Estrangement of an Audience
While Andrew Linzey argues for the
ethical treatment of animals in the article “Why Animals Deserve Special Moral
Solitude” in Fall 2009’s issue of AV
Magazine, there are couple rhetorical choices that prevent the argument
from influencing the reader’s attitude toward this issue in particular. Though
the points made are based on commons sense, the decision to use religious
allusions and putting the publication in a magazine sponsored by the American
Anti-Vivisection Society is where the piece fails to enact the change it’s
trying to create. The article attempts to rebuff counter-arguments that are
religiously motivated, though addressing only Christian-based justifications
has the potential to alienate a small section of the intended audience. Another
shortcoming is where Linzey has chosen to publish his argument. AV Magazine is for a select audience or
subscribers. Those that are already subscribed to this magazine probably hold
the same stance as Linzey, given what the AAVS advocates. In this case, Linzey
is essentially preaching to the choir, in that the readers are more likely to
have the same attitude towards this issue than be apart of the population who
support the poor, inadequate treatment of animals and testing on these
creatures. The problem is more than just religiously linked or based in
Christian morals, and choosing to narrow the counterargument to these claims
keeps that message and its subsequent call to action, in a stagnant place.
The appeals Linzey chooses to
address in his argument are more moral and ethical in nature. While the written
portion of his argument heavily relies on ethos, the content of his design is
grounded in pathos. In Rebecca Jones’ “Finding the Good Argument, or Why Bother
with Logic,” these terms are outlined. Ethos is “the calling on particular
shared values (patriotism), respected figures of authority (MLK), or one’s own
character as a method for appealing to an audience,” while pathos uses
“emotionally driven images or language to sway your audience” (Jones, 167). The
third appeal is logos, which is an appeal to logical reasons. The easiest
example of this would be the use of statistics. The ethos in present in the
article is that of Christianity, which fulfills the qualification of shared
values. In the article, Linzey chooses to quite the Bible, most specifically
Genesis. Unfortunately, not all readers may be Christian; however, the
knowledge of Christianity is widespread enough for the message to still have an
impact. While the Bible may feature more reasoning for expressing moral
solitude for animals, Genesis is the first book of the Bible. It’s an easily
accessible text that most have read, even if they don’t subscribe to Christian
beliefs. That being said, those who may be atheist or agnostic, may not respond
as well to Christian moral reasoning and would benefit more from a logical
appeal. There could also very well be religions whose scriptures outline that
animals, or at least some of them, are inferior beings to humans. Rather than
just limit himself to Christianity, Linzey would have appealed to wider
audience if he refuted a logical appeal as well in order to balance the
religious ethos. Or he could have touched on other cases of moral solitude for
animals that are present in other religions, such as the sacredness of cattle
in Hindu and Buddhist religions.
An additional appeal to ethos lies
in the referencing of respected figures, the two most obvious being C.S. Lewis
and Jesus Christ. C.S. Lewis was an author, most popularly known for his Chronicles of Narnia series, books that
are wrought with Christian allegories and allusions. The choice to include
Lewis makes sense given the religious positioning of Linzey’s article, though
it’s possible the quotes he has chosen might lack the velocity he needs if
someone isn’t familiar with Lewis or his writing. More often than not, the name
C.S. Lewis is going to ring a few bells, but there’s still a chance he may not
to certain individuals, depending on the reading practices of the audience. The
second respected figure is Jesus Christ, Christianity’s very own namesake. Even
if an audience member doesn’t label himself or herself as a Christian, Jesus is
enough of a familiar name to produce imagery of compassion and benevolence. In
Linzey’s article, he says, “our power or lordship over animals needs to be
related to that exercise of lordship seen in the life of Jesus Christ” (“Why
Animals Deserve Moral Solitude,” 9). The audience is being called to adopt an
aspect of their life similar to that of Jesus Christ. It’s a bold challenge to
make, given the status of Jesus (i.e. The Son of God), and it only serves to
further alienate non-Christian audience members.
