From «Cowspiracy» to «Seaspiracy»: Discursive Strategies in Contemporary Vegan Advocacy Documentaries
Article Sidebar
0)
Main Article Content
Authors
Abstract
0
Guided by the qualitative approach of film analysis, this article examines the discursive strategies used in the films Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret and Seaspiracy, while identifying contrasts with the rhetoric of other pro-vegan and environmentalist documentaries. The analysis of both films together serves to highlight: a) the prominence they give to environmentalist reasons for veganism; b) their different way of portraying violence against animals; c) their use of a detective plotline to articulate the narrative; d) their emotional use of first-person narration; and e) the emphasis they place on global responsibility for the environmental impact of animal-based food production and their proposal of specific, feasible solutions to reverse the situation. The study finds that Cowspiracy and Seaspiracy stand as evidence of the vegan advocacy documentary’s contributions to the environmentalist non-fiction genre to which it belongs, while highlighting the strategies used in both films (avoiding audience revulsion and promoting positive feelings; integrating fictional elements and fostering identification in order to seduce the audience; appealing to commitment and conveying proactive messages rather than a sense of helplessness) that enable the cognitive and affective dimensions to feed into each other for the purpose of persuading viewers and promoting individual and social change.
Keywords
References
Adams, C. J. (2010). Why feminist-vegan now? Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 302-317. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0959353510368038
Adams, M. (2022). Communicating Vegan Utopias: The Counterfactual Construction of Human-animal Futures. Environmental Communication, 16(1), 125-138. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.196997
Ahmad, J., Sritharan, G. & Nasir, N. (2015). The effectiveness of video and pamphlets in influencing youth on environmental education. Malaysian Journal of Communication, 31, 281-296. https://www.doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2015-3101-15
Ahn, C. S. (2020). Considering the role of documentary media in environmental education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 17(2), 67-79. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3ttZTnY https://doi.org/10.25071/1916-4467.40435
Aumont, J. & Marie, M. (1990). Análisis del film. Barcelona: Paidós.
Barnouw, E. (2012). El documental: historia y estilo. Barcelona: Gedisa.
Beardsworth, A. & Keil, T. (1992). The vegetarian option: Varieties, conversions, motives and careers. The Sociological Review, 40(2), 253-293. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb00889.x
Belhabib, D. (2021). Ocean science and advocacy work better when decolonized. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(6), 709-710. https://www.doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01477-1
Binti Mat, N. H. (2019). Documentary for social change: Analysing rhetorical elements in marine life Documentaries. PhD Thesis, Cardiff University.
Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. (1995). El arte cinematográfico. Barcelona: Paidós.
Bowens, M. (2017). A Mood of Dissonance: Unpinning Ambiguity in Gus van Sant's "Elephant". Film Criticism, 41(1). Retrieved from https://bit.ly/46oxj5Q https://doi.org/10.3998/fc.13761232.0041.108
Brereton, P. (2015). Environmental Ethics and Film. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797151
Caldwell, K. (2017). Which Kinds of Pro-Vegetarian Videos are Best at Inspiring Changes in Diets and Attitudes? Mercy for Animals. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3Gd44XN
Christopher, A., Bartkowski, J. P. & Haverda, T. (2018). Portraits of Veganism: A Comparative Discourse Analysis of a Second-Order Subculture. Societies, 8(3), 55. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/soc8030055
Cox, R. (2013). Environmental communication and the public sphere. London: Sage.
Cudworth, E. (2015). Killing animals: Sociology, species relations and institutionalized violence. The Sociological Review, 63(1), 1-18. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12222
DiFrancesco, D. A. & Young, N. (2010). Seeing climate change: The visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media. Cultural Geographies, 18(4), 517-536. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1474474010382072
Dorfeld, N. (2019). Meatless Mondays? A Vegan Studies Approach to Resistance in the College Classroom. In L. Wright (Ed.), Through a Vegan Studies Lens: Textual Ethics and Lived Activism (pp. 240-255). Nevada: University of Nevada Press.
Doyle, J. (2011). Mediating climate change. Farmham, UK: Ashgate.
Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. (2011). Apocalypse Soon?: Dire Messages Reduce Belief in Global Warming by Contradicting Just-World Beliefs. Psychological Science, 22(1), 34-38. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610391911
Finkler, W. & Leon, B. (2019). The power of storytelling and video: a visual rhetoric for science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 18(05). https://www.doi.org/10.22323/2.18050202
Fox, N. & Ward, K. (2008). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations. Appetite, 50(2-3), 422-429. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.007
Gaard, G. (2002). Vegetarian eco-feminism: a review essay. Frontiers, 23, 117-146. https://www.doi.org/10.1353/fro.2003.0006
Gardner, C. D., Hartle, J. C., Garrett, R. D., Offringa, L. C. & Wasserman, A. S. (2019). Maximizing the intersection of human health and the health of the environment with regard to the amount and type of protein produced and consumed in the United States. Nutrition Reviews, 77, 197-215. https://www.doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuy073
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M. & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361, eaam5324. https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324
Gold, J. R. & Revill, G. (2004). Representing the environment. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203645987
Graham, T. & Abrahamse, W. (2017). Communicating the climate impacts of meat consumption: the effect of values and message framing. Global Environmental Change, 44, 98-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.004
Greenebaum, J. B. (2012). Managing impressions: 'Face-saving' strategies of vegetarians and vegans. Humanity and Society, 36(4), 309-325. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0160597612458898
Hamilton, M. (2000). Eating ethically: 'spiritual' and 'quasi-religious' aspects of vegetarianism. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 15, 65-83. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/135379000112143
Hansen, A. & Machin, D. (2013). Researching visual environmental communication. Environmental Communication, 7(2), 151-168. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.785441
Harris, H. (2022). Science vs. Sensationalism: Lessons for Science Communication in Fisheries from Netflix's Seaspiracy. Fisheries, 47. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10727
Hearne, S. (2021). Netflix's Seaspiracy, and how to spot misinformation in glossy documentaries. The Skeptic. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3VH9Uq4
Hill, C. A. (2004). The psychology of rhetorical images. In C. A Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining visual rhetorics (pp. 25-40). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hoek, A. C., Pieternel, A. L., Stafleu, A. & de Graaf, C. (2004). Food-related lifestyle and health of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers. Appetite, 42, 265-272. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2003.12.003
Höijer, B. (2010). Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 717-731. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0963662509348863
Howell, R. (2013). It's not just "the environment, stupid!" Values, motivations, and routes to engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environmental Change, 23, 281-290. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.015
Hughes, H. (2014). Green Documentary: Environmental Documentary in the Twenty-First Century. Chicago: Intellect. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv36xvn9r
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Joffe, H. (2008). The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes, 55(1), 84-93. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0392192107087919
Joy, M. (2020). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. San Francisco: Conari Press.
Kalof, L., Dietz, T., Stern, P. C. & Guagnano, G. A. (1999). Social psychological and structural influences on vegetarian beliefs. Rural Sociology, 64, 500-511. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3UYEfSu https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.1999.tb00364.x
Kim, C. J. (2015). Dangerous Crossings. Race, Species, and Nature in a Multicultural Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107045392
Lamb, G. (2021). 'The ocean will be empty by 2048': Lessons From 'Seaspiracy' For Environmental Communication. Medium. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3QdeOdb
Lea, E. & Worsley, A. (2001). Influences on meat consumption in Australia. Appetite, 36, 127-136. https://www.doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0386
Leiserowitz, A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25, 1433-1442. https://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x
Leiserowitz, A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery and values. Climatic Change, 77, 45-72. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
León, B., Negredo, S. & Erviti, M. C. (2022) Social Engagement with climate change: principles for effective visual representation on social media. Climate Policy, 22(8), 976-992. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2077292
Lindeman, M. & Sirelius, M. (2001). Food choice ideologies: the modern manifestations of normative and humanist views of the world. Appetite, 37, 175-184. https://www.doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0386
Lockwood, A. (2016). Graphs of grief and other green feelings: the uses of affect in the study of environmental communication. Environmental Communication, 10(6), 734-748. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1205642
Loughnan, S., Bastian, B. & Haslam, N. (2014). The psychology of eating animals. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 104-108. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414525781
Maibach, E., Nisbet, M. C, Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K. & Diao, G. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 299. http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
Marzal, J. J. & Gómez Tarín, F. J. (2007). Interpretar un film. Reflexiones en torno a las metodologías de análisis del texto fílmico para la formulación de una propuesta de Trabajo. In J. J. Marzal & F. J. Gómez Tarín (Eds.), Metodologías de análisis del film (pp. 31-56). Madrid: Edipo.
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-11. https://www.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
Moore, M. (2014). Michael Moore's 13 Rules for Making Documentary Films. IndieWire. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3CibIyQ
Moser, S. & Dilling, L. (2012). Communicating Climate Change: Closing the Science-Action Gap. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (pp. 161-174). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0011
Nabi, R. L. & Green, M. C. (2015). The Role of a Narrative's Emotional Flow in Promoting Persuasive Outcomes. Media Psychology, 18(2), 137-162. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.912585
Nichols, B. (2008). The Question of Evidence, the Power of Rhetoric and Documentary Film. In T. Austin & W. de Jong (Eds.), Rethinking Documentary: New Perspectives, New Practices (pp. 29-50). McGraw-Hill Open University Press.
Nichols, B. (2017). Introduction to Documentary. Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.5406/illinois/9780252037702.003.0007
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment. Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. https://www.doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: the importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625-642. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.637157
Ojala, M. (2015). Hope in the Face of Climate Change: Associations with Environmental Engagement and Student Perceptions of Teachers' Emotion Communication Style and Future Orientation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 46(3), 133-148. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1021662
Olson, L. C., Finnegan, C. A. & Hope, D. S. (2008). Visual rhetoric in communication: Continuing questions and contemporary issues. In L. C. Olson, C. A. Finnegan & D. S. Hope (Eds.), Visual rhetoric: A reader in communication and American culture (pp. 1-13). London: Sage.
O'Neill, S. & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). Fear won't do it: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30, 335-379. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/107554700832920
Pauly, D. (2021). What Netflix's Seaspiracy gets wrong about fishing, explained by a marine biologist. Vox. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3jM43Tk
Plantinga, C. (2009). Moving Viewers: American Film and the Spectator's Experience. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520943919
Plantinga, C. (2018). Characterization and Character Engagement in Documentary Film. In C. Brylla & M. Kramer (Eds.), Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film (pp. 115-132). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90332-3_7
Potts, A. (2010). Introduction: Combating speciesism in psychology and feminism. Feminism & Psychology, 20(3), 291-301. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0959353510368037
Potts, A. (2016). What