Animal Rights Activists' Representations of Animals

8/2/2019 Animal Rights Activists' Representations of Animals

1/21

Animal rights activists representationsof animals and animal rights:

An exploratory study

Monica Pivetti

Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Abstract

During the last 30 years, supporters of the animal rights movement have

questioned the use of animals for human benefit and have campaigned for

improvements in their welfare. In the present study, activistsrepresentations

of animals and animal rights were investigated by interviewing 23 partici-pants (from three animal welfare and animal rights organizations) during

four focus-group discussions. Results show that the activistsrepresentations

were generated from the love/pain thema, which on the one hand showed the

compassion and love the activists have for animals, and on the other hand

the suffering that animals can endure. Moreover, differences were found in

this study in the way that members of the three animal welfare and rights

organizations constructed their views of animals. While members of two out

of the three organizations aimed to protect abandoned animals, members ofthe Anti-Vivisection League faced the contradictions within the humanani-

mal relationship and endorsed a more coherent approach to animals. These

findings are interpreted in light of previous studies conducted on the animal

rights movement and of recent developments in social representation theory.

Keywords: animal rights activists; Anti-Vivisection League, focus group,

social representations theory, thema

ince the 1970s, the animal rights movement has challenged the use of

animals in modern Western society, raising questions concerning the

exploitation of animals for human benefit. The works by Singer

(1977), Regan (1988) and Midgley (1983) have provided the philosophical

basis of moral reasoning for animals and animal welfare, and have main-

tained that individual animals have intrinsic value and rights. In line with

this, human beings have a moral obligation not to cause animals unneces-

sary pain and distress.

S


2/21

One of the major, though mostly forgotten, achievements of the move-

ment was the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights

(U.D.A.R.) in Paris on 15th October 1978 at UNESCO headquarters

(Appendix 1). The Declaration provided human beings with a code of bio-

logical ethics based on respect for life in all its shapes and forms; also, it

promoted respect for wild animals and their habitat (no hunting and fish-ing). It discouraged 1) the use of animals for leisure (no zoos, circuses and

bullfights), 2) the taming of animals for human consumption (intensive

farm practices: animals kept in confined captivity), for sports (horse riding)

and for clothing (furs and leather), and 3) the use of animals for scientific

and cosmetic research. The text, which was revised by the International

League for Animal Rights in 1989, was submitted to the General Director

of UNESCO in 1990 and made public that same year (League For Animal

Rights n.d.).

With its growth, the animal rights movement has also become the sub-

ject of social scientific scrutiny. Scholars have found that animal activists

tend to be disproportionately female, well-educated, upper middle-class

and liberal (Plous 1991; Galvin and Herzog 1992; Jamison and Lunch

1992; Nibert 1994; Peek, Bell and Dunham 1996; Kruse 1999).

Ethnographic studies suggest that assuming an animal rights perspective is

similar to religious conversion. These similarities include a fundamentalshift in world view, dramatic changes in lifestyle (for example, diet) and

the conviction that the new perspective is morally correct and that other

types of behavior (for example, vivisection) are morally wrong (Herzog

1993; Jasper and Poulsen 1995).

Sutherland and Nash (1994) maintain that the animal rights movement

contains a powerful new worldview that redefines the relationship that

human beings have with nature and the animals existing in it. The animal

rights movement rejects the traditional cosmology of Western society,

which gives humans dominion over nature and animals, and offers a new

environmental cosmology, where animals are positioned at the centre of

the moral universe. In this light, society has become the symbol of evil, and

redemption takes the form of animal activism. Therefore, the animal rights

cosmology functions as a belief system and provides a structure that

enables one to deal with questions of justice, good/evil and suffering.

Participants in the animal rights movement have distinctive, well-artic-ulated and sometimes impassioned beliefs about non-humans. Jasper and


3/21

a moral argument to balance human and animal interests but accept that

some hierarchy exits amongst the two; and finally, the fundamentalists,

who do not make a distinction between humans and animals.

Despite its limitations, social representations theory (Moscovici

1961/1976) can offer a useful theoretical background for the study of peo-

ples beliefs about animals, and can aid in gaining a clearer insight intowhy people have these feelings towards other species. Social representa-

tions have been defined as theories of common sense applied to general

topics, for example, intelligence and AIDS, discussed in society. By defi-

nition, social representations are socially constructed, therefore they

emerge from social interaction within groups and they are increasingly

dominated by media communication (Wagner and Kronberger 2001).

They do not simply represent opinions about, images of, or attitudes

toward, but theories or branches of knowledge in their own right,

which are able to create shared knowledge because of individual cognitive

elaboration and social interactions within groups (Moscovici 1973, p. 13).

