Marketing Animals - Antennae The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture

particularly highly disturbing imagery, is not
immune to having unintended consequences.
Such imagery may generate a form of mild posttraumatic
stress disorder in viewers and evoke selfprotective
responses. These responses are both
immediate (turning away, shutting the eyes, etc.)
and long-term adaptation mechanisms that may
involve pre-emptive avoidance of such imagery
as well as habituation to it. “(T)he “reality” of the
image will count for nothing if that reality seems
too horrific to be countenanced” (Baker 2001,
220). Further, at the emotional level, the effects of
such imagery become attenuated over time
and/or, at the cultural level, the idea of violence
may become normalized.
Myers points out that such imagery does
not work on its own, but as part of a complex
interaction with people’s moral and cultural
values. He suggests that “(e)ven ‘hard hitting’
images need to be analyzed for their nuanced
meaning in the context of the moral narrative that
is constructed” (Myers 2007, 30). Absent such
understanding, one may end up only appealing
to those who are essentially already convinced.
Conclusions
Although animal rights groups and conservation
groups are seemingly at odds on many of their
fundamental values, they display remarkable
similarities in their visual cultures and narratives.
Both display the animal as separate from, and a
victim of, the human. In an attempt to gain
attention through shock, outrage and guilt, visual
imagery constantly reinforces the negative
aspects of human behaviour, and creates an
ever-increasing cultural distance between the
human and the animal.
We believe that such approaches are, in
the long run, counterproductive as people adapt,
tune out, or even accept, the portrayed
negativity both emotionally and
culturally. Worrisome trends in the direction of
cultural adaptation can already be seen. For
instance, mobile platforms using the Android
operating system have recently seen the release
of KG Dogfighting - a video game application
that allows players to “feed, water, train and fight”
their virtual dog against other players (Android
Market, 2011) [2] .
We suggest that continued progress both
in conservation efforts and in animal rights
advocacy does not depend on continued
castigation of the human, but rather on
embedding in our cultures the type of humananimal
relationship on which positive change can
be built. Rather than positioning animals as
109
subjugated, exploitable others, we believe that
visual and narrative approaches that culturally
position animals as our kin, while having their own
“personality” and their own visible worth based on
their unique animality, are more likely to
encourage the development of the sort of
human-animal relationships that could resolve
some of our most devastating animal
exploitations.
This approach finds support in the
philosophy literature. It has been suggested that
humans have “nested communities” of relations
to others, some of which are closer to us and
some further away (Callicott 1992). An ethics of
care approach to this issue would suggest that it
could be productive to explore ways that
encourage humans to extend their more intimate
circles of care outwards, developing greater
kinship with animals – be they farm animals or
those who are threatened or endangered.
“Appropriate” animal representation may be a
valuable tool to achieve kinship with animals with
whom we cannot so easily develop a day to day
relationship based on direct contact. A similar
concept arises in Warwick Fox’s Theory of General
Ethics where, as part of a much broader theory of
ethics, he proposes that we have “an obligation
to offer saving help only to supersignificant and
significant others” (Fox 2006, 3838). He includes
companion animals in these categories. While it is
unlikely that we can elevate animals, other than
companion animals, to the status of significant
others, cultural constructs that emphasize
concepts of personality, kinship and vulnerability
are more likely to move us in that direction than
the more distancing concepts of the animal as a
dominated, violated other, or as a wild, free and
violent creature who belongs in a distant, nonhuman
Nature.
Some animal advocacy groups are
moving away from, or trying alternative
approaches to, shock imagery as the bread-andbutter
approach to highlighting and
communicating the very real issues in animal
exploitation that need to be tackled. We could
not find any shock imagery on the web site for the
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (www.aspca.org). The web site for The
Humane Society of The United
States (www.humanesociety.org) contains a
number of sections clearly targeted at building
positive relations with animals – though many of
these sections still contain embedded videos of
animal abuse. PETA has for some time added a
“glamour” approach to broadcast their animal
advocacy messages – especially when these
messages are targeted at younger audiences.