The shield of “raising awareness” comes up a lot in my arguments about PETA tactics. I find no matter what criticism I make about animal charities making boldly destructive moves, the fact they are “raising awareness” seems to make it all okay. Here’s an example from a post called “In Defense of PETA” on Associated Content:
Let me begin by noting that I am not a member of PETA, nor do I approve of all their tactics. In fact, I excoriate their financial support of ALF members
And turns around to say:
But I do believe that their naked protest tactics are often unfairly targeted, especially when other organizations engage in similar--or worse--campaigns....PETA's naked campaigns are, primarily, for the purpose of raising awareness about the fur industry (although they've been known to use nudity for other issues, too.)
The “raising awareness” claim is comparable to the “no tag backs!” tactic you shouted on the playground in grade school. Once your campaign is raising awareness for whatever it might be, it doesn’t matter how sexist or perverse your campaign is. It doesn’t matter if you invest donations in McDonalds and at least 80 other such companies. It doesn’t matter if you give awards to slaughterhouse designers or advertise for KFC.
The fact is, you’re raising awareness, and for anyone to question you is infighting, divisive, and you are simply stepping on people who are trying to make gradual steps.
You’re raising awareness, but how?
Raising awareness is important. Actually, it’s really important. Raising awareness might be the first, most crucial step in getting your cause started.
Yet raising awareness simply means informing the public that a problem exists. It means nothing more than that. Raising awareness is the bare minimum expectation for a campaign. Can you imagine campaigning for an issue without raising awareness? No? So why are we so quick to excuse theatrics, miseducation, and downright offensive displays because they fall under the umbrella of "raising awareness?"
The issue has gotten so out of hand, awareness raising seems to be the only thing that matters in a campaign anymore. Campaigns are judged in awareness raising as if by some point system. That a campaign is more obtuse or more offensive simply feeds into why it’s so great, for this reason.
I've recently had a few exchanges with a PETA apologist who gave me permission to publicly post our conversations alongside my comments.
While this is the opinion of one person, the parts I have excerpted greatly resemble the many opinion pieces I've scanned defending PETA and their campaigns. Interestingly, few such pieces actually wholly defend the charity. They even take time to distance themselves from their blatantly offensive nature.
I'll admit there are certainly things they (and other groups) do that sometimes cause me to shake my head, but as an activist/vegan I always feel there is no use bashing one another when there are plenty of better ways to spend that energy to help the cause.
Why, despite this, there remains a strong urge to back the organization is a frustrating mystery to me. However, I get the feeling from discussions on the topic there is a consistent feeling of helpless dependency, as if we need to fear losing our beloved multimillion dollar animal charities. This excerpt from the same letter says it all:
PETA is made up of hundreds of people who dedicate every waking moment to helping animals. The turnover is very high because the work is very rough. I know I am not going to change your opinion of them, but I would hope you would not bash them publicly as they are just doing the best they can to help animals, and there is no doubt they have more victories for animals than any organization in history.
It doesn’t matter what their tactics are, they are “dedicated,” they mean well. They are doing “the best they can.” It doesn’t matter how wrong they might be, they are made up of “hundreds of people.” This is where the motivation to defend PETA comes from. We are infants, we believe we need our multimillion dollar PETA mommy.
This article on the Facebook cartoon profile picture slacktivism takes a similar stance on “raising awareness.” The author says aptly, “RAISING AWARENESS WITHOUT ACTION IS MEANINGLESS.” I agree, but what is more, raising awareness with misdirected action is dangerous.
Yes, PETA certainly raises awareness. There’s no question. However, PETA encourages people to support legislature which strengthens the animal industry and to believe exploitation of animals is morally justified provided it is “humane.” This is the core of PETA.
This is where the PETA movement is sending us. We are immunizing our concern for the plight of animals by supporting a barbaric movement to produce ethical rape, torture, and slavery. We are immunizing the industry from the threat of decreased demand by labeling procedural improvements as welfare victories. Frankly, I don’t want to raise awareness for that.
Do you find yourself encountering the “raising awareness” shield often? Simply memorize this article’s short link: http://vegan.fm/awareness to give to your friend anytime this comes up.
Comments
Hear, hear! Thank you for your cogent analysis. I get so disheartened by others' stalwart support of PETA's sexist, woman-objectifying crap.
i think that you are oversimplifying the issues here. you synthesize the questionable claim that PETA hides behind the fictional pc banner of "raising awareness" , yet it is you that is making this claim.
PETA does what it does, and nobody does it better than them.
This is possibly the most poorly structured argument I have seen against PETA in some time, and as someone who spent several years working for PETA, I have seen many. Let me attempt to go through these point by point.
1) Sexist or perverse campaigns: The second term here is completely subjective so we will disregard that, as for sexist, perhaps not. PETA has literally dozens of nude male campaigns, male on male makeout tours, etc. It just seems that when women are naked people pay more attention and thus these are what people are exposed to most often.
2) Investing in companies: Sure, PETA will sometimes spend $5 or $6 on a share of McDonalds or some other company so that it can get people into shareholder meetings. This has been hugely effective. Between shareholder resolutions and behind the scenes work through their Corporate Affairs division PETA has won many campaigns before they even started.
3) Awards: PETA gives awards to get acknowledgement for advances in animal welfare. Again, how you perceive this is completely a value judgment and has no merit in this conversation.
My suggestion to you is to put down the Gary Francione books and actually look at how organizations do things. If you think that handing out a leaflet of facts is as effective as a surgically thought out media campaign then you are kidding yourself. There's no one-size fits all method for activism, all approaches are needed. Divisiveness is nothing more than a sign of lack of comprehension.
Thank you for an excellent and insightful essay. PETA has done more harm to the animal rights movement than I care to think about. Between giving awards to slaughterhouse designers, to investing in McDonalds and KFC, to slaughtering over 95% of the healthy, adoptable animals they take into their so-called "shelter", to advocating for breed-specific discriminatory killing... I could go on. Our PETA mommy became old and senile long ago. Lert her die of old age and a better generation take the reins.
Does entering into the porn business qualify as a "surgically thought out media campaign?" Just wondering.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!