I'm going to pose a fun little question regarding Welling and the issue of consumerism when it comes to ecopornographic images that merchandise that are actually intended to save animals. Welling mentions that "the question of how environmentalists can (re)visualize nature, how they can use visual rhetoric to help transform passive consumers of resources into thoughtful inhabitants of ecosystems, has never been more urgent" (56). So, Welling is saying that we need to get people active, active in the sense not just of seeing "nature" as ecoporn allows and accepting it, but really looking into it for what it is; imagery that disguises the reality of nature, and not just disguises, but harasses and disturbs just to make nature look virginal and untainted. So, that means we should do everything we can to help, right? I mean, anything is good, as long as the proceeds go to help animals in need.
But Welling has something to say about the environmentalist organizations as well, and points out that some of them use ecoporn in a sense, because the images that they send out are meant to be consumed. He says, "The 'right choice'--whether it reacquires purchasing a license plate or sending a check to save a beautiful leopard from poachers--helps facilitate and endless and exponentially growing cycle of visual consumption involving calendars, T-shirts, posters, coffee mugs, toys" (66) and tons of other stuff. I mean, come on guys, how many of you who have visited a wildlife refuge or donated money to the zoo to help them save some snow leopard don't have some kind of merchandise? I myself have a T-shirt from the Exotic Feline Rescue Center, and I love it, but what it wrong with using consumerism when it comes to actually helping animals? Within the "right choice" is a there a wrong one?
Excluding PETA and their super-fail ad campaigns that use guilt and shock to try and change people, and well as any similar campaigns, what do you guys think? When it comes to helping animals, donating to animal shelters or rescue centers, or something similar, is it wrong to use consumerism as a means of gathering money and attention to the plight of animals that need help? It is ecoporn? Maybe, but is is bad? Is there such a thing as helpful ecoporn?
2 comments:
Hey Emily,
I actually volunteer at the EFRC and I had the same thoughts while reading this article. That place is entirely funded by people who either a) visit the center, or b) buy merchandise, all of which features caged cats in basically the exact "ecopornographic" poses that Welling describes.
I wish I had an answer to your question, but I really don't. The only thing I can say is that maybe one could make the argument that places like the EFRC, in order to help rescue these animals, are forced to commit the same ecoporn consumerism sin that originally encouraged the kind of mentality that leads certain people to think they can (or have the right to) domesticate exotic cats in the first place.
So is it ecoporn? Maybe. But is it necessary? I think so.
I have a difficult time justifying ecoporn, but it might be possible. To utilize ecoporn for a positive cause suggests that a type of reformism is being employed, a strategy which works within the system causing the problem. Reformism is very contentious within "occupy" groups from what I have experienced, and I think opposition to reformism is very sensible. Some don't want to make demands of a system which ultimately is incapable of meeting those demands due to its very nature. Ecoporn objectifies the natural world in a similar way the United Way promotions objectified handicapped people as Barton showed us.
Such objectification removes the agent (animal rights activist, champion of the handicapped, occupy activist etc) from the problem through subjective representation. To act on the problem presented is the choice provided, and if the advertisement makes you feel guilty enough, one may decide to do something such as donate to the cause. But such a transaction is not one that will bring about significant change even if you are Bill Gates and donating enough money to create an institution because the cause of the problem is presented to the viewer in the representation, in the film of otherness.
That issues such as those presented to us by United Way and PETA exist shows that our culture has allowed for both ecological and interpersonal detachment, which is ultimately caused by egocentrism.
Perhaps Western egocentrism has historical ties with Rhetoric, particularly in its inception in the politics of ancient Greece. Rhetoric places a significant amount of importance and power on the individual rhetor. Persuasive speakers shaped politics to their advantage as individuals or their group. So while power over decision-making was ultimately left in the hands of the people, individuals could influence the outcomes by way of representation. Thus decision-making became a place where an individual's representation of reality had as much if not more importance than actual logical or empirical evidence, which, as our reading has shown, Aristotle lamented.
To avoid pushing analysis of the historical source of egocentrism further than I should, let's go back to the point in question: ecoporn and whether or not it can ever be beneficial. I say no because it causes a sense of otherness that doesn't belong in a society in which people are bound to one another and their environment. To solve the issues at hand (particularly those displayed by PETA and the United Way) a sense of oneness should be created, which in fact is a concept that should certainly be considered integral to contemporary conceptions of authorship. For instance, I believe it was Campbell who articulated the concept of authors as "points of articulation" (5). Authors are inextricably bound to the fabric (I Heart Huckabees anyone?) of language, culture, and all other social interactions yet they remain unique in relationship to these influences.
So to use agency to objectify something or someone to which one is at least partially linked to is to cause problems (perhaps to create tears in the fabric of reality, to extend the cheesy/ cliche metaphor). So, I say no to all ecoporn.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.