Mediation for affect: coming to care about factory-farmed animals

Abstract

In this paper we examine the digitalised emotional campaigning of one of Australia's peak animal welfare organisations. Animals Australia, focusing on their most effective digital strategies associated with their campaigns against factory farming. Our broader interest lies with sounding out the affective affordances of the technologies informing such activist work; technologies of affect in a very significant sense. This discussion will comprise three parts. First we unpack the context for the problematic faced by animal (and environmental) activisms: neoliberalism, showing how neoliberal assumptions constrain such activisms to emotional appeals and denounce them for such strategizing. Secondly we sound out some of the affordances of digital media technologies for affectively oriented activisms; and finally we delve into some of Animals Australia's digital campaigning with regards to issues of factory farming in order to show the efficacy of such affectively oriented mediated strategizing for facilitating care for factory farmed animals.

“I Feel Sorry for Them”: Australian Meat Consumers’ Perceptions about Sheep and Beef Cattle Transportation

“…Disgust is considered to be a moral emotion [ 55 ] and a “gut feeling” [ 56 ], which is provoked by something, or the thought of something, violating the purity of the body or soul [ 57 ]. The feeling of disgust has previously been identified as resulting from imagery of animals raised under ‘cruel’ factory farming conditions [ 17 , 18 ]. Some authors suggest that people find things more immoral when they are exposed to disgust cues (such as the presence of contaminants, for example faeces) [ 56 ].…”

“…Australians’ increasing concerns about farm animal welfare can also be seen in the response to recent activists’ campaigns about caged hens [ 70 ] and the live export issue [ 17 , 28 ]. In activist campaign videos, animals are often represented as individuals (frequently with names and personalities) who are suffering.…”

“…In activist campaign videos, animals are often represented as individuals (frequently with names and personalities) who are suffering. The activist organisation Animals Australia has been at the forefront of broadcasting moments of “extreme cruelty experienced by these animals in their last moments” in both domestic and overseas abattoirs with such footage described as “effective enough in mobilising Australians for abattoirs to be shut down…and the installation of surveillance cameras in abattoirs” [ 17 ] (p. 45), as well as the suspension of live export trade [ 28 ]. Despite evidence which suggests that Australian meat consumers typically ignore animal welfare activism, particularly when it is online [ 38 ], it is clear that animal welfare activism has played a significant role in raising general awareness and communicating to the public about intensive animal agriculture and the live export controversy.…”

“…Jasper and Nelkin [ 15 ] suggest that these changes in attitudes toward animals are a result of “sentimental anthropomorphism”, which stems from increasing urbanisation and a shift in focus from considering animals to be part of food production to viewing animals as increasingly meaningful members of society and/or the family. In the context of livestock production, when the characteristics of the production system are perceived to cause harm or suffering to animals, for example, because the free will of the animal is taken away, the specific conditions responsible for the suffering are likely to be perceived as immoral [ 16 ] and disgusting [ 17 , 18 ], particularly as people tend to anthropomorphise and consider how the animal is likely to be feeling in its current situation. As a result, many studies have demonstrated that people have become increasingly concerned about intensive animal agriculture, and that they prefer animals to be reared in free-range systems, which allow them to express “natural behaviours” [ 1 , 2 , 18 , 19 ].…”

From human-centric digital health to digital One Health: Crucial new directions for mutual flourishing

“…Contributors to the growing literature on animal–computer interaction studies and new media studies have begun to show how digital technologies can be used to better become attuned to and care for nonhuman animals 23 , 24 and engage in activism against animal cruelty and factory farming. 25 , 26 Design fiction approaches have been used in human–computer interaction studies to help people imagine the future of automation in the context of climate change. 27 Digital storytelling has been used as a way of providing a voice to Indigenous people to articulate their ethos of connection, including their relationship with place and the living and non-living occupants who cohabit with humans.…”