Risking Obsolescence
But what is effective? There have certainly been some successful campaigns for animals over the past few decades — how did those successes happen? Why are other approaches not getting enough traction to change hearts and minds or pass more animal-friendly policies? Unfortunately, I don’t have answers to these questions, just some personal observations based on the research that HRC has conducted. First and foremost, animal protection is just not relevant for many people, except perhaps when it comes to the care and wellbeing of their companion animals. But animal abuse is something that usually happens behind closed doors; so when people see it, they think it’s an exception.
Partly as a result of this phenomenon, some animal advocates have fallen for the belief that they just have to scream louder to be heard. They denounce animal cruelty with vehement rhetoric and graphic images plastered on billboards and then they wonder why people aren’t changing en masse in response to the truth. But sometimes the louder you are the less people hear you; it’s kind of like when people mute the TV as soon as the obnoxiously loud commercials come on. Similarly, most people tune out “angry” rhetoric and “extreme” tactics. They might provide a momentary distraction or a media spectacle, but the extra attention is quickly lost.
Contrast this with the other end of the spectrum, which might be considered the local nonprofit shelter community, which in most areas has very high favorability among the public. This is testament to the hard work of companion animal advocates, but it also reflects a polarization of public perception regarding animal people: the benevolent shelter volunteer vs. the angry vegan protester, if you will. As a result, there is a rather large void in public opinion where moderate, but resolute animal advocates could claim space and provide more access to the movement’s ideas. People really do love animals, this we know to be true, but advocates need to give these people a community and a set of ideas with which they can more easily identify.
The fourth part in a five-part of serialization of The Death of Animal Rights published by the Humane Research Council.
