"The amount of strength it takes to go where none of us are willing to go, should not be diminished or downplayed."
James Aspey
Two days ago, vegan activist James Aspey posted a contentious photo of
himself, hands crossed in front of him at his wrists, inside a
slaughterhouse in Bali with multiple pigs in various stages of being
brutally killed and dismembered by a worker in the background wielding a
sharp knife. The caption read, “Don’t be mad at me for just standing there,
your obsession with bacon is why they’re here in the first place."
Most people commented to thank Aspey for his work and for standing in
solidarity with the victims of systemic torture. But some users expressed
concern and wanted to know why he included himself in the photo.
Instagram user bobblytree asked, “James, why isn’t the camera focused solely
on the victims? We already steal everything from them. Surely we don’t need
to steal the attention from them as well by featuring in pictures alongside
them as they’re murdered.”
And that’s a perfectly valid question. But it’s Aspey’s answer that opens up
a remarkable discussion about the use of digital media in animal rights
activism.
Aspey replied
“Purely strategy to get more reach. I would love nothing more than my entire Instagram feed to be filled with only the victims but unfortunately that isn’t going to get engagement and therefore will reach less people with the message they need […] It’s how Instagram and social media works unfortunately. Call it what you want, I don’t care, I know more people will see this and be influenced because I put myself in the pic as well. Or at least based on my 6 years experience and study of social media that’s my conclusion and understanding of it. It’s not narcissism, it’s strategy.”
To his credit (and possibly the surprise of some readers here), I agree
with Aspey! There is absolutely no question that when you aggregate the
number of post ‘likes’ over the past year, the most successful ones are the
ones featuring Aspey alone. At the time of this writing, that one in
particular garnered 28.3K likes. But (as ever with me) a few observations
about that...
First, we should acknowledge that in this scenario, we measure engagement in
terms of actual likes. If that’s the metric, then Aspey is inarguably
correct. But if we define engagement the way that many social media
professionals do, that’s passive engagement.
Active engagement is more commonly measured in terms of actual comments.
After all, it takes more effort to pull up your keyboard and comment rather
than double tap a post and keep scrolling. And by that metric, Aspey’s
engagement is all over the place. Food videos, muscle flexing, animals...you
name it, comments are inconsistent and range from the hundreds to the
thousands and back to the hundreds again.
Second, Aspey made a surprisingly stark admission in stating that more
people will see and be influenced by photos into which he has inserted
himself. Again, a correct assessment on his part.
He openly confesses to being the focal point in these photographs. And as
any photographer knows, once you have established the subject of a photo,
everything (and everyone) else becomes background. And as such, those pigs
are props.
In terms of marketing, Aspey rightfully observes that he is the ‘product.’
He is the primary draw that keeps followers coming back. In this way, he
employs the social media model of, say, a Kim Kardashian West.
I certainly don’t make him wrong for that. But I don’t know why an activist
would be content to exist as Kim K. Why is that understanding of social
media the place where he stops?
For someone who claims to understand the economy of social media, he doesn’t
seem to make any attempt to de-center himself as the catalyst or at least
explain how he might shift that focus. He just seems content to allow the
victims to share his spotlight with him, which likely is why some followers
questioned him.
By comparison, take civil rights activist and co-president of the Women's
March Tamika Mallory. With just over 200k followers, her Instagram account
is comparable to Aspey's (and her engagement by any metric outpaces his, but
I digress).
Yet of the posts where she focuses the content on herself (which are few),
she is promoting a speaking engagement...quite fair considering that any
activist would want to promote opportunities for education and building
on-the-ground grassroots community. The rest of the time, she focuses her
content on the actual victims of systemic violence.
But there are other aspects of Instagram culture for animal rights to
explore as well. Interestingly, another user shelivesart said:
“If someone bares witness to cruelty, they naturally should be included in the pictures that are used as proof. The amount of strength it takes to go where none of us are willing to go, should not be diminished or downplayed. I think we forget that the humans that expose this madness are suffering too, and to question their motives is insulting and quite honestly, destructive.”
