Looking for something?

• Links
• Home
• Blog
• About
• store

Guide To Analyzing PETA’s Nude Activism

September 2, 2008

In order to help some theorists better defend their positions, I’ve created this handy-dandy guide for discussing the use of nude or nearly nude demonstrations and campaigns within the animal rights movement:

Clearly define your terms.

Suggested terms to defined: pornography, commodification, objectification, sexual objectification, sexism. You cannot assume that just because you look at an image and think it represents pornography that others will share your perspective. Even if/when you show them the image they may not agree with you.

For example, Nathan says PETA has a “willingness to reinforce sexist attitudes by embracing the strategic objectification of human females” and he links to these images as proof: Amanda Beard, Jenna Jameson, Eva Mendes. However, in my definition of ‘objectification’ these images are not good examples and in fact prove the opposite of Nathan’s claim. Objectification means reducing someone to an object, dehumanizing that person. Classic examples include: 1) pornographic images of women with their heads missing and 2) the routine use of the military to identify boot camp trainees by number rather than name. A key component is often a loss of identity. Objectification is when people are treated as interchangeable, disposable, replaceable objects. But the examples Nathan chose did not in anyway dehumanize the models. Because these were celebrities, their names and identities were a vital part of the campaigns.* Because Nathan didn’t clearly define his terms, his examples supported the opposite of his claim.

Remember your gender.

If you’re a man, you simply haven’t experienced sexism in the same way as women have. You cannot claim to completely understand it. Do not ignore your gender and act as if it doesn’t matter - it does. You can’t ignore your power and influence. You must acknowledge your privilege. If you’re a woman, remember that other women have different experiences based on their race, class, age, appearance, religion and so forth. We’re not all the same, so even though you have a better understanding of sexism because you’ve experienced it, you probably haven’t experienced the same kinds of sexism as other women have. When we analyze images, we should acknowledge our baggage and our privilege as well as the ways in which we might misinterpret the images.

Intent matters.

When we view something, our reaction is only a piece of the puzzle. If you see something and automatically identify that as pornography that might say more about you and how you view the world than about the person who created the image. Just because something turns you on (or off) doesn’t mean it was meant to be sexual. Often, the intent of nude or nearly nude activism is to get attention, because nudity is uncommon. Do not conflate nudity with sexuality. If you make the case that something resembles pornography, you MUST explain why.

Don’t take short-cuts.

You can’t assume your reader agrees with your position. You can’t assume your reader has your background, your experiences, or your understandings. You must carefully make your case, without leaping from one concept to the next.

For example, Gary claims, “For many years, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has promoted sexist campaigns. This started with their ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’ campaign in the early 1990s and has ‘progressed’ through a series of increasing cheap and puerile promotions, culminating in its most recent PETA’s State of the Union Undress,” But he hasn’t clearly explained how nudity relates to sexism. “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” is simply a true statement for many people and not at all sexist. The State of the Union Undress is a strip-tease and, depending on your view, is either an example of free-speech or pornography (or both**). His argument, in its current state, appeals more to prudes than to feminists.

Moreover, do your research. If you claim, “Consider that they don’t use images of male nudes, nor do they use images of women with varying body sizes,” then how do you explain the men here? Your analysis needs to be a) accurate and b) reflect the other parties involved. In this case, there’s another party that’s partially responsible for this perceived sexism: the mainstream media is responsible for NOT showcasing the times when PETA uses men and women of varying body sizes.

Take care not to be hypocritical.

If you think objectification is wrong, don’t treat women as objects. That means, use their names when possible. Quote them, link to them, support them. DO NOT post images of them and then criticize them without even taking into account what they say their intent was. Don’t assume anything about the entire group of women who go nude for animals. Even if you think some have been pressured or coerced (either overtly or through internalized sexism) you simply cannot assume they’re all victims. Likewise, just because some women defend their actions and claim it was a free choice doesn’t mean all women who participated made a free choice. It’s critically important to recognize women’s autonomy, individuality, and agency. And it’s critically important to listen to them.

Make specific recommendations for change.

Always conclude with a specific call to action. Don’t merely criticize without offering alternatives; suggest ways PETA can do better. Even if you can’t think of specific actions or goals, suggest an open discourse on the issue so that other people can participate and create change. (FYI disabling comments is not a good way to do that. If you disable comments, point readers to a place where they can discuss the issue all together.)

This is just a beginning. I’m sure if someone wanted me to write a book on this topic I could. :)

— Notes —

* One could argue that the entire notion of ‘celebrity’ is dehumanizing and commodifying, certainly celebrity through pornography, as in the case of Jenna Jameson. But that’s not what Nathan’s done here. That’s not the approach he or others have taken when criticizing PETA’s use of nude or nearly nude people for animal rights campaigns.

** In my opinion, ‘pornography’ is differentiated from ‘erotica’ and from ’sexualized or nude political speech’ by two distinguishing characteristics: 1) the only intent of porn is to sexually arouse and stimulate, 2) porn is a product that can be bought, sold, traded, that is, porn is a commodity. Erotica also intends to stimulate and is also often a commodity, but isn’t necessarily a commodity. Erotica is more closely related to art than to pornography. Nude political speech is not necessarily sexualized or pornographic. And both ‘nude political speech’ and ’sexualized political speech’ differ from pornography because the intent is to express a political idea, not to sell a product. There is a big difference between selling a DVD and “selling” an idea.

Comments

See why Elaine recommends Vita-Mix

Elaine recommends Downbound.

Subscribe

Important Message:

Order a FREE vegetarian starter kit at GoVeg.com

Read why Elaine recommends Prosper.

Post Script:

Feed Me:

Subscribe

Elaine's Twitter Updates:

,,

Copyright © Elaine Vigneault · Legal notice · Contact · OOSHEE · Revolution theme by Brian Gardner