I'm not sure if I really understand the prompt for the agent/cy slide show, but here goes nothing.
Barton's disability discourse was built on "textual practices of erasure" (169). This means that United Way used ads that dehumanized and infantized disabled people. In other words, the ad 'erased' most of their disability in order to create the appearance that normality equaled autonomy. The United Way ads stripped their disabled subjects of their agency by making their models into archetypal objects. The PETA ads differ in that they put a spotlight on animals that have already had their autonomy taken away from them. Both of these campaigns fail to target the foundational problem.
For United Way, that problem would have been a bit difficult since it was the social construction of disability and all the myths that tag along. It's not forgivable but at least understandable why this wasn't attempted. United Way ran as a business and was more interested in raking in the donations rather than changing how the world viewed disabled people. PETA didn't have an abstract, socially constructed foundational problem. The campaign skips over the capitalist, disgusting meat industry and immediately attacks the meat eater. For example, "We are not nuggets! Please do not eat us." is a plea from the chicken to the meat eater. This is problematic because the meat eater only has access to processed nugget-shaped chicken due to the terrible industry that provided it. Also, would you say that this slogan creates the sense the chickens have agency?
The United Way ads attempted to evoke pity and fear to reel in donations. PETA also plays on emotions. The poster with the slogan "If dogs tasted like pork, would you eat them?" doesn't make a lot of sense. At a glance, the ad is trying to draw an emotional connection between the beloved family pet and dinner. Upon further investigation, this ad loses its logic because it skips the middle man again. We eat the meat that is packaged and provided for us. In other countries, that does include dog and they do eat it. If the goal is to actually save animals' lives and not just convert a bunch of people to vegetarianism, PETA should be attacking the industry the raises, slaughters, and processes those pigs.
Where does agency play a role in all of this? Are these animals agents or not?
5 comments:
In regards to the "We are not nuggets!" ad, it's interesting that the chickens are given a voice. Being able to speak out in a community and be heard would technically be categorized as having agency. "We are not nuggets", however, isn't actually being said by a voice of the chickens, but a voice conferred onto them by PETA. I wonder what the chickens would say in their own voice? I know that kind of sound ridiculous, but could there possibly be a way to say "Don't eat us" by using the chickens' terms? I am thinking about showing images of a chick's life on the farm or something like that.
That actually kind of reminds of the United Way ads. The disabled characters in the ad don't have agency because the United Way is actually speaking for the disabled. It isn't their actual voices. The way in which a disabled person might define their lives would not be compliant with the definition of a "normal" American society and cannot be framed as such.
Similarly, the chicks don't have a real voice, and defining it in their terms would most likely not be understandable to the readers whose lives are governed by different rules. So, I suppose, in general answer to the question, no, the animals do not have agency, and if they were given agency in the ads, it would not be relatable.
I would offer the possibility that the chicks agency is in their cuteness.
As ridiculous as that sounds, their innocence is what sparks emotion in the viewer of this ad, we begin instantly to draw parallels. Baby chicks= baby humans= baby pandas = innocent bystanders to human evil. I am exaggerating slightly but my point remains, in our discourse of those who are maltreated we are asked to analyze the system that oppresses them. In the case of Barton's article, those who have handicaps in relation to the way society has represented them through the United Way campaigns and in the case of Peta, animals who would rather not be eaten and or kept in deplorable situations before being processed into food.
I agree with the idea that PETA should attack the industry rather than the consumers. I think that if the consumer's were promised a real change, the ads would do their job. One thing I think many people who see those ads probably feel is "What is me not eating meat going to do for all of animal kind?" PETA does not provide this answer. Instead, the viewer must wonder if he/she can really do anything of use at all for these animals.
If you have not seen the documentary Food Inc, I would highly recommend it. In the documentary they take the approach that PETA should have taken. Instead of showing footage that condemns 'meat-eaters' or features talking chicks, they show the inside of the Agriculture Industry's incubators and slaughterhouses. The footage is truly grotesque. It gives the audience a realistic view of the source of their food, and in such a way that would make even the most irrational person nauseous. Food Inc shows that the only beings capable of having agency are the ones at the top of the food chain(or the people controlling the assembly line.)
I think by reinforcing the viewer's sense of agency, the footage acts as a catalyst for changing how he or she uses it when shopping at the grocery store.
The United Way issue is a bit more severe since the people being exploited should be viewed as having agency. While the adds may have been effective in raising capital, they promote very destructive stereotypes for the very people they are trying to help. I am trying to think of a Food Inc. styled solution that does not use tactics that are designed to erase the agency of the people they are trying to help. It is not easy, if even possible, to think of a way of creating awareness without marginalizing the group involved.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.