So okay, yikes. There’s a lot to unpack here.
First of all, questioning things is fundamental to growth and learning. To
imply that questioning people in positions of authority or leadership is
destructive is precisely the type of thinking that gives rise to
authoritarianism (which is a whole 'nother post).
Moreover, this is an utterly confusing position to hold. Photojournalists
have been taking pictures of atrocities for nearly as long as the camera has
existed. And at this time, I honestly cannot recall a photographer who
documented war crimes by way of the selfie.
However, we don’t even have to journey into the realm of war crimes.
Photojournalist and humane educator Jo-Anne McArthur is known for her We
Animals project, a photography project documenting human relationships with
animals. Her first book, We Animals, was published in 2013, and her
second, Captive, was published in 2017. McArthur has been awarded a
range of commendations for her photography and activism, including the 2018
Wildlife Photographer of the Year People’s Choice award.
Laos Monkeys, Image from
Jo-Anne McArthur,
We Animals
According to her Wikipedia page, McArthur conceived of the We Animals
project around 1998 after an encounter with a macaque monkey chained to a
windowsill in Ecuador. She photographed the monkey as she was appalled at
the treatment, and "knew that the way [she] saw our treatment of animals was
important, and [she] wanted to share that point of view."
I’ll repeat that last part, McArthur said she wanted to share the animal’s
point of view! And this is, I think, at the heart of any criticism, not a
conspiracy against James Aspey. Animals are quite capable of telling their
own stories, and can do so more authentically than we ever could without the
need of our intervention if we create conditions for them to do so.
Of course one can argue that photojournalism and social media are two very
different (pun intended) animals, and they would be correct to say that. But
the assertion that photographer and subject should share the same space by
way of legitimizing their coverage is surprisingly common. And to remove
yourself from a central role does not in any way downplay or diminish the
trauma experienced by bearing witness.
Overall, this entire discussion actually misses a vital point about animal
rights activism as it exists in a digital media space and it is the fact
that social psychology teaches us that (wait for it) images of happy animals
living their best lives actually outperform graphic images almost every
single time. In fact, repeatedly exposing people to graphic images and
videos tend to desensitize people to violence, as has been demonstrated by
multiple studies. And despite the old adage that "if it bleeds, it leads,"
people are demonstrated to prefer happy stories, as observed by such data
journalists as Seth Stephens-Davidowitz.
There is a reason why accounts like The Dodo leave all the animal rights
accounts in the dust. Likewise, there is a reason why social media
influencer culture has given way to the emergence of the Petfluencer as
discussed in my post about Grumpy Cat [What the life (and death) of Grumpy Cat teaches us about the spectacle of animal disability].
I already know some people will probably look at my own Instagram account
with a very meager following and conclude that I really don’t know what I’m
talking about at all. And that’s fine!
But my Instagram is probably most accurately characterized as shitposting.
I’m not looking for an audience so much as I’m trying desperately to capture
images of my dog’s butt and post snippets of hilariously disastrous
conversations.
Never trust a big butt and a smile.
In any case, I hope James Aspey and others take note of this. After all,
he’s been studying social media for 6 years.
Also, fun fact: The record for the most-liked Instagram post of all time is
(wait for it), a photograph of an egg, which apparently surpassed a photo of
Kylie Jenner and Travis Scott's baby girl in January 2019 to hold the record
for over 200 days at the time of this writing.
...Do with this information whatever the hell you will. I might study social
media myself, but there are some things which are incomprehensible even to
me.
To find out more about the economy of social media, try reading Algorithms
of Oppression written by author Safiya Noble. And if you want to learn more
about digital media for animal rights, email me to deliver a lecture for
your organization, community group or university. And, as always, if you’ve
learned something from this post or any of my others, consider dropping
something into the virtual tip jar on Patreon!
Author’s note: Jo-Anne McArthur was the primary subject of the 2013 documentary The Ghosts in Our Machine, directed by Liz Marshall. She is also the co-founder of the Unbound Project, which aims to celebrate and recognize female animal activists.
Return to: Animal Rights/Vegan Activist Strategies