Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Speaking Piglet Advertises Beef: An Ethical Analysis on Objectification and Anthropomorphism

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The portrayal of animals in the media is often criticised for instrumentalising, objectifying and anthropomorphising animals (e.g. Hirschman and Sanders in Semiotica 115(1/2):53–79, 1997; Lerner and Kalof in Sociol Q 40(4):565–586, 1999; Stewart and Cole in Int J Multidiscip Res 12(4):457–476, 2009). Although we agree with this criticism, we also identify the need for a more substantiated approach to the moral significance of instrumentalisation, objectification and anthropomorphism. Thus, we propose a new framework which is able to address the morally relevant aspects of animal portrayal in the media. We closely examine the normative messages communicated by an unusual TV commercial in which an anthropomorphised piglet advertises organic beef. This serves as a case example to relate the philosophical and ethical concepts of objectification and anthropomorphism to each other and show how they can be applied. We conclude that the commercial conveys a message of animal instrumentalisation as being normatively correct within the constraint of good animal welfare. The depicted form of instrumentalisation is, nonetheless, associated with harm for the animals and thus, needs to overcome cognitive dissonance. To achieve this, animals are directly objectified by a trivialised and de-individualised portrayal. Moreover, animals are indirectly objectified even when they are anthropomorphised as they are granted significance only through being human-like. Thus, objectification and anthropomorphism are not opposing terms in our proposed framework. In addition, objectification, together with the reference to the dominant ideology, and combined with humorous anthropomorphism weakens scrutiny of these normative messages by the viewers. This eventually augments a decrease of moral concern for farmed animals in advertisement employing such portrayals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The themes are listed in descending order regarding their prominence in commercials.

  2. Remember that objectified farmed animals often seem to be less anthropomorphised, whereas pets which are highly anthropomorphised are also portrayed as the ones we should care about.

  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P089Dgd8bow (02.06.2015, 15:30).

  4. http://www.janatuerlich.at/Sonderkapitel/Startseite/Startseite/Portal.aspx (02.06.2016, 15:30).

  5. We would argue that the denial of subjectivity is the core notion of objectification within Nussbaum’s theory. For further elaboration on Honneth’s and Nussbaum’s theories see Leitsberger (2015).

  6. However, there might be indirect moral obligations if an object is valuable to other subjects (e.g. if monetary, ethical, religious or aesthetic values are attached to it).

  7. Species which are close evolutionary kin to humans, like the great apes, might be more similar to us with regard to such abilities. Nonetheless, evolutionary similarity is not the main focus here but cognitive similarity. Therefore, attention also needs to be paid to some bird species like parrots and corvids, which obviously have developed complex abilities via convergent evolution. For a critique on this approach see Francione (2008).

  8. For further elaboration on the meat paradox and cognitive dissonance see for example Bratanova et al. (2010), Loughnan et al. (2010), Bastian et al. (2012a, b) or Joy (2011).

  9. Though cattle and chicken are animals living in herds and flocks, and both species’ welfare considerably depends on viewing them as social animals, each member of the herd or flock is always also an individual. Welfare as a concept is linked to individuality, personality, individual interests and characteristics. The commercial neglects this perspective. Additionally, the ethological needs of the herd are only topic of the narrative as they are ridiculed by the pig who answers to the herd’s need for behavioural enrichment with a bull fight.

  10. There are different forms of anthropomorphism, for instance physiological (e.g. identifying the root of a tree as a leg), psychological (i.e. the attribution of human-like mental capacities or motivations to other entities), moral (i.e. the attribution of moral concern to other entities) or cultural anthropomorphism (i.e. the judgment of animals according to human standards).

  11. See Karlsson (2012, p. 709): “Anthropomorphism is the habit of attributing traits, believed to be uniquely or typically human, to nonhuman entities, such as divinities, machines, or animals.” Anthropomorphism is not necessarily an error but rather refers to uncertainty of truthfulness. Even if a trait is believed to be uniquely human, it could be prevalent among other animals.

  12. Though Regan stresses the equal inherent value of humans and (some) animals, he makes use of a cultural notion of human pre-eminence in the case of a conflict. It seems questionable to judge any ethical framework based on the lifeboat case. However, Karlsson (2012) does not judge Regan’s theory based on the lifeboat case. Instead the author points out that his solution to the problem is influenced by cultural anthropomorphism.

  13. In contrast, an unqualified hierarchical order assumes a hierarchy merely based on species membership.

  14. See Brabant and Mooney’s (1989) criteria which indicate anthropomorphism in media (cited after Lerner and Kalof 1999).

  15. The same applies to literary work which uses animals as actors. This gives rise to criticism on children’s books which use animals as anthropomorphised actors, inviting children to relate to the character but at the same time also enhancing the children’s socialisation into carnism and possibly distorting their knowledge about animals (Joy 2011; Stewart and Cole 2009; Ganea et al. 2014).