There is no given reality: individuals and their social groups produce real-

ity through shared discourse and interaction. To highlight their social

nature, the theory stresses the importance of the communication process

within groups in the emergence of representations. When people interact

with their environment and its inhabitants through various means, forexample, everyday chitchat, whilst working or studying, reading newspa-

pers, or watching television, they construct shared pictures of the world.

Therefore, social representations are consolidated discourses intrinsic to

everyday conversation and cognitive structures in the mind of the individ-

ual. In this sense, they draw on a wider network of influences within which

specific attitudes can develop.

Social representations have a twofold function: to establish an order

that will enable individuals to orient themselves throughout their material

and social world, and to make communication possible by providing them

with a common code which is used for exchanges. When incongruous or

unusual things catch our attention, established social representations try to

transform such phenomena into something identifiable to us, by means of

one of following two processes: 1) anchoring the new event into something

familiar; or 2) objectifying the event (Moscovici 1984).

Within the same cultural framework, different groups may take up dis-tinctly different positions in the representational field, by referring to dif-


4/21

Spini and Clmence 1999). Social positioning is the process by which

individuals take positions in regards to a significant network, and these

derive from the anchoring of shared knowledge and beliefs within differ-

ent groups. The question is whether identity is a function of representation

itself (Duveen 2001) or if the contrary is equally true (Brewer 2001). From

this viewpoint, sharing a social representation is related to belonging to agroup, but it is also a way of defining oneself as not belonging to out-

groups that have different representations.

Recently, Markova (2000) suggested that social representations can be

generated from a thema1 or themata, that is, semiotic pre-categorizations,

composed of two opposite words, such as male/female, justice/injustice,

and nature/culture, seated in the collective memory of individuals and

groups. People are used to thinking implicitly in opposition or antinomies,

as part of socialization to their culture. For instance, people define what is

safe to eat by referring to what is poisonous. In principle, any opposition-

al taxonomy can become a thema, but only those that in the course of his-

tory become a focus of attention and a source of tension or conflict end up

being themata (Moscovici and Vignaux 1994).

The aim of my research was to qualitatively investigate activists rep-

resentational fields of animals and animal rights in order to further under-

stand the belief system behind the animal rights movement. Such anapproach allowed me to investigate in-depth the worldviews of animal wel-

fare and rights activists as they are shaped and communicated in everyday

life. I suggest that the wide range of beliefs and commitment to participa-

tion in the movement expresses different representations of the

humananimal relationship, as shared by members of different animal wel-

fare and rights groups. The arguments that constitute these social repre-

sentations will be investigated.

Methods

Participants and Procedure

Four focus group discussions (three to nine persons per group, n = 23)

were arranged in the district of Modena, Italy, in May 2003, following the

methodology proposed by Bloor et al. (2001). The sample consisted of 15

women and 8 men, ranging in age from 21 to 51 years, with an average age

of 39. Of these, 14 reported being vegetarian and non-religious.In short, the focus group technique is a form of group interview that


5/21

in the discussion. Group work ensures that priority is given to the respon-

dents hierarchy of importance, such as their language, concepts and

frameworks for understanding the world. Accessing this kind of commu-

nication, which contains, for example, jokes, anecdotes, and arguments, is

useful to the researcher, as peoples representations are not entirely encap-

sulated in articulated responses to direct questions (Merton 1987;Kitzinger 1994; Morgan 1997; Krueger 2000). Moreover, by simulating

everyday interactions, the focus group technique provides an in-depth

insight into participants shared beliefs about the world. In this sense, the

focus group technique matches the social origin of representations.

Naturally occurring groups are preferred, as they provide a social context

within which meanings are built and representations are generated.

The themes investigated during the focus group discussions were: 1)

how volunteers became involved in the associations; 2) the reasons behind

their choice; and 3) their opinions about the Universal Declaration of

Animal Rights. Midway through the discussions, copies of the Universal

Declaration of Animal Rights were presented as a stimulus for debate.

Three out of the four focus groups were homogeneous. Two of these

consisted of individuals who belonged to the Anti-Vivisection League,

while the other was composed of people from the National Organization for

the Protection of Animals2. The fourth group was heterogeneous, consistingof members of the Anti-Vivisection League, the Centre for Animal Aid3 and

the Organization for the Protection of Animals. Of all the participants, thir-

teen belonged to the Anti-Vivisection League, five to the Organization for

the Protection of Animals and five to the Centre for Animal Aid.

The Anti-Vivisection League aims primarily to abolish animal experi-

mentation, as well as any form of violence toward animals, including hunt-

ing and fishing. Its members volunteered at the local cat and dog shelters for

abandoned animals, which were run by the Organization for the Protection

of Animals and the Centre for Animal Aid. The Organization for the

Protection of Animals deals with the prevention of animal abuse and pro-

vides shelter for abandoned and wounded animals. It administers five dog

shelters, three cat shelters and one wild animal shelter, staffed mainly by vol-

unteer workers. The Centre for Animal Aid directs six dog shelters, two cat

shelters and one wild animal shelter, also staffed mainly by volunteers.

The focus group discussions lasted from 30 to 50 minutes. The ses-sions were relaxed and the participants sat in a circle. The face-to-face


6/21

Interruption from outside (e.g., telephone) and competing distractions

(e.g., noises) were also reported.

Analysis

The transcription produced a total of 56 pages of text, and these were ana-

lyzed for themes and content (Knodel 1993; Morgan 1997; Bauer 2000) byreferring to the concept of thema, as proposed by Moscovici and Vignaux

(1994) and Markova (2000). By classifying signs according to their mean-

ings, the semantic content analysis provided a clear picture of the cate-

gories of meaning as they emerged from the interviewees discourses, as

well as the frequency of appearance of the major themes (Krippendorff

1980; Stewart and Shamdasani 1990). The interview material was ana-

lyzed using the software package NUD*IST 4.0 (Richards and Richards

1994; Buston 1997).

The participants discourses were divided into thematic units or text

units (t.u.) and coded according to their meaning into categories or nodes.

This procedure followed a bottom-up strategy, where the categories emerged

from the material after repeated examination of the transcripts (Krippendorff

1980). One text unit could belong to one or more categories or nodes, where-

as others were not indexed at all. Each node/category consisted of several

excerpts of interviews. Concept maps or trees were drawn to clarify the rela-tionships between the various themes or categories (see Figures 1 to 5).

Results

The Love/Pain Thema

The love/pain dichotomous theme emerged based on a categorization

process of the text units (see Figure 1). On the one hand, activists reported

their love for animals as being the reason behind their commitment to theanimal cause. Participants were struggling to improve the welfare of the

animals in the cat and dog shelters. Sometimes, activists had unrealistic

beliefs surrounding the animals well-being. In this view, animals were

consistently described as innocent and generous entities, when compared

to humans. In the following excerpts, these views are exemplified:

15FFG44: I have always been an animal lover, so I said to myself, why

not do something for them [the animals]?

17FFG4:We love animals very much, we wanted to do something ()

1FFG1: I started with dogs and cats since I have always had some ani-


7/21

17FFG4: () It is beautiful when you go there [to work at the dog

shelter], when it is cold in wintertime, you put down a blanket... To me, this

is important. I put a blanket on the wet floor and I can see this poor dog

lying on the blanket because it is warmer than a wet pallet.

2FFG: They [the animals] never fake it; they are always nice even

when they have been abused (...) they are always so strong, I wonder howthey can be so strong to start all over again?

1FFG1: They [the animals] are so generous.

On the other hand, another recurring theme in the focus group discus-

sions was the animal suffering that humans provoked. Activists reported

abandoned and battered dogs, the hunting of wild animals and the poor liv-

ing conditions of farm animals as examples of human exploitation and

abuse of animals. Humans were depicted as either responsible for animal

suffering or indifferent and uncaring:

2FFG1: This is dog fighting. It means beating, privations, being in the

dark They [the dogs] are so exasperated that they attack the first thing

they see, they bite it we would do the same!

2FFG1: Eh, once I took a bee-keeping course () and sometimes the

bee-keeper took out all the bees honey, leaving them with nothing to eat.

Those little bees were working from morning to night and then the bee-

keeper stole everything.17FFG4: () One works so hard, () one keeps trying, trying, but

one is fighting against people who dont care anyway [about animals] and

this is very sad.

22FFG4: Then you see all the people who do not give a damn about

animals.

Figure 1. Concept map of the Love/Pain thema.

25 t.u.

Love/Pain

Animal Suffering

IdealizedAnimals

Efforts Exploitation/Ill TreatmentIndifference

25 t.u.

To Love Animals


8/21

Structure of the Representational Field

Although exceptions existed, members of the Centre for Animal Aid and the

Organization for the Protection of Animals constructed their image of animals

in a different way compared to members of the Anti-Vivisection League (see

Figure 2). On the one hand, members of the Centre for Animal Aid and the

Organization for the Protection of Animals talked mostly about their love for

animals as the fundamental reason for their commitment to the movement,

and defined this love in terms of wanting to protect the animals. They said that

they had been forced to protect animals because of the ignorance surrounding

animal suffering. These activists stated that their commitment to the animal

cause had arisen mostly in response to the continual pain animals were con-

fronting. Cats and dogs were most frequently mentioned as the focus of their

efforts. One participant referred to her faith in Saint Anthony the Abbot whenexplaining the reason behind her involvement in the movement. In this view,

animals were depicted as objects of human love and protection:

