a way that is exploitative of women and the disabled, among other groups. Women are among the most often exploited in PETA's campaign. They are likened to meat products and farmed animals in a way that dehumanizes them. The cycle of objectification, as we discussed with Dr. Emmerman, allows the oppressor to view a being as an object followed by violation and fragmentation of that objectified being and the inevitable consumption- whether physically, in the case of animal flesh, or through something like the hyper-sexualized "male-gaze" that is used to consume women. Women and animals are on the same side of the platonic dualisms, and are subsequently likened in ad campaigns like PETA's. They are most often volunteered as proxies for animal exploitation and violation. This serves to support our society's systematic misogyny, which already expects violence against feminine persons.
Carol Glasser further articulates that PETA is acting hypocritically by portraying women in a way that they turn around and criticize those who eat animal flesh and the industries that support such consumption for. The ad to the left, for example, not only likens a real person (seeing as it's a photograph) to an animal, but portrays her in an incredibly sexual way, on her knees with a lustful gaze. This essentially makes the objectification two-fold. Carol J. Adams continues this argument in her feminist critique, The Sexual Politics of Meat. She asserts that the oppression of nonhuman animals is not only linked to, but reinforces the oppression of women by upholding aspects of the patriarchy including the concept that "the ends justify the means", as well as the idea that objectification of other beings is necessary and proper in the lives of oppressors, who believe that the associated violence ought to be obscured through methods like the absent referent.Fear mongering is never a valid method of garnering support, and yet PETA is a pretty big fan of it. Aside from using incredibly graphic displays of animal and human dismemberment, they have been known to fudge the numbers on more than their euthanasia counts. An official advertisement, which gained attention in May of 2014, used a "Got Milk?" parody to target milk consumption as having a causal link to autism. Though it was quickly debunked, similar to the defunct research on vaccines and autism, the effect was lasting. Time Magazine went in depth on the background of the advertisement, discovering that "studies" meant exactly two published research papers, one of which was 20 years old.
 |
| PETA's inappropriate ad featured a bowl of milk with a frowny face |
This advertisement not only represented nothing of scientific merit, but also served to demonize and stigmatize those with intellectual disabilities like autism and generate another witch hunt for causes of the illnesses. PETA used mental illness as a front for a fear-based campaign meant to scare people into the arms of their vegan activism.
Not only did PETA spread misinformation and exploit persons with disabilities with this campaign, and sexism in the former advertisement, they also damaged their own cause by reducing credibility. Vegetarians and vegans catch enough flack as it is, and when they become branded as perpetuators of false information that doesn't make their cause any more likable.
To most well-informed people, none of this is news. The majority of these articles contain information that is an upwards of ten years old! So why do groups like PETA continue to hold so much clout in the realm of animal ethics? Though repeatedly debunked, people continue to rally behind PETA, stripping down for advertisements and holding dismembered animals to make a statement against the food industry's treatment of animals. There are three key reasons that I have synthesized for this continued power:
Financial Dominance: PETA is a tax exempt non-profit, making tens of millions of dollars after overhead costs. This means that even after setbacks like backlash from bad advertisements, they can continue to operate relatively unscathed. They also thrive off of this negative press, becoming a household name for one reason or another. Regardless of the sentiments they may have, millions of people know their name and that in and of itself is a positive feedback loop as far as executives are concerned.
Rhetorical Approach: With expansive social media presence, PETA knows how to corner their market. They utilize visceral imagery that they know will generate some sort of response, and utilize the ripple effect that comes from such marketing to their advantage. They understand that, though we live in an age of information, a disappointingly low amount of people actually fact check things. This allows for intense, knee-jerk reactions to their graphic ads that lead to hundreds of thousands of shares, likes and, inevitably, donations.
Lack of Intersectionality: I would contend that the biggest driver of organizations like PETA is more systemic than unique to PETA. The truth is that social justice movements are, more often than not, lacking in intersectionality these days. PETA can continue to share misogynist and ableist imagery because the majority of activists- no matter what sphere they operate in- have blinders. This is where the problem of the absent referent really matters.
The concept that you can't build your case for liberation on the backs of other exploited individuals is foreign to most social justice movements. Another example would be Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) and Sex-Worker-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (SWERFs). These people not only ignore, but often support the exploitation and oppression of select groups in favor others (in this case, ignoring trans women and sex workers in their feminism).
