Skip to content

On My Ambivalence About Graphic Images

Emme

There are a lot of things I don’t care about one way or the other, but there are very few things I’m ambivalent about. The use of graphic images to further the cause of animal rights is one of them. I see the utility and the effectiveness of certain gruesome images within a certain context. I don’t think they should be forever banned from use because people constantly tell me that it was the images (much to my dismay) of animals that made them: not take their children to the circus, stop eating veal, not buy fur. Yes, this is clearly not the optimal situation, and concentrating on suffering isn’t what I’d like to do as there’s a perfectly sound reason–suffering aside–to not use animals. Also, once you’ve let it known that suffering is your major concern, all someone has to do is slightly reduce said suffering and you should be pleased, right? I mean, you’re not against the reduction of suffering, are you?

I had posted Part 3 of Thinking Critically About Animal Rights
on Rethos, and a Dutch man living in Bulgaria who appreciated the article but said he couldn’t stop eating animals, particularly because of access to veg. food where he lives, watched Earthlings on Google and instantly stopped eating meat. You may recall I didn’t include Earthlings in the pamphlet because I was so uncomfortable with the constant barrage of sickening (yet mostly perfectly legal) images.

In yesterday’s comments, Roger Yates, Ph.D. (of On Human-Nonhuman Relations) directed me to his "Avoiding Unpleasure and Evading Knowledge," which addresses, among other things, the value of dramatic visual images. Check it out, also for a discussion about why we avoid knowing where our food comes from (spoiler alert: why wouldn’t we avoid such things?).

Finally, back to the gentleman who stopped eating meat as a result of Earthlings. I know that some of you are thinking: But is he a vegan? How long will his alleged vegetarianism or veganism last when he’s not doing it for the "right" reason?

Well, he knows the abolitionist line of reasoning. He loved it. It was his new best friend. But it didn’t make him stop rationalizing about his eating of animals (But I live in Bulgaria, yada yada yada). One hour and thirty five minutes of grisly footage did the job, though. And we’ll never know what would have happened if he had seen the film without first reading about animal rights. Maybe he’d have the same reaction, maybe not. But we do know that the images played an enormous part in his transition.

My job is now to encourage him to go back to the usage discussion in an effort to help him stay on track. If he someday embraces it, great. If not, each nonviolent meal is progress of some kind. It won’t satisfy the requirements of some people, but at least this man, at 21 years of age, is questioning and feeling compassion and aligning his behavior with what he believes.

8 Comments Post a comment
  1. Hi Mary,
    I agree that suffering is sometimes paraded out without the proper context, but to say that it should not be concentrated on sounds extreme to me. Mostly because it is the very fact that animals suffer –their sentience– that makes it morally wrong to use and exploit them. I think it's impossible to make an argument for ethical veganism without acknowledging that the moral line is being drawn because these beings suffer through their exploitation and ought to be given moral consideration. If a being does not suffer through my actions then I don't have a moral problem. Of course it's extremely important to convey what is meant by suffering, people have a knee-jerk reaction to interpret this as bodily harm, which is far from the truth. So qualifying that all forms of animal use are wrong because they suffer by way of the exploitation is vital. Perhaps you use different language, such as their interests are not being met, but that is just another way of saying they suffer.

    December 4, 2007
  2. Actually, JonBen, no one has to suffer for me to say we shouldn't use animals. For me, and for abolitionists, it's specifically the use of nonhuman animals, who have a right to a life without being used, that's the point. This is why we don't focus on suffering. Using another sentient being for your own ends is the issue. And yes, abuse usually comes with that. But once you focus on suffering, you've opened the door to be satisfied by incremental "improvements" in treatment. If you don't think we should use animals, you won't consider it a "victory" to allow them a tad more space or one less mutilation.

    There's another discussion, including both "sides" regarding graphic images, here" http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2007/11/on-the-witness-.html

    Most people aren't as ambivalent as I am about this topic. Theoretically, I don't agree with the kind of barrage that Earthlings presents. But practically, some people don't follow–or care enough about–the logic of abolition when it's presented to them because it's so alien to them. But show them some grisly images, and suddenly they get it. But as many others will point out, that initial shock might be followed by some sort of action/reaction, but without follow up regarding theory (as in, why it's wrong to use animals as well as to mutilate them), that initial reaction could very well wear off in short order.