Linzey’s choice of images consists
of animals looking rather sad and melancholy at the camera, and it’s
reminiscent of those ASPCA commercials with the depressing music and footage of
abandoned, abused animals. Most of the other articles in this particular issue
feature much of the same imagery. Ones that don’t feature photos of cute and/or
miserable animals, choose to display things like chemicals in beakers or very
sharp looking surgical instruments. The emotions driven by these images fall
along the lines of sympathy for the animals or outrage at what sorts of
treatment they’re receiving. Given the intended audience for this magazine,
these appeals probably work very well and are more successful than Linzey’s
choice of ethos. Upon doing some researching, in order to receive this
magazine, one has to be a member of the American Anti-Vivisection Society or
the AAVS. Members most likely already possess a certain level of sympathy
towards animals, making the use of these images fitting in terms of audience
appeal.
The main flaw in Linzey’s argument
is his choice of medium. While being published in print and digital form, the
situation of the publication with the AAVS stifles the argument from achieving
any drastic calls to action. Though being published by an organization may seem
perfect for promotional and advocacy purposes, it acts as a constraint on
Linzey’s argument. In Keith Grant-Davie’s “Rhetorical Situations and Their
Constraints,” constraints are defined as the “factors in the situation’s
context that may affect the achievement of the rhetorical objectives” (272).
Linzey’s call to action is getting the audience to think differently about how
animals are treated in terms of “moral solitude” with an emphasis on a
religious foundation. AV Magazine and
its audience serve as obstacles for Linzey. As the magazine is only available
for members that belong to the AAVS group, it stands to reason that the
subscribers will most likely hold their own personal views against animal
mistreatment. Linzey is writing on or about beliefs that are already held by
the audience, religious affiliations aside. The article is regurgitating views
that the audience probably agrees with, if not practices in their daily life.
Because of this, no measurable change is being made. The only thing that may be
accomplished by addressing this audience in particular is further motivating
audience members to uphold their views of “moral solitude” for animals, and
possibly support some sort of policy change in terms of animal treatment in
other spheres, whether in personal relationships or pieces of legistlation. Not
only does the medium inadvertently stifle the goals of Linzey’s discourse, but
the accessibility of the publication also has the potential to be a problem.
The magazine is only available to
members of the AAVS organization, meaning that the circulation is limited.
Luckily, the archives may be available to the public as is the case with this
particular article. The most recent issue in a digital format is issue #1 of
2012. There may very well be a delay between when an issue is printed and sent
to members and when it appears online to be read by the public. Odds are if you
aren’t an AAVS member, awareness of this publication is extremely low. If
Linzey’s article had been published in the next issue and it was situated with
say a piece of legislation about testing on animals, the reach is restricted.
While magazines are a medium that contain many secondary readers in the fact
that they can be passed around from household to household, AV Magazine would have to rely on the
fact that members of their organization live in specific areas affected by this
legislation.
While Linzey’s argument may seem
like an obvious one, his choice in moral reasoning, combined with medium in
which he chose to state his argument, hinders the success of his discourse. His
appeals to ethos are founded in the Christian religion with references to
figures associated with Christianity, such as C.S. Lewis and Jesus Christ.
Though the audience most likely shares the same beliefs in regard to the
treatment of animals, this support instead acts as an obstacle for creating any
kind of call to action. Additionally, since the audience is so specialized with
AV Magazine, the circulation of his
message is hindered even further. The only appeal that actually works in favor
of Linzey’s arguments is his choice in photos. However, even pictures of
adorable animals looking distraught and vulnerable aren’t enough to make up for
distancing the audience with a religious basis and the narrowed reach of the
message.
Grant-Davie,
Keith. “Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents.” Rhetoric Review 15.2 (Spring
1997): 264-279
Jones, Rebecca.
“Finding the Good Argument, or Why Bother with Logic?” Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing, Volume 1. Ed. Charles Lowe and Pavel Zemliansky.
West Lafayette, IN: Parlor P, 2010.
Linzey, Andrew.
“Why Animals Deserve Moral Solitutde.” AV
Magazine. Fall 2009: 8-10.
0 comments:
Post a Comment