"I wonder, however, about recent campaigns and actions that have thrust animal activists -- the individuals, not the issues -- into the spotlight. Many news reports rant and rave about what we are doing. This is dangerous. Instead of being shocked into or educated about the radical notion that non-human animals bleed and suffer, most of what people see, hear, and learn is what they see animal activists doing. The animals, if they are mentioned at all, seem to be an afterthought.

The tactics of animal activists, not animal suffering itself, have become the default emphasis of many campaigns. You’ve read the headlines: "20 arrested at animal research demonstration," "Animal activist hunger-strikes to stop hunt," "Supermodel bares all to fight fur," or "Former cerebral palsy poster child thrown out of pro- research press conference." No one is immune, even yours truly, and the prevelant emphasis on the human activists rather than the non- human victims is troubling.

Since humans are the ones who must bring others into the animal liberation movement, it might be wise to consider the impact of all this attention. More often than not, the actions non-activists see us doing are presented as either extreme or attention-grabbing stunts. Although we can’t control the media, some campaigns, by their very design, seem to place more emphasis on us than on the animals who are actually suffering. Slogans like "I’d rather go naked than wear fur" clearly put the suffering of animals too far removed from focus of such campaigns to matter, or even make sense to ‘Joe and Judy America.’

As much as I admire the commitment of those who use hunger strikes as a tactic, the same questions apply. When the focus of a hunger strike is given primarily to the humans who have made sacrifices for their beliefs, the suffering of the animals gets secondary attention. I don’t doubt that the motives of hunger strikers are pure, but, how exactly does not eating help stop nonhuman suffering? Granted, when hunger strikes are publicized they might help put an issue before the public consciousness, but if the attention stops there, the use of this tactic also runs the risk of giving both the media and the general public a skewed sense of what animal activists think is important.

Without first building a proper foundation on which people can understand why someone would risk frostbite on their nether regions, or starve themselves after arrest ("Isn’t that what they wanted?" people have asked me), such stunts run the risk of appearing hollow and pointless. Is the occasional and meager news media coverage enough? Or is there more work to be done sensitizing people to the basics of our issues before making ourselves little more than props in our own campaigns?

Likewise, the use of celebrity spokespersons has sometimes been very clever and novel, but again it seems that many of these efforts actually do very little to invoke the widespread sympathy or anger for the pain and suffering non-human animals endure. Rather, they have allowed humans to dominate the spotlight of the animal rights debate ­ again. Everything from the AIDS ribbon controversy that Americans for Medical Profits, er, Progress, has tirelessly tried to orchestrate to the revelation than Naomi Campbell once again wears fur has been used by our opposition for their own dubious purposes. And the animals continue to pay the price, in more ways than one. I have lost count of how many times I have heard people say, "You have a point, but who takes the animal rights movement seriously?" Are we trivializing the issues too much by relying on celebrities and attention-grabbing tactics? Have we fallen into the trap of emphasizing style over substance? Or are naked celebrities, hunger strikes, and irate former poster children what is needed to open people’s eyes in this, the era of Jerry Springer?

As I see it, relying on fickle celebrities or unclad beauties in sub- zero weather, while well-meaning, can only get us so far before we lose sight of what inspired us to work toward animal liberation to begin with. Who isn’t disturbed by seeing scenes of a fox in a leghold trap or an elephant being beaten? Moreover, by emphasizing what animal activists are doing instead of highlighting the suffering of animals that brought us to this struggle to begin with, we play right into the hands of our opponents. The animal exploiters of the world would like nothing better than to keep the focus off what they are doing to animals and keep all the attention on us. This further obfuscates the issue for people sitting on the fence who might otherwise come on board. I doubt many of these people care about how animal activists blocked the door of the local department store ­ what they want to know is how they can help stop animal suffering. Maybe it’s time we stopped comparing our arrest records and got back to basics.

Every change begins with a single step. How do we get the attention off of ourselves and back to fostering respect and compassion for non- humans? A complete answer can’t be given in a single column, but how we begin the process is fairly simple. Next time we issue a press release, plan a demonstration, or write a letter to the editor, let’s forget about ourselves and remember the animals.

Lawrence Carter-Long
Animal Protection Institute
(from Animals Agenda July/August 1998)