It will be interesting to watch how issues of animal rights are impacted by the return of Michael Vick. The confessed dogfighter, who claims to be rehabilitated, is being handled in two very different ways by two like-minded organizations: PETA and the Humane Society. PETA's strategy seems to be to vilify Vick and use protests to raise awareness of animal cruelty. The Humane Society's approach seems to be to embrace Vick and use him as a spokesperson against dogfighting. So, whose strategy is the most ethically sound, and will be the most effective? When raising awareness, and making a case, is it better to find an enemy to work against, or try to make an enemy into a friend? I have my opinion, but what's yours?
1 Man, 2 Organizations, 1 Cause, 2 Approaches
Sunday, August 23, 2009
It will be interesting to watch how issues of animal rights are impacted by the return of Michael Vick. The confessed dogfighter, who claims to be rehabilitated, is being handled in two very different ways by two like-minded organizations: PETA and the Humane Society. PETA's strategy seems to be to vilify Vick and use protests to raise awareness of animal cruelty. The Humane Society's approach seems to be to embrace Vick and use him as a spokesperson against dogfighting. So, whose strategy is the most ethically sound, and will be the most effective? When raising awareness, and making a case, is it better to find an enemy to work against, or try to make an enemy into a friend? I have my opinion, but what's yours?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
could it be possible that they have somewhat co-conspired to form a "good cop/bad cop" strategy? both organizations have similar objectives (although not the same), and could use both strategies (vilification and embrace) to further their mutual mission.
great observation, john!
In this case, I think both organizations have really already identified a common enemy: animal cruelty. However, I think it's important to note that only one of these organizations seems to be focusing on it. Although the scrutiny and social judgment afforded to Michael Vick after his return is challenging to him personally, it is simply a biproduct of the 'endurance' test of his integrity that should logically follow after rehabilitation. In that way, I think that PETA's strategy is more destructive than the Humane Societies because it does not focus on the true enemy at this point. Building up and supporting Vick seems to me to be the best solution to attacking the true enemy, animal cruelty, because it gives it a compassionate, honest and famous opponent. At this point, de-humanizing or attacking Vick directly is pointless if we are to build local change agents that will erase this behavior. By propping Michael Vick up, granting that he does what he says he will do, we create a connected and recognized change agent that can serve as a role model to others and challenge the process simply by existing. How cool is that?
Post a Comment