References

  • Baker, S. (1993). Picturing the beast: Animal, identity and representation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroni, L., Cenci, L., Tettamanti, M., & Berati, M. (2007). Evaluating the environmental impact of various dietary patterns combined with different food production systems. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61, 279–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, B., Costello, K., Loughnan, S., & Hodson, G. (2012a). When closing the human-animal divide expands moral concern: The importance of framing. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(4), 421–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H. R. M. (2012b). Don’t mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(2), 247–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekoff, M. (1994). Non-human animals: How matters of mind inform matters of welfare. Animal Welfare, 3, 75–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benz-Schwarzburg, J. (2012). Verwandte im Geiste - Fremde im Recht. Sozio-kognitive Fähigkeiten bei Tieren und ihre Relevanz für Tierethik und Tierschutz. Erlangen: Harald Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwman, L., Goldewijk, K. K., Van Der Hoek, K. W., Beusen, A. H. W., Van Vuuren, D. P., et al. (2013). Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900–2050 period. PNAS, 110, 20882–20887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabant, S., & Mooney, L. (1989). When “critters” act like people: Anthropomorphism in greeting cards. Sociological Spectrum, 9, 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratanova, B., Loughnan, S., & Bastian, B. (2011). The effect of categorization as food on the perceived moral standing of animals. Appetite, 57(1), 193–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology and Marketing, 16(1), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Mitman, G. (2005). Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, W. F. (1982). Humor in management: Prospects for administrative practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 7, 136–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, I. J. H. (2006). The changing concept of animal sentience. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(1–2), 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2014). Food outlook. Biennal Report on Global Food Markets; http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/I3751E/I3751E.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.

  • Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., et al. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganea, P. A., Canfield, C. F., Simons-Ghafari, K., & Chou, T. (2014). Do cavies talk? The effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children’s knowledge about animals. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganzert, R. (2014). Producers must listen to consumers on animal welfare. National Provisioner, 228(12), 46–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, H. (2013). Das Tier an sich? Auf der Suche nach dem Menschen in der Tierethik. In P. K. Rippe & U. Thurnherr (Eds.), Tierisch Menschlich: Beiträge zur Tierphilosophie und Tierethik (pp. 51–95). Erlangen: Harald Fischer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, D. (2014). Citizen canine: Our evolving relationship with cats and dogs. New York: Public AffairsTM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M., et al. (2013). Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. PNAS, 110, 20888–20893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, E. C., & Sanders, C. R. (1997). Motion pictures as metaphoric consumption: How animal narratives teach us to be human. Semiotica, 115(1/2), 53–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, A. (2008). Reification: A new look at an old idea. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joy, M. (2011). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows. San Francisco: Conary Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • JRC (Joint Research Center European Commission) (2010): Evaluation of the livestock Sector’s Contribution to the EU greenhouse gas emissions (GGELS). Final report; http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/livestock-gas/full_text_en.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.

  • Karlsson, F. (2012). Critical anthropomorphism and animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(5), 707–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, C. (2005). Digital Beasts as Visual Esperanto: Getty Images and Colonization of Sight. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism (pp. 137–171). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty!—Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103, 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitsberger, M. (2015). Objectification and anthropomorphism: how advertisement contributes to instrumentalisation. Master’s thesis, Veterinary University of Vienna. http://media.obvsg.at/p-AC12612239-2001. Accessed 02 June 2016.

  • Lerner, J. E., & Kalof, L. (1999). The animal text: Message and meaning in television advertisements. The Sociological Quarterly, 40(4), 565–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2010). The role of meat consumption in the denial of moral status and mind to meat animals. Appetite, 55(1), 156–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyttle, J. (2001). The effectiveness of humor in persuasion: The case of business ethics training. Journal of General Psychology, 128(2), 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet, 370, 1253–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24(4), 249–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadaki, E. (2014). Feminist perspectives on objectification. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (Summer 2014 ed). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/feminism-objectification/. Accessed 02 June 2016.

  • Paul, E. S. (1996). The representation of animals on children’s television. Anthrozoös, 9(4), 169–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13–26). New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruether, R. R. (1983). Sexism and god-talk. London: SCM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroepfer, K. K., Rosati, A. G., Chartrand, T., & Hare, B. (2011). Use of “entertainment” chimpanzees in commercials distorts public perception regarding their conservation status. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e26048. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026048.

  • Serpell, J. A. (2005). People in disguise: Anthropomorphism and the human–pet relationship. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism (pp. 121–136). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1995). Animal liberation. London: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2005). Comparative psychology meets evolutionary biology: Morgan’s canon and cladistic parsimony. In L. Daston & G. Mitman (Eds.), Thinking with animals: New perspectives on anthropomorphism (pp. 85–99). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternthal, B., & Craig, S. C. (1973). Humor in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 37(4), 12–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, K., & Cole, M. (2009). The conceptual separation of food and animals in childhood. Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 12(4), 457–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, M. A., Howard, C. M., Erisman, J. W., Billen, G., Bleeker, A., et al. (2011). The European nitrogen assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. W. (1996). Respect for nature. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P., Herrero, M., Ericksen, P. (2011). Livestock and climate change. Livestock exchange issue brief 3. ILRI, Nairobi. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/10601/IssueBrief3.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.

  • Tukker, A., Goldbohm, R. A., de Koning, A., Verheijden, M., Kleijn, R., et al. (2011). Environmental impacts of changes to healthier diets in europe. Ecological Economics, 70, 1776–1788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2010). Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production: priority products and materials. Report. http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf. Accessed 02 June 2016.

  • Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor’s role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), 119–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Rosie Johnson and Daniel Kontowski for their helpful comments and advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Centre for Animal Welfare, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester, SO22 4NR, UK

    Madelaine Leitsberger

  2. Unit of Ethics and Human-Animal Studies, Messerli Research Institute, University of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Veterinaerplatz 1, 1210, Vienna, Austria

    Judith Benz-Schwarzburg & Herwig Grimm

Authors
  1. Madelaine Leitsberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Judith Benz-Schwarzburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Herwig Grimm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madelaine Leitsberger.

Additional information

The content of this paper is based on, and developed out of a master’s thesis (Leitsberger 2015).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leitsberger, M., Benz-Schwarzburg, J. & Grimm, H. A Speaking Piglet Advertises Beef: An Ethical Analysis on Objectification and Anthropomorphism. J Agric Environ Ethics 29, 1003–1019 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9644-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9644-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation