Publicity Campaign Proposal
Animal Rights: Publicity Campaign Proposal
Considering the vast amount of stereotypes developed around animal rights activism, it seems that animal rights advocacy has been successful with their campaigning in that it has gained widespread attention. That being said, not all tactics used in animal rights campaigning is effective. Since negative stereotypes continue to plague animal rights advocacy, there should be a better way to educate the public without alienating certain members of the public. For example, calling meat eaters murderers is not an effective means of gaining sympathy towards animals, but showing footage of animal abuse at meat-packing factories will since it takes such aggressive accusations away from the public.
In order to get the public to feel sympathy and commitment towards animal rights, campaigns need to incorporate the theory of sensibilization. Sensibilization in this case is defined as “the process whereby activists develop both their mental responsiveness and awareness and refine their embodied sensitivity,” (Hansson & Jacobsson, 2014, p. 263). In other words, people need material that will target their sensitivity and empathy, as well as material that will educate them on animal welfare beyond the stereotypes and general information that they know about it. Targeting emotional reactions needs the use of moral shocks, or “narratives, depictions, or situations utilized or highlighted by social movements to motivate participation,” (Wrenn, 2013, p. 380).
Progressive animal rights advocacy in the past have resulted in the legislation of the 1966 Animal Welfare Act. Animal “anti-cruelty laws were only there for society to manage sadists and psychopaths unmoved by self-interest,” (Rollin, 2012, p. S5) before the Welfare Act passed. Such self-interest is defined by the public’s opinion that scientific research and agricultural tactics are necessary for the benefit of mankind. This assumes a position that animal research and consumption cannot be both a scientific necessity and a moral issue at the same time. Many arguments also assume that one can be supportive of animal welfare and yet still follow the same behaviors of mainstream culture (i.e., a person can be mortified of video footage of abuse in factories and be outraged, but still choose to eat and enjoy meat).
It is therefore necessary to spearhead a highly informational campaign that is close to using journalistic values – by using facts and having a neutral stance on the issue. In today’s information age, it wouldn’t be difficult to reach out to young people so that they can be compelled to push for further legislative changes. A neutral message on the issue would ensure that not only people would get the information they would need to make an informed opinion, but it also wouldn’t alienate anyone in the public like with the use of extremist or passionate language that would seek to blame the people – especially in regards to the actions of corporate companies. Starting the campaign with a strong social media presence, especially with the use of web documentaries, would be efficient in garnering followers. It will also give them an easy platform to follow the material. Television ads are useful in using moral shock material, but their short durations do not allow for journalistic efforts.
As a specific example, this can be explained in regards to the Five Freedoms that define animal welfare. There is a troubling “notion of aspiring to achieve these Freedoms defined as ideal states and simultaneously viewing them as a logical and comprehensive guide creates the mistaken expectation among those who are less well informed that such states of freedom are indeed fully achievable,” (Mellor, 2016, p. 3). Reality though does not make it as simple. For example, the right to have freedom from fear and distress for animals means that people have to ensure “conditions and treatment which avoid mental suffering,” (Mellor, 2016, p. 2). Of course, this provision does not apply at all to corporate agricultural companies, which is why animal rights groups have to resort to undercover journalism. Undercover journalism would be useful in a web documentary that can be featured and shared on social media, which can be produced and funded by animal rights organizations.
References
Hansson, N., & Jacobsson, K. (2014). Learning to be affected: Subjectivity, sense, and sensibility in animal rights activism. Society & Animals: 262-288.
Mellor, D.J. (2016). Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the ‘Five Freedoms’ towards ‘a life worth living.’” Animals, 6(21): 1-20.
Rollin, B.E. (2012). The moral status of invasive animal research. Hastings Center Report: S4-S6.
Wrenn, C. L. (2013). Resonance of moral shocks in abolitionist animals rights advocacy: Overcoming contextual constraints. Society & Animals, 21: 379-394.
