Resonance of Moral Shocks in Abolitionist Animal Rights Advocacy: Overcoming Contextual Constraints

Abstract

Jasper and Poulsen (1995) have long argued that moral shocks are critical for recruitment in the nonhuman animal rights movement. Building on this, Decoux (2009) argues that the abolitionist faction ofthe nonhuman animal rights movement fails to recruit members because it does not effectively utilize descriptions of suffeting. However, the effectiveness of moral shocks and subsequent emotional reactions has been questioned. This article reviews the literature surrounding the use of moral shocks in social movements. Based on this review, it is suggested that the exploitation of emotional reactions to depictions of suffering can sometimes prove beneficial to recruitment, but successful use is contextually rooted in preexisting frameworks, ideology, and identity. It is concluded that a reliance on images and narratives might be misconstrued in a society dominated by nonhuman animal welfare ideology.

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

“…Moral shocks are most effective when they are ‘embodied in, or translatable into, powerful condensing symbols’, what have also been called symbolic forms’ (Ferrada Stoehrel, 2016), able to ‘neatly capture – both cognitively and emotionally – a range of meanings, and convey a frame, a master frame, or theme’ (Jasper and Poulsen, 1995: 498). As animal rights and welfare movements have long realised, representations of animals are effective condensing symbolic forms able to convey a master frame of cruelty and suffering to produce the moral shock – what we would also call the affective charge – required to engage and motivate people both individually and collectively (Nabi, 2009; Wrenn, 2013). Consequently, animal activists have a history of using disturbing images of animal suffering, with the common argument being that such ‘shock tactics’ are necessary because the suffering of animals is ‘a hidden taboo that society is very reluctant to notice, let alone address’ (Aaltola, 2014: 28).…”

“The Pig That Therefore I Am”

“…McDonald (2000) found that moral shocks, or at least negative information about animal practices, eventually led to her participants becoming vegan. Wrenn (2013) argued that abolitionist vegan advocacy relies too heavily on factual information alone and that graphic images might be more effective. However, Mika (2006) found that many college students reacted negatively to PETA’s morally shocking advertisements because they lacked “credibility” and relied too much on their shock value rather than substantive content.…”

Abolition Then and Now: Tactical Comparisons Between the Human Rights Movement and the Modern Nonhuman Animal Rights Movement in the United States

“…However, these tactics are more heavily utilized by advocacy organizations whose primary activities are welfare reform. Abolitionist advocates thus tend to downplay moral shocks in favor of rational argument (Wrenn 2013). This generally entails a focus on the property status of nonhumans, as welfare reforms are seen as inconsistent with nonhuman liberation.…”

“…Indeed, Francione argues that welfare reforms are generally economically beneficial to exploitative industries and tend to increase public comfort with nonhuman animal use (Francione and Garner 2010). Thus, because depictions of suffering are heavily associated with the welfarist approach, it could prove difficult to utilize them in an abolitionist context (Wrenn 2013). Yet, DeCoux (2009) suggests that ignoring suffering interferes with goal attainment: ''Abolitionists' lack of success in their efforts to promote veganism may well result from their nearly exclusive focus on the property status of animals as the evil that needs to be overcome'' (33).…”