Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Great American Meatout Object Analysis



Micah Metz
Dr. Stephanie Brown
English 306
November 10, 2016
The Great American Meatout Meet-Out

Food politics in America have gotten more complicated ever since industrial farming became a viable option for producers to increase their folds. While the history of animal rights has had mixed perspectives for a while, the arguments for the elimination, or at the very least, reduction, of meat from the daily diet have increased in vivacity since the knowledge of farming methods became known to those outside the industry. Even in a society full of meat eaters, the depiction of animal treatment in cramped quarters as well as habits of force feeding prior to slaughter can make anybody feel at least a small pang of compassion for these creatures. Many activist groups have demonstrated vegetarian ideology and opposition to animal testing, but among the more enduring and close to the public is FARM's Great American Meatout (GAMO). FARM's demonstration is an annual conference with the purpose of educating the masses on a vegetarian lifestyle, as well as giving out information on animal treatment inside industrial farming facilities. As an annual event, GAMO directly affects a finite number of people in the duration of its activity (not including other activities sponsored by FARM) but it's approach of grass-roots lobbying with individuals has a more personal appeal to it than mass campaigns from larger organizations. This essay will discuss the effectiveness of their general approach to persuasion as well as fundamental arguments for their cause within a society imbued with meat-eating rhetoric.

The primary objective in GAMO rhetoric is to change the perspective of meat eaters on what it is they're consuming. In Kimberly Powell's analysis of the movement, she begins by noting overwhelming cultural acceptance of feed as a foodstuff. "Meat is unarguably the staple of the US diet and a significant aspect of US culture . . . The creation of meat as an appealing, powerful, healthful product for consumers poses a unique challenge for groups arguing for a meat-free lifestyle" (Powell, 81). A big issue for animal-rights activists is persuading people to drop meat from their diets. While touting a campaign that explicitly outlines poor animal treatment may gain some sympathetic supporters, Kimberly points out that in the case of the GAMO, the issue of meat consumption is that it is societally ingrained into the eaters as a cultural item that is somewhat detached from the brutal process altogether. The purpose and challenge of GAMO is to re-symbolize meat products into something less desensitizing to the brutal reality behind the business, and they attempt to do this through a method of celebrity / public icon appeal, propaganda on health benefits, and generally advertising vegetarian or vegan alternatives that can actually get a hold of the appetites of meat eaters.

The Great American Meatout is hosted on March 20th, the first day of spring, as a means to symbolize a new beginning. This fits in with the entire logos of the movement as an encouragement for people to start new habits of a vegetarian lifestyle. Volunteers and activists from around the US arrive to set up information booths, street shows, and food samples that portray vegetarian life as a healthful, beneficent alternative to meat consumption. Among the most popular events is the Congress Congressional reception in Washington DC that treats up to 200 staffers, and a few members of congress, to a six-course vegetarian buffet, as well as providing other information regarding the positives on a meatless lifestyle. What is key to notice about the rhetoric demonstrated in GAMO is that the brutality of the industry isn't the entire focus of their goal in reaching out to people, in contrast to what may be associated with a common-animal rights campaign. The presence of vegetarian food is a major part of the gathering in its attempts to show people that meat products do not necessarily constitute the major staple in the American diet; there are plenty of alternatives that are also enjoyable and don't condone violence towards animals. Being as it's safe to say that eating for recreation isn't uncommon in America, educating people on enjoyable meals that don't require meat is an effective method for supporting vegan ideology, and it's one step in addressing the proposed false notion that humans are naturally meat-consuming creatures (Powell, 85).

FARM, and through their sponsored conference of GAMO, have a variety of endorsements as well as a proud message of the bodily benefits found in the dietary regime. The use of attractive, famous celebrities and public figures are employed to help represent the lifestyle as something effective; a few of the examples are Meatout celebrity chairs like Bob Barker, Berke Breathed, Cezar Chavez, Doris Day, Sara Gilbert, Casey Kasem, Tony LaRussa, Rue McClanahan, Kevin Nealon, and Ally Sheedy (Powell, 87). In addition to cultural and celebrity public figures, proclamations by politicians supporting Great American Meatout Day lends an air of credibility and validity to the movement. In larger animal rights organizations, such as PETA, the movement seems so large and full of contributors that the distribution and rhetoric seems entire fulfilled by officials within the massive movement; however, FARM is entirely funded by contributors and while organized nationally by FARM, they rely on local activists to carry out the campaign in the way of picketing demonstrations, hosting vegetarian food festivals, and persuading schools and restaurants to offer vegan entrees. (Powell, 83) Beyond public figures endorsement to offer an accessible image of meat-free living, GAMO garners support from other health organizations that are only tangentially related the cause of animal rights through their involvement in related movements, and through their partnership seek to bolden the link between various common illnesses and the habit of eating meat.

Finally, FARM argues that meat consumption is a threat to human life; it impedes the prosperity and health of the population. The literature of the GAMO movement cites correlations between and various illnesses that Americans die from every year. "Nearly 60 percent of Americans die of meat-linked diseases. An estimated 1,351,000 Americans, accounting for 59.3 percent of all deaths, died in 1994 of diseases which consumption of meat and other animal products is a substantial risk factor" (Kimberly Powell, The Farm Report, 1997 p. 6). And they specifically cite the American Cancer Society as an ally in discovering that eating animals is responsible for up to 35 percent of all non-skin cancer cases (Powell, 89). The mention of health risks beyond that of the typical forewarning of obesity and low libido offer a stronger, more serious level of caution to onlookers, and partnership with another organization specific to that field (the ACS) provides a network more trustworthy than studies conducted within the organization.

The estimated results from the Meatout campaign over the years is difficult to track with absolute precision. As a campaign aimed towards persuading people to change their lifestyle, it can be argued that those affected by the rhetoric may accept it in varying capacities insofar as they're able to adapt or that it appeals to them; several meat eaters may find it convincing and adopt a stronger reliance on vegan dishes but not feel capable of giving up meat altogether. However, the number of vegetarians recorded has remained fairly consistent throughout the years and the scale of meat-productions hasn't shown signs of slowing down. In terms actually halting the meat-industry in its profiting, FARM's conference has had about as meager of an effect as the entire animal rights movement as a whole, but its logos of marketing alternative food choices above and beyond just that guilting people out of purchasing meat is one that is less aggressive, and focuses more on reasoning rather than shock value. FARM and it’s relevant campaigns offer what I view as an effective message, but it’s one that likely won’t achieve anything insofar as meat and fastfood remain at a comparable or lower cost to the more engaging vegan entrees.



Works Cited

Powell, Kimberly A. “The Great American Meatout: Engaging a Society of Meat-Eaters in Anti Meat-Eating Rhetoric.” Journal of the Northwest Communication Association. Spring2002, Vol. 31 






1 comment:

  1. Questions:

    1.) Are the notions of ethos / pathos / logos identified well enough, or is it clear why one of them may not need to be mentioned based on the premise of the movement?

    2.) This movement is still going on each year today. Would more analysis (if material is available) on current data be necessary to understand their rhetoric?

    3.) Is the source I'm using sufficient to make the claims I made about their rhetorical strategy?

    ReplyDelete