Barton spends most of her article critiquing the fear and pity the United Way organization used as a means of sparking charity in American society of the 1950's. I think what makes her argument successful against The United Way campaign, is its focus on how it removed agency from people with disabilities. It is easy for a reader to get frustrated at the idea of other equals, being treated as though they are helpless and pitiful on their "progress toward normalcy" (Barton 184). We understand people with disabilities to be worthy of agency, capable of leading healthy lives despite their limitations, just as we ourselves struggle with limitations.
How then does this Bartonian analysis discuss campaigns for creatures who are removed from the possibility of having agency? As we can gather from the Peta collection, these ads follow the same schema of the United Way campaign: fear and pity. The first two images of the slide show demonstrate this. The first gory and bloody shocks the reader with the physicality of the subject matter, and asks "Did your food have a face?" The second evokes pity as little chicks, fluffy, yellow, cute, and innocent, demand "we are not nuggets!" I am intrigued at how closely these two representations can be juxtaposed against the United Way flyers Barton analysis in her work. The chicks are the younger generation representing their older counter parts, and the bloody animal face evokes emotions that were probably present in 1950's American Society when they looked upon images of "crippled" children in the United Way campaign.
But we are not morally opposed to Peta's violent and pitiful representation of animals, because they are not viewed at having any predisposed sense of agency. We do not feel like the chicks are similar to the children in the United Way campaigns, removing the voice of the older generation. Instead we say,"Yea, it makes sense that Peta uses chicks, that way they evoke a stronger message." I guess my point is that Barton's argument against fear and pity as a means of campaigning is only possible when the defendent (here people with disabilities) have agency. In the case of Peta and other animal rights organizations it is morally acceptable to represent animals in his manor as a means of sparking reaction in society, because we will never get to know if this representation pisses the chicks off.
5 comments:
I think another reason that the PETA ads are acceptable goes back to OliviaM's post about community. The United Way ads were affected because the community addressed was the community of autonomous, normal people. That's a huge community. That's most of the population. And thus, it's an effective strategy.
The community being addressed in the PETA ads are vegetarians. The threat of not being accepted in the vegetarian community is not as threatening as not being accepted into the autonomous, normal community.
Also, maybe since the community is smaller, PETA as an organization has less agency.
When I have a negative reaction against PETA ad, I usually think, "They're making me feel guilty for my lifestyle!" I'm not sure if PETA's ads are morally accepted. People's choices about eating meat and opinions on animal rights differ significantly from person to person. I would say that I am opposed to PETA's ads because they put into question and possibly even threaten my personal codes.
Opposed to the United Way ads, we have room to disagree on what we think is moral in regards to animals. This speaks to your point that animals don't have agency, but disabled persons do. As viewers, it's easier to question what's morally correct when the animals don't have agency. When it comes to judging the life of another person who possesses agency, the morals aren't as debatable.
Is PETA addressing vegetarians or are they addressing those who still consume meat? I would argue that the meat community is probably one of relatable size to the community being addressed in the United Way campaign.
However I would also be inclined to agree (unfortunately) that people are less concerned about being a part of the vegetarian community than the autonomous community that United Way constructed in their campaign. Their representation of "donors as compassionate members of the able-bodied community offering help to those Others who wish to progress toward normalcy" Barton 184), seems to pull more on the moral conscious of the reader of United Way campaigns than the readers of the Peta campaign.
Which makes me think. Are charity/moral campaigns viewed as successful in terms of how many tears they pull from our eyes? Is their ultimate goal to evoke enough sympathy in our hearts that we feel morally wrong if we do not donate to their cause?
Another interesting wrinkle in the relationship between the PETA ads and the United Way ads is the desired outcome. United Way wants you to feel pity so they can change disabled people. PETA wants you to feel pity so that they can change you. Agency is taken away from you instead of disabled people.
I think the ultimate goal of any advertisement (by an agency such as United Way or PETA) is to inspire action which may include further research, a donation, or a change of lifestyle. The UW ads undermine the agency of the disabled by ignoring the complexity of their lives as disabled people and trying to paint them as the Other that need to be fixed in order to function properly in society. The PETA ads are trying to give animals agency by creating associations that cause us to view them as more than food or entertainment. I don't the the point of the slideshow was to directly compare the unfair depictions of both the disabled and animals. The United Way ads and the PETA ads accomplish completely different things. Additionally, I don't think the PETA ads are trying to take away our agency, rather they are trying to inspire us to use our agency to research and make informed decisions about our food choices. The PETA ads are supposed to be thought provoking rather than informing.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.