16MFG4: I have been a volunteer for the last few years because I love

animals in general; it [the commitment] means something to protect

them. (Organization for the Protection of Animals)

17FFG4: We love the animals very much, we wanted to do something,

and then we went there [the dog pound] and brought some bread ()

(Organization for the Protection of Animals)

1FFG1:... In the animal rights movements there are people who help

animals because they are the weakest beings on this planet(Anti-

Vivisection League)

2FFG1: As a matter of fact, I love Saint Anthony the Abbot a lot, since

he is the Patron of animals and he is also my patron saint. (Anti-

Vivisection League)

Animal AsSubject

Animal AsObject

Centre for Animal Aid &Organization for the Protection of AnimalsAnti-Vivisection League

GeneralApproach

Love forAnimalsVegetarianism

Love forAnimals

5tu

Figure 2. Concept map of the representational field of members of the Anti-Vivisection League, the Centre for Animal Aid and of the Organization for theProtection of Animals.


9/21

While most participants intentions were to protect animals, many

members of the Anti-Vivisection League reported that their feelings about

animal suffering had led them to rethink the role animals play in human

society. Activists tried to solve some of the contradictions rooted in our

modern relationship with animals, such as the dual treatment of animals

some kept as pets while others confined to cages/pens and eaten.Besides working in the local cat and dog shelters for relinquished ani-

mals, the members of the Anti-Vivisection League were mainly vegetarian

and strongly disagreed with, for instance, animal experimentation and hunt-

ing. They hoped for a new society where animal rights were respected, just

like any other minorities rights. They were engaged in the improvement of

legislation for the protection of animals and fought for the abolition of any

form of animal exploitation. In this view, animals were represented as subjects

with rights, and these activists in the Anti-Vivisection League approached the

animal issue in a much broader way than members of the other groups:

1FFG1 () I think that at some stage I started thinking more often

about the respect for living beings such as farm animals, animals used for

fur, laboratory animals. (Anti-Vivisection League)

7MFG2: [This association] this has opened doors for me that have

always been there. Since I was a kid [I have had] this sensitiveness for ani-

mals, the environment, the suffering and so on. This activity uncoveredsomething that was just beneath the surface. I was looking for other vege-

tarians, that is when I approached the Anti-Vivisection League. (Anti-

Vivisection League)

1FFG1: Then we try to improve local legislation(Anti-Vivisection

League)

1FFG1: () Then, by chance, I came into contact with these people

() who wish to spread themes like animal rights and who dont only take

care of stray animals. (Anti-Vivisection League)

Interview1: () Being an animal rights activist and a vegetarian does

not mean being better than others. It means making a choice of solidarity

and paying attention to other species and at the same time not forgetting

our species[We are talking about] the rights of every living being,

including humans. It is a very different idea from the zoophilist one first

of all, we dont deal with nice-animals, that is we dont deal with domes-

tic animals (). It has been normal to collaborate with or to co-promotesome projects such as the official positions of the Anti-Vivisection League


10/21

Diet

Figure 3 shows the concept map for this thema. Vegetarianism was spon-

taneously mentioned during the focus group discussions, as opposed to tra-

ditional food. Members of the Anti-Vivisection League frequently referred

to the fact that they were vegetarian first and then approached the associa-

tion looking for like-minded individuals:

6MFG2: About seven or eight years ago I decided to stop eating meat

and to become a vegetarian. Then after a while, I discovered that there

were other vegetarians. Maybe in order to exchange opinions, I made a

conscious note about this organization when I heard about them on the TV

or radio and then approached them (Anti-Vivisection League)

7MFG2: Well, actually I became vegetarian after the mad-cow issue.

(Anti-Vivisection League)While the vegetarian diet was described as respecting animal life, an

omnivorous diet was described as natural and traditional. Pork meat has

always been used a lot in this region of Italy, and being a vegetarian was

considered as something new and unusual:

18FFG4: Sometimes I feel a bit ashamed of being vegetarian, [other

people ask you:] How come your are vegetarian?, and then on Christmas

Eve, its terrible. (Centre for Animal Aid)

15FFG4: In Emilia6 its terrible, theres the pork meat culture, and

tortellini7. (Centre for Animal Aid)

2FFG1 Even tortelliniI am a prisoner Like everybody I know

from Emilia, I learnt how to make it when I was a child. I do not eat it, not

even a bite. (Anti-Vivisection League)

Diet

Centre for Animal Aid &Organization for the Protection of AnimalsAnti-Vivisection League

Vegetarian

6tu 16tu

Traditional

16 t.u.12 t.u.

Figure 3. Concept map of the theme Diet.


11/21

Voluntary Work

The participants were working on a voluntary basis for the animal welfare

and rights associations, and some of them were working at local cat and

dog shelters, as well. Many of them reported being criticized for their com-

mitment to the animal cause (Figure 4). They were often told that it was a

waste of time and that there were more worthwhile causes which should

be pursued. By way of response, members pointed out their peculiar com-

passion for animals in pain and were able to characterize the effectiveness

of their efforts as a step-by-step strategy:

22FFG4: On the other hand, there are those who dont give a damn

and say: why do this? There are kids who are starving to death and all

you think about are

dogs? You are mad!(Organization for the

Protection of Animals).

1FFG: [Critics say

that] there is no point in

that, but that is not

true () if we really

manage to change

something by means ofour behaviors. At the

beginning, just one,

then one hundred

people, then the whole

system will change.

( A n t i - V i v i s e c t i o n

League)

19FFG4: () Maybe the sensitivity that led us to empathize with ani-

mal suffering, makes us feel closer to our fellow human beings too

(Organization for the Protection of Animals)

The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights

The participants knew little about the Universal Declaration of Animal

Rights (Appendix 1). Many of them had never read it, and after reading it

through they pointed out that there were many contradictions between the

articles (Figure 5). They focused on the difficulties in reconciling the

Declaration and the common practice of animal exploitation which is

Voluntary Work

4 t.u.

8 t.u.

12 t.u.

Criticism

Step-by-StepPhilosophy

Sensitiveness

Figure 4.Concept map of the theme Voluntary Work.

Note. t.u.= text units


12/21

11MFG3: I have never read it(Organization for the Protection

of Animals)

12MFG3: Easier said than done. (Organization for the Protection of

Animals)

18FFG4: Sure starting from the abolition of, for instance, the con-

fined caging of farm animal, for instance this is sure but if we talk aboutlove for animals, probably the first choice is not putting them into your

stomach, since this lacks consistency. (Centre for Animal Aid)

1FFG1: I must say that accepting this document means to change

completely our economic and productive system. If we believe that an ani-

mal is a subject and not an object, then the whole system of production

linked to dairy animals, animals used for meat and fur and so on... would

collapse. (Anti-Vivisection League)

Discussion

Starting from the perspective of social representations theory (Moscovici

1981), this study investigated activists representations of animals and their

rights, and tried to shed light on the theories about our relationships withanimals, constructed by activists during their social interactions.

The love/pain thema seemed to be the core structure from which the

representation of the humananimal relationships was generated. It func-

tioned as an implicit structure underlying the activistscommon-sense dis-

course, which was taken for granted by activists, and emerged through my

semantic analysis of the their verbal interactions. Not surprisingly, love for

animals was a central motive behind the activists involvement in the

movement. Activists were concerned with the protection of stray animalsand they shared a caring attitude toward animals. These results correspond

7 t.u. 8 t.u.10 t.u.

NotApplied Contradictions withinthe Declaration Against Systemof Production

Universal Declarationof Animal Rights

Figure 5. Concept map of the theme Universal Declaration of AnimalRights (UDAR).

Note. t.u.= text units


13/21

contrasted with the acknowledgement of animal abuse and, more general-

ly, of humans having a violent relationship with animals. In this view, ani-

mals were depicted as victims of human mistreatment and neglect (Swan

and McCarty 2003).

Themata are dichotomized themes deeply rooted in our culture. For

instance, we define what is good to eat as opposed to what is not good,and by doing this, we rely on the Western notion of what is edible,

which might be different from the one shared in other places, such as

Sub-Saharan Africa. For this reason, a thema is culture-specific and is

usually studied according to the historical context of a given social

group or population. The love/pain thema involved an idea of compas-

sion for the suffering of fellow creatures, which traced back to philoso-

phers such as Spinoza (1677/1994) and Hume (173940/1978).

Spinozas notion of imitation of affection and Humes notion of sympa-

thy were very similar in that both denoted a process of acquiring an

emotion, for example, pain, through having an idea of a similar emotion

that someone else is undergoing. For Schopenhauer (1860/1995), com-

passion, the direct participation in the suffering of another, was the

basic phenomenon of ethics from which humanitarianism and justice

are derived. Following this line, the activists in my study were affected

by the suffering of animals, as if they had to endure this suffering per-sonally. These compassionate feelings were the motives for moral

actions regarding animals.

The Activists Self-Definition

Doise (1988) and Elejabarrieta (1994) suggested that self-definition, that

is, the way individuals think about themselves, could be studied as the rep-

resentation that individuals construct of themselves on the basis of their

group membership. In this sense, the group of activists defined itself bymeans of their compassionate feelings towards animals and their struggle

to protect animals, as opposed to members of the other groups or out

groups of individuals who abuse or exploit animals. In this vein, the con-

struction of the activists identity was related to the representation they

shared about animals. Thus, it served as a differentiating principle to tell

apart those people who truly loved animalsthat is the activistsfrom

those who abused them (Breakwell 1993).