    I feel most comfortable saying that context is important, and that people need to know the truth, and images are a powerful truth-telling vehicle.

    December 4, 2007
  3. I think it would help the public debate if people were fully and totally aware of what average famrs look like and do. Then they could *really* choose whether that is something they support rather than just looking at the full color packaging and assuming all is well.

    December 5, 2007
  4. Mary, I am an abolitionist and I still think you're using a narrow interpretation of suffering. The reason animal's have a right to life and should not be used is because they are sentient beings who have an interest in their own lives, and would like not to be controlled or have their lives ended. If animals could not be hard done by through our use of them, if they did not suffer by our actions, than there is nothing for the abolitionist to take exception to. The problem is not that we must justify ending forms of exploitation that don't cause suffering, instead we must convey that all forms of exploitation do cause suffering!

    You shouldn't equate suffering with physical violence or pain, though I understand that it is often used this way colloquially. Animals suffer slavery, they suffer confinement, they suffer unnatural living conditions, they suffer having their interests ignored, and they suffer death (painless nor not). They suffer a horrible fate and that is the very bases of abolition, if they did not suffer our cause would be for not.

    December 5, 2007
  5. JonBen,

    In my opinion, I'm using the most liberal, broad interpretation of suffering. The abolitionist's definition, where use IS abuse (because of all of the things you mention), is why many call us "radical" or "extreme." I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about right now. What exactly are you taking offense to at this point? I've had a rough day, so maybe I'm just not reading you right.

    December 5, 2007
  6. Oh, I'm not taking offense to anything, I just thought it odd to say that focusing on suffering is a bad idea:

    "concentrating on suffering isn't what I'd like to do as there's a perfectly sound reason–suffering aside–to not use animals"

    I felt that this statement was misleading since suffering is the reason not to use animals, just not the suffering that one might, by default, assume. I just wanted to point that out, not because I thought we'd disagree but because I knew we would agree.

    December 5, 2007
  7. OOOhhhh. Okay, I get it. And I think you were right at the beginning when you said this was a language issue. Here's the crux, for me. Most people concentrate on the CRUELTY. So, for instance, the slicing off of the beak, the chaining to a crate, the lack of access to the outside world and all that. And what I was TRYING (thoroughly unsuccessfully) to say was that all that isn't the point. The point is the very idea that they're bred to be held captive then slaughtered. So if THAT'S suffering, all the other stuff is surely suffering, hence it's a broad, liberal definition.

    Better?

    December 5, 2007
  8. Porphyry #

    Earthlings is slightly off target, but it is much closer to the “right” reason than “Golly, I could stand to lose some weight.”

    Ambivalent is the right word. Images convey so much, but on the other hand, it’s easily sensationalist and such a contrast to a message of peace. “Veganism is non-violence, here, check out this video of an hour and a half of violence.” But, there doesn’t seem to be a way to adequately detail the atrocities of any situation until the person experiences it in some fashion.

    It’s paradoxical. Like the film Saving Private Ryan, it denounces yet simultaneously glorifies war. With hundreds of thousands of visitors a year, is Auschwitz a memorial or a tourist attraction? How many times have we all seen that spectacular fireball replay of the World Trade Center tragedy? Is it possible for humans to see good without seeing evil? Doesn’t seem like it.

    It is beneficial to avoid using the word suffering when discussing veganism. It opens up all sorts of degrees of suffering and leads to all sorts of asinine discussions like preventing lions from eating a gazelles. “You want to prevent that suffering too right? Isn’t it better to shoot deer quickly so that they don’t stave and painfully suffer to death in the winter?”

    Suffering becomes a comparative deciding factor. All the horrific factory farm imagery is compared to a brochure of idyllic Happymeals farms. “Look how happy they all are! They will only suffer briefly compared to the happy lives they have while they are sheltered and protected from predators.”

    With exploitation, you just don’t go there, you don’t endlessly debate degrees.

    December 5, 2007

Leave a Reply

You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS