A Speaking Piglet Advertises Beef: An Ethical Analysis on Objectification and Anthropomorphism
Tóm tắt
The portrayal of animals in the media is often criticised for instrumentalising, objectifying and anthropomorphising animals (e.g. Hirschman and Sanders in Semiotica 115(1/2):53–79, 1997; Lerner and Kalof in Sociol Q 40(4):565–586, 1999; Stewart and Cole in Int J Multidiscip Res 12(4):457–476, 2009). Although we agree with this criticism, we also identify the need for a more substantiated approach to the moral significance of instrumentalisation, objectification and anthropomorphism. Thus, we propose a new framework which is able to address the morally relevant aspects of animal portrayal in the media. We closely examine the normative messages communicated by an unusual TV commercial in which an anthropomorphised piglet advertises organic beef. This serves as a case example to relate the philosophical and ethical concepts of objectification and anthropomorphism to each other and show how they can be applied. We conclude that the commercial conveys a message of animal instrumentalisation as being normatively correct within the constraint of good animal welfare. The depicted form of instrumentalisation is, nonetheless, associated with harm for the animals and thus, needs to overcome cognitive dissonance. To achieve this, animals are directly objectified by a trivialised and de-individualised portrayal. Moreover, animals are indirectly objectified even when they are anthropomorphised as they are granted significance only through being human-like. Thus, objectification and anthropomorphism are not opposing terms in our proposed framework. In addition, objectification, together with the reference to the dominant ideology, and combined with humorous anthropomorphism weakens scrutiny of these normative messages by the viewers. This eventually augments a decrease of moral concern for farmed animals in advertisement employing such portrayals.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Baker, S. (1993). Picturing the beast: Animal, identity and representation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2007). Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 279–286.
Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, G. (2012a). When closing the human-animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 421–429.
Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012b). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247–256.
Bekoff, M. (1994). Non-human animals: How matters of mind inform matters of welfare. Animal Welfare, 3, 75–96.
Benz-Schwarzburg, J. (2012). Verwandte im Geiste - Fremde im Recht. Sozio-kognitive Fähigkeiten bei Tieren und ihre Relevanz für Tierethik und Tierschutz. Erlangen: Harald Fischer Verlag.
Bouwman, L., Goldewijk, K. K., Van Der Hoek, K. W., Beusen, A. H. W., Van Vuuren, D. P., et al. (2013). Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900–2050 period. PNAS, 110, 20882–20887.
Brabant, S., & Mooney, L. (1989). When “critters” act like people: Anthropomorphism in greeting cards. Sociological Spectrum, 9, 477–494.
Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57(1), 193–196.
Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology and Marketing, 16(1), 69–86.
Daston, L., & Mitman, G. (2005). Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Duncan, W. F. (1982). Humor in management: Prospects for administrative practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 7, 136–142.
Duncan, I. J. H. (2006). The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(1–2), 11–19.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2014). Food outlook. Biennal Report on Global Food Markets; http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/I3751E/I3751E.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.
Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson.
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342.
Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ganea, P. A., Canfield, C. F., Simons-Ghafari, K., & Chou, T. (2014). Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children’s knowledge about animals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 283.
Ganzert, R. (2014). Producers must listen to consumers on animal welfare. National Provisioner, 228(12), 46–48.
Grimm, H. (2013). Das Tier an sich? Auf der Suche nach dem Menschen in der Tierethik. In P. K. Rippe & U. Thurnherr (Eds.), Tierisch Menschlich: Beiträge zur Tierphilosophie und Tierethik (pp. 51–95). Erlangen: Harald Fischer Verlag.
Grimm, D. (2014). Citizen canine: Our evolving relationship with cats and dogs. New York: Public AffairsTM.
Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M., et al. (2013). Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. PNAS, 110, 20888–20893.
Hirschman, E. C., & Sanders, C. R. (1997). Motion pictures as metaphoric consumption: How animal narratives teach us to be human. Semiotica, 115(1/2), 53–79.
Honneth, A. (2008). Reification: A new look at an old idea. New York: Oxford University Press.
Joy, M. (2011). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows. San Francisco: Conary Press.
JRC (Joint Research Center European Commission) (2010): Evaluation of the livestock Sector’s Contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS). Final report; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/livestock-gas/full_text_en.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.
Karlsson, F. (2012). Critical anthropomorphism and animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(5), 707–720.
Kramer, C. (2005). Digital Beasts as Visual Esperanto: Getty Images and Colonization of Sight. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism (pp. 137–171). New York: Columbia University Press.
Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty!—Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103, 221–230.
Leitsberger, M. (2015). Objectification and anthropomorphism: how advertisement contributes to instrumentalisation. Master’s thesis, Veterinary University of Vienna. http://media.obvsg.at/p-AC12612239-2001. Accessed 02 June 2016.
Lerner, J. E., & Kalof, L. (1999). The animal text: Message and meaning in television advertisements. The Sociological Quarterly, 40(4), 565–586.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55(1), 156–159.
Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206–216.
McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet, 370, 1253–1263.
Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331.
Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291.
Papadaki, E. (2014). Feminist perspectives on objectification. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (Summer 2014 ed). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/feminism-objectification/. Accessed 02 June 2016.
Paul, E. S. (1996). The representation of animals on children’s television. Anthrozoös, 9(4), 169–181.
Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13–26). New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Ruether, R. R. (1983). Sexism and god-talk. London: SCM Press.
Schroepfer, K. K., Rosati, A. G., Chartrand, T., & Hare, B. (2011). Use of “entertainment” chimpanzees in commercials distorts public perception regarding their conservation status. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e26048. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026048.
Serpell, J. A. (2005). People in disguise: Anthropomorphism and the human–pet relationship. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism (pp. 121–136). New York: Columbia University Press.
Singer, P. (1995). Animal liberation. London: Random House.
Sober, E. (2005). Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology: Morgan’s canon and cladistic parsimony. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism (pp. 85–99). New York: Columbia University Press.
Sternthal, B., & Craig, S. C. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37(4), 12–18.
Stewart, K., & Cole, M. (2009). The conceptual separation of food and animals in childhood. Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 12(4), 457–476.
Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., et al. (2011). The European nitrogen assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, P. W. (1996). Respect for nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Thornton, P., Herrero, M., Ericksen, P. (2011). Livestock and climate change. Livestock exchange issue brief 3. ILRI, Nairobi. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.
Tukker, A., Goldbohm, R. A., de Koning, A., Verheijden, M., Kleijn, R., et al. (2011). Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in europe. Ecological Economics, 70, 1776–1788.
UNEP (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: priority products and materials. Report. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.
Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor’s role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), 119–142.