There is a lack of understanding of interconnectedness of all forms of oppression which comes from the dualisms we discussed in class. Many fail to realize that the oppressed are all on the same side of the list, sharing common oppressors. This generates an "us versus them" mentality that allows different social justice movements to undercut each other. Groups like PETA can generate oppressive and exploitative content with impunity, because their followers have put on blinders and remain ignorant of their own complicity.
As I wrote this, the song Meat is Murder by the Smiths came on, and though it's not meant to be my extension for this weeks blog post, I was nonetheless left thoughtful of the realities of eating meat. The song speaks to the fact that there is no ethical consumption of an animal. As they say, "it's death without reason, and death without reason is murder." If we are to invoke a level playing field when we consider life and it's value, then that statement holds absolutely true and is a necessary understanding.
There can be exploitation on both sides of a cause, even the "good guys" may have their faults. Understanding the tools of the oppressor is the first step to finding a way to work within "the system". Just because we have to work within the confines of a corrupt system does not mean that we have no power. The important thing is refusing to play into the games of the oppressive. Doing a small part ethically and in a well-informed manner is much better than playing a part in systemic persecution by putting on blinders and losing your intersectionality.
Not only did PETA spread misinformation and exploit persons with disabilities with this campaign, and sexism in the former advertisement, they also damaged their own cause by reducing credibility. Vegetarians and vegans catch enough flack as it is, and when they become branded as perpetuators of false information that doesn't make their cause any more likable.
To most well-informed people, none of this is news. The majority of these articles contain information that is an upwards of ten years old! So why do groups like PETA continue to hold so much clout in the realm of animal ethics? Though repeatedly debunked, people continue to rally behind PETA, stripping down for advertisements and holding dismembered animals to make a statement against the food industry's treatment of animals. There are three key reasons that I have synthesized for this continued power:
Financial Dominance: PETA is a tax exempt non-profit, making tens of millions of dollars after overhead costs. This means that even after setbacks like backlash from bad advertisements, they can continue to operate relatively unscathed. They also thrive off of this negative press, becoming a household name for one reason or another. Regardless of the sentiments they may have, millions of people know their name and that in and of itself is a positive feedback loop as far as executives are concerned.
Rhetorical Approach: With expansive social media presence, PETA knows how to corner their market. They utilize visceral imagery that they know will generate some sort of response, and utilize the ripple effect that comes from such marketing to their advantage. They understand that, though we live in an age of information, a disappointingly low amount of people actually fact check things. This allows for intense, knee-jerk reactions to their graphic ads that lead to hundreds of thousands of shares, likes and, inevitably, donations.
Lack of Intersectionality: I would contend that the biggest driver of organizations like PETA is more systemic than unique to PETA. The truth is that social justice movements are, more often than not, lacking in intersectionality these days. PETA can continue to share misogynist and ableist imagery because the majority of activists- no matter what sphere they operate in- have blinders. This is where the problem of the absent referent really matters.
The concept that you can't build your case for liberation on the backs of other exploited individuals is foreign to most social justice movements. Another example would be Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs) and Sex-Worker-Exclusionary Radical Feminists (SWERFs). These people not only ignore, but often support the exploitation and oppression of select groups in favor others (in this case, ignoring trans women and sex workers in their feminism).
There is a lack of understanding of interconnectedness of all forms of oppression which comes from the dualisms we discussed in class. Many fail to realize that the oppressed are all on the same side of the list, sharing common oppressors. This generates an "us versus them" mentality that allows different social justice movements to undercut each other. Groups like PETA can generate oppressive and exploitative content with impunity, because their followers have put on blinders and remain ignorant of their own complicity.
Final Thoughts
As I wrote this, the song Meat is Murder by the Smiths came on, and though it's not meant to be my extension for this weeks blog post, I was nonetheless left thoughtful of the realities of eating meat. The song speaks to the fact that there is no ethical consumption of an animal. As they say, "it's death without reason, and death without reason is murder." If we are to invoke a level playing field when we consider life and it's value, then that statement holds absolutely true and is a necessary understanding.
There can be exploitation on both sides of a cause, even the "good guys" may have their faults. Understanding the tools of the oppressor is the first step to finding a way to work within "the system". Just because we have to work within the confines of a corrupt system does not mean that we have no power. The important thing is refusing to play into the games of the oppressive. Doing a small part ethically and in a well-informed manner is much better than playing a part in systemic persecution by putting on blinders and losing your intersectionality.
"There is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives"
- Audre Lorde
Comments
Post a Comment