Moreover, this representation was reinforced by the activists tenden-

t f t di tl th t l l i d iti i i d b


14/21

those claims contributed to building the activists self-definition and to pre-

serving a positive identity. These results correspond with those of

Einwohner (2002), who found that out-group members were not simply an

audience for animal rights protests, but played a key role in the formation

of the activists individual identities.

Structure of the Representational Field

Even if all the participants shared common views about the protection of

animals, the members of the Centre for Animal Aid and of the

Organization for the Protection of Animals expressed positions slightly dif-

ferent from those maintained by members of the Anti-Vivisection League.

In this respect, the activists social positioning was anchored in their group

membership: members of different organizations held views relating to the

specific group they belonged to (Doise, Clmence and Lorenzi-Cioldi

1993; Doise, Spini and Clmence 1999).

The positions shared by the members of the Centre for Animal Aid and

of the Organization for the Protection of Animals seem similar to the pro-

tectionist views of animals which originated in 18th century England.

Thomas (1983) discussed the historical origin of sentimentalist concern for

animal well-being, according to which it was wrong to cause unnecessary

pain to animals. Because of their capacity to suffer, animals were broughtinto the sphere of moral concern by members of the emerging middle-

class. This attitude was strictly linked with the growth of towns and the

emergence of the industrial society, where animals became progressively

more marginalized in relation to the process of production. As Franklin

(1999) pointed out, several social forces such as urbanization, industrial-

ization and democratization have caused a shift in the human view of ani-

mals, from instruments to be used for food, clothing and farm work to

companions to be cherished. Members in my study did not question therelationship that humans and animals have and, therefore, focused on the

protection of domestic animals, such as cats and dogs. Jasper and Nelkin

(1992) discussed similar welfarists views and maintained that those

views were part of a larger humanitarian tradition of helping others, par-

ticularly focusing on the protection of pets.

In a more extreme view, compassionate feelings had driven members

of the Anti-Vivisection League to call into question the role of animals in

modern society and to place animals at the centre of their moral universe.

O f th t di ti th f d i l ti hi ith i l


15/21

pets, who are nourished and considered as part of the family, large num-

bers of produce animals such as cows, pigs, and chickens are exploited

(Digard 1990, 1993). Because of this, opposition to animal use has led

members to a vegetarian or vegan diet, contrasting with the traditional one

centered on pork, historically practiced in this rural region (Ballarini

1998). They have struggled to keep their beliefs in line with their way oflife and described vegetarianism as a major sign of respect for animals

(Herzog 1993). In this way, the animal has become a subject who has a

right to life and a right to live in a reasonable environment. The position

taken recalls the fundamentalist one described by Jasper and Nelkin

(1992), who retained that assuming an animal rights perspective was in a

way similar to religious conversion. These similarities included a funda-

mental shift in worldview and a change in lifestyle (i.e., diet). Similar to

this, Sutherland and Nash (1994) argued that this set of elements consti-

tutes an alternative environmental cosmology (p.171) and takes the role

of a frame of reference for life.

The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights

The Declaration was not well known by the activists. After reading it,

the activists pointed out the many contradictions within it, and between

the principles it espoused and modern systems of production. Thatbeing so, the Declaration was a marginal element of the representation

of animal rights.

Despite using a small sample of people, this study sheds light on to the

Italian movement for animal welfare and animal rights, and suggests a the-

oretical framework for the study of its belief system. During the last 30

years, the engagement of the Italian public in environmental and animal

rights issues has been more predominant than the anti-nuclear and pacifist

movements (Giugni 2001). Therefore the animal rights movement is grow-ing, and the public debate over the use of animals for human benefit is like-

ly to increase. A satisfactory resolution of the debate can only emerge from

attitudes of respect and mutual understanding, and psychological studies of

animal rights activism can contribute to this process, as well.

Acknowledgements

The author is indebted to Elena Collavin,Annukka Vainio, Jorge Sinisterra,

Christoph Prainsack and Sebastian Kraus for their comments on early

drafts of this paper Thanks are also due to the two anonymous referees for


16/21

Notes

1. Thema is the singular form, while themata is plural, in the Greek language.

2. In Italian: Ente Nazionale per la Protezione degli Animali (ENPA).

3. In Italian: Centro Soccorso Animali (CSA).

4. Each excerpt is identified by a code, for example 15FFG4. The first figure identifiesthe participant (for instance 15). The following letter refers to the sex of the partici-

pants (for example F=female, M=male), while the last three characters refer to the

group (for example. FG3).

5. Hands-off-Cain is a non-profit organization for the abolition of the death penalty:

http://www.handsoffcain.org. In Italian: Nessuno-tocchi-caino, http://www.nessuno-

tocchicaino.it.

6. The research was carried out in the Emilia-Romagna region.

7. Traditional home-made pasta, filled with minced meat and cheese.

8. Source: http://www.actionagainstpoisoning.com/pages/uk/UDAR_UK.html.

References

Ballarini, G. 1998. Sua Maest il maiale. Allevamento, conservazione delle carni e

prodotti tipici [Its Majesty the pig. Breeding, meat preservation and products]. InI

Tesori della Tavola in Emilia-Romagna, 821, ed G. Roversi and D. Luccarini.

Bologna: Linchiostroblu.

Bauer, M. 2000. Classical content analysis: a review. In Qualitative Researching with

Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook, 131151, ed M. Bauer and G.Gaskell. London: Sage.

Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. 2001. Focus Groups in Social

Research. London: Sage.

Breakwell, G. M. 1993. Representations and social identity. Papers on Social Representation

2(3): 198217.

Brewer, M. B. 2001. Social identities and social representations: A question of priority?

In Social Representations: Introductions and Explorations, 305311, ed. K. Deaux

and G. Philogne. Oxford: Blackwell.Buston, K. 1997. NUD*IST in action: Its use and its usefulness in a study of chronic ill-

ness in young people. Sociological Research Online 2(3).

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/6.html. Accessed on 15 July, 2004.

Digard, J. P. 1990.LHomme et les Animaux Domestiques [Humans and Domestic

Animals]. Paris: Fayard.

Digard, J. P. 1993. Les nouveaux animaux denatures [The new unnatural animals].Etudes

rurales, Janv.-Juin. 129130, 169178.

Doise, W. 1988. Individual and social identities in intergroup relations.European Journal

of Social Psychology 18: 99111.

Doise W Clemence A and Lorenzi Cioldi F 1993 The Quantitative Analysis of Social


17/21

Duveen, G. 2001. Representations, identities, resistance. In Social Representations:

Introductions and Explorations, 257270, ed. K. Deaux and G. Philogne. Oxford:

Blackwell.

Einwohner, R. 2002. Bringing the outsiders in: opponents claims and the construction of

animal rights activists identity.Mobilization: An International Journal 7(3): 253268.

Elejabarrieta, F. 1994. Social positioning: a way to link social identity and social repre-

sentations. Symposium on social representations. Social Science Information 33 (2):

241253.

Franklin, A. 1999.Animals and Modem Cultures: A Sociology of HumanAnimal

Relations in Modernity. London: Sage.

Galvin, S. and Herzog, H. A., Jr. 1992. Ethical ideology, animal activism and attitudes

toward the treatment of animals.Ethics and Behavior2: 141149.

Giugni, N. 2001. Limpact des moviments ecologistes, antinucleare et pacifistes sur les

politiques publiques. Le cas des Etats-Unis, de lItalie et de la Suisse, 19751995

[The impact of the ecological, antinuclear and peace movement on public opinion.The case of the United States, Italy and Switzerland].Revue Francaise de Sociologie

42(4): 641668.

Herzog, H. A. 1993. The movement is my life: The psychology of animal rights activism.

Journal of Social Issues 49: 103119.

Hume (173940/1978)A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge and P. H.

Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jamison, W. and Lunch, W. 1992. The rights of animals, science policy and political

activism. Science, Technology and Human Values 17: 438458.Jasper, J. M. and Nelkin, D. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral

Movement. New York: Free Press.

Jasper, J. M. and Poulsen, J. D. 1995. Recruiting strangers and friends: Moral shocks and

social networks in animal rights and anti-nuclear protests. Social Problems 42:

493512.

Kitzinger J. 1994. The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction

between research participants. Sociology of Health 16(1): 103121.

Knodel, J. 1993. The design and analysis of focus group studies: a practical approach. In

Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, 3550, ed. D. Morgan.

London: Sage.

Krippendorff, K. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Krueger, R. A. 2000. Focus Group: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. CA: Sage.

Kruse, C. 1999. Gender, views of nature, and support for animal rights. Society &

Animals 7(3): 179198.

League for Animal Rights. n.d. http://league-animal-rights.org/en-esprit.html. Accessed

May 10, 2003.

Markova, I. 2000. Amd or how to get rid of it: social representations from a dialogical


18/21

Midgley, M. 1983.Animals and Why they Matter. Athens: The University of Georgia Press.

Morgan, D. L. 1997. Focus Group as Qualitative Research. California: Thousand Oaks,

Sage.

Moscovici, S. 1961/1976.La Psychanalyse: son Image et son Public [Psychoanalysis: its

Image and its Public]. Paris: PUF.

Moscovici, S. 1973. Foreword. InHealth and Illness: A Sociological Analysis, ed. C.Herzlich. Great Britain, Academic Press.

Moscovici, S. 1981. Social representations. In Social Cognition, 181209, ed. J. P.

Forgas. Cambridge: Cambridge Academic Press.

Moscovici, S. 1984. The phenomenon of social representations. In Social Representations,

369, ed. Farr and Moscovici. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moscovici, S. and Vignaux, G. 1994. Le concept de themata. In Structures et

Transformations des Reprsentations Sociales, 2572, ed. C. Guimelli. Lausanne,

Paris: Delachaux et Nestli.

Nibert, D. 1994. Animal rights and human social issues. Society & Animals 2(2):

115124.

Peek, C. W., Bell, N. J. and Dunham, C. C. 1996. Gender, gender ideology, and animal

rights advocacy. Gender and Society 10: 464478.

Plous, S. 1991. An attitude survey of animal rights activists. Psychological Science

2: 194196.

Regan, T. 1988. The Case for Animal Rights. London, Routledge.

Richards, T. J. and L. Richards 1994. Using computers in qualitative analysis. In

Handbook of Qualitative Research, 445462, ed. N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln.

Berkeley, CA: Sage.

Schopenhauer, A. 1860/1995. On the Basis of Morality. Transl. by E. F. J. Payne.

Providence: Berghahan books.

Shapiro, K. 1994. The caring sleuth: portrait of an animal right activist. Society &

Animals 2(2): 145165.

Singer, P. 1977.Animal Liberation. London: Granada.

Spinoza, B. 1677/1994. Ethics. InA Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and Other Works. Ed.

and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton University Press.

Stewart, D. W. and Shamdasani, P. N. 1990. Focus Groups:Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Sutherland, A. and Nash, J. E. 1994. Animal rights as a new environmental cosmology.

Qualitative Sociology 17(2): 171186.

Swan, D. and McCarty, J. C. 2003. Contesting animal rights on the internet: discourse

analysis of the social construction of argument.Journal of Language and Social

Psychology 22(3): 297320.

Thomas, K. 1983.Man and the Natural World. New York: Pantheon Books.

Wagner, W. and Kronberger, N. 2001. Killer Tomatoes! Collective symbolic coping with

biotechnology. InRepresentations of the Social - Bridging Theoretical Traditions,


19/21

Appendix 1.

The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights8

PREAMBLE

Considering that Life is one, all living beings having a common origin and

having diversified in the course of the evolution of the species;Considering that all living beings possess natural rights, and that any ani-

mal with a nervous system has specific rights;

Considering that the contempt for, and even the simple ignorance of these

natural rights cause serious damage to nature and lead man to commit

crimes against animals;

Considering that the coexistence of species implies a recognition by the

human species of the right of other animal species to live;

Considering that the respect of humans for animals is inseparable from therespect of man for another man.

IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED:

Article 1

All animals are born equal and they have the same rights to existence.

Article 2

a) Every animal has the right to be respected;b) Man, like the animal species, cannot assume the right to exterminate

other animals or to exploit them, thereby violating this right. He should

use his conscience for the service of the animals.

c) Every animal has the right to consideration, good treatment and the

protection of man.

Article 3

a) No animal should be submitted to bad treatment or cruel actions.

b) If the death of an animal is necessary, this should be sudden and with-

out fear or pain.

Article 4

a) All animals belonging to a wild species have the right to live free in

their natural environment, and have the right to reproduce.

b) Each deprivation of freedom, even for educational purposes, is in

opposition to this right.

Article 5


20/21

mercantile purpose, is a contradiction of this law.

Article 6

a) All animals selected by man, as companions must have a life corre-

sponding to their natural longevity.

b) To abandon an animal is a cruel and degrading action.Article 7

Working animals must only work for a limited period and must not be

worked to exhaustion.

They must have adequate food and rest.

Article 8

a) Experiments on animals that cause physical and mental pain, are

incompatible with animal rights, even if it is for medical, scientific,commercial or any other kind of experiment.

b) A substitute technique must be investigated and developed.

Article 9

In the eventuality of an animal bred for food, it must be fed, managed,

transported and killed without it being in fear or pain.

Article 10

a) No animal should be used for entertainment.b) Animal exhibitions and shows that use animals are incompatible with

an animals dignity.

Article 11

Every action that causes the unnecessary death of an animal, is cruel which

is a crime against life.

Article 12

a) Every action that causes the death of a lot of wild animals is genocide,

that is a crime against the species.

b) Pollution and destruction leads to the extinction of the species.

Article 13

a) Dead animals must be treated with respect.

b) Violent scenes, where animals are the victims, must be forbidden at the

cinema and on TV, unless they are for the demonstration of animal rights.

Article 14

) P i d f di i i b d


21/21

Animal Rights Activists' Representations of Animals

Documents

Transcript of Animal Rights Activists' Representations of Animals