February 3, 2012

A Dead Cow Head's Agency

Okay, so I am in no way a PETA hater, but I do think that there are flaws in their attempts at agency. Because I know a bit about PETA (as many people do) and what they seem to want to stand for, I feel comfortable saying that the group really needs to improve its strategy.

The first issue I saw with the PETA advertisement was the sort of nauseous horror I experienced when I saw the image of the bloody hanging cow head. Was I irked? Oh yeah. Was I inspired to change my lifestyle so that more of these bloody heads could be avoided? Not so much. Why? The image of the dead cow was absolutely horrifying, but it was such a harsh image that I couldn't help but wonder who the victims of this advertisement were, the dead bloody heads, or the targets of the ad- the everyday people just flipping through a magazine or browsing through channels when suddenly they come face to face with a bloody massacred cow head? Is PETA giving that cow agency? I think it could be argued both ways, but my strongest inclination is to say no.

PETA is not the only party guilty of playing of human emotional fear and pity triggers. As Barton says, "Charities of the1950's actively exploited fear of disability and pity for its victims in fund raising." (172) United Way in particular, used ads of little children or sad cases of disability and paired them with provocative slogans and sort of calls to action. But how can the disabled achieve any kind of agency when they are viewed as such others. We have to distance ourselves from them because we are "normal," and in doing that I think that the connection between "us" and "them." This makes any donation or effort to help more of an act of pity than a real inclination to do a good thing. I think the same distancing effect happens with PETA. We don't want to identify with the fact that we may be eating that sad, bloody cow head, so we sort of push it away from ourselves.

Which ties in with the PETA ads because I wonder if there is a large difference between the pity compulsion to donate money and the pity compulsion to change one's entire lifestyle and diet? I think money is something one can give without having to compromise much of his/her lifestyle. But PETA asks for more than money. They ask for you to look at that bloody cow head, or those cute little baby chicks, and be so disturbed or feel so guilty that you'll never eat meat again. As a lifelong meat-eater, I am inclined to say that this is asking too much and not providing the right kind of inspiration. And even if the ads were provocative enough, would real change be made in the treatment of these animals? If PETA answered this question, perhaps their advertisement would be more effective.

So really, does the bloody cow head have agency? I am not sure that it does. Sure, the death and mutilation of the cow is presented to the viewer, but it makes me wonder if the cow is really represented? And if PETA asked for a smaller change, or even provided the idea that if the viewer could change a certain set of behaviors, then this positive result could happen, would agency then be effective?

1 comment:

nuinithil said...

Very nicely presented. I want to expand a little on the cow head because you asked a really interesting question: "does the bloody cow head have agency?"I am going to respond with a definitive no, it doesn't.

I propose this for two main reasons: first, a dead, bloody cow head on a hook really says nothing about the cow. There is no context, it is just disgusting. That cow could just as easily have been living its life on open pastures and dropped dead from natural causes, then slaughtered with its head put on display. It says nothing near what a bleached skull in the desert might suggest, or a man with a shotgun next to a bloody cow head. Just a bloody cow head says nothing. Except perhaps "ew."

Second, if we are looking at phenomenology as a real thing (which it must be, especially in language), that would mean that people must give meaning to things and that nothing "means" on its own. Therefore, our first reaction (this is disgusting, turn the page) gives the photo meaning, whatever the point of the add is. This is largely what Barthes was arguing. No matter what the author was trying to say, ultimately it is up to the readers to form meaning out of it. In the case of a bloody cow head hanging from a hook, I think you are absolutely right when you say, "The image of the dead cow was absolutely horrifying, but it was such a harsh image that I couldn't help but wonder who the victims of this advertisement were, the dead bloody heads, or the targets of the ad- the everyday people just flipping through a magazine or browsing through channels when suddenly they come face to face with a bloody massacred cow head."

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.