Tailoring to the Audience?: The potential harms of ‘message framing’ in vegan activism
One approach to vegan activism is to do 'whatever works' to reach an audience. This often means tailoring the message by referring to environmental or health benefits of veganism when speaking to persons holding pre-existing values (e.g., being climate- or health-conscious). In contrast, the motive of animal suffering is less likely to be used in tailored advocacy, as it is notoriously difficult to convey. Although 'message framing' can significantly enhance vegan advocacy effectiveness, it can also lead to the objectification of animals by treating them as mere means to other ends; imply a denial of their personhood; perpetuate their status as property; enable future harm to animals; and create a hierarchy of moral worth among different animal species.
FRIDERIKE SPANG: One approach to vegan activism is to do “whatever works” to reach an audience. This often means tailoring the message to pre-existing values of one’s interlocutors, a strategy that research confirms to be effective. Indeed, tailoring messages to the audience is a fundamental principle of persuasive communication in social movements. As research in psychology and sociology demonstrates, adapting messages to align with the audience’s pre-existing values can significantly enhance their effectiveness.
For the context of vegan advocacy, we may call this approach “tailored advocacy.” This means that vegan activists would refer to environmental or health benefits of veganism when speaking to persons holding pre-existing values in these domains (e.g., being climate- or health-conscious). In contrast, the motive of animal suffering is less likely to be used in tailored advocacy, as it is notoriously difficult to convey. This point has raised some concerns in the scholarly community… While some social movement leaders support every step toward eliminating animal-based products irrespective of the underlying motivation others [argue that] veganism should pursue its ethic about animal rights and remain a political strategy to liberate animals.
Intuitively, the tailoring approach may seem more plausible. After all, if veganism is ultimately about reducing animal suffering, then activists should make use of whatever works best to convince their interlocutors to adopt a vegan lifestyle. This view faces some criticism. Francione, for example, emphasizes that vegan activism should focus on the core issue of animal suffering rather than other benefits of veganism. Moreover, Núria Almiron critically examines arguments for and against environmental framing in animal advocacy, concluding that while most arguments for environmental framing are easily refuted, arguments against it are more robust. Such critical perspectives are, however, in the minority compared to the more widespread assumption that tailoring is the favorable strategy…
This paper has identified several problems with the use of tailored advocacy in vegan activism. Tailored advocacy is a widespread tactic, not only in animal advocacy but also in social movements more generally. In vegan activism, tailored advocacy appears attractive due to its appeal to growing environmental and health concerns, as well as its potential to avoid meat-related cognitive dissonance (MRCD). If the goal of vegan activism is to reduce animal suffering by increasing the number of vegans, the best strategy might seem to advocate based on whatever motive is most likely to convince the audience—even if that means avoiding the subject of animal suffering.
However, this paper has raised concerns about this approach. In doing so, this paper contributes to critical perspectives on tailored advocacy, such as Almiron’s critique of using environmental frames in animal advocacy or Francione’s endorsement of animal-focused advocacy. Specifically, I have argued that tailoring can (1) lead to an objectification of animals by treating them as mere means to other ends; (2) imply a denial of their personhood; (3) perpetuate their status as property; (4) enable future harm to animals; and (5) create a hierarchy of moral worth among different animal species.
These arguments raise the question: Should vegan activists revert to focusing their advocacy on animal suffering? Given the significant problems identified with tailoring, advocacy that centers on animals as ends in themselves would, in my view, be preferable—if not for the issue of MRCD.
As I have argued, focusing on animal suffering tends to activate ingrained reflexes designed to reduce meat-related cognitive dissonance. This reaction can, in turn, make the audience more resistant to arguments on the topic. This leaves us with the question: What is to be done? Which approach is preferable, given that each has significant problems?
While this paper does not provide a definitive answer to the question, it contributes to addressing the issue in two ways. First, the arguments presented caution against an uncritical embrace of the seemingly favorable approach of tailored advocacy. Second, the findings point to directions for future research. As discussed, dissonance reduction mechanisms are a central reason why audiences tend to resist animal-focused advocacy.
Assuming that animal-focused advocacy is overall the better option, especially given the significant problems with tailoring outlined in this paper, it will be crucial for future research — ideally interdisciplinary, bridging animal ethics, psychology, and political science — to develop strategies that can help animal activists prevent their audience from reflexively reducing MRCD and thus becoming resistant to their arguments. If such strategies can be devised, we would indeed have a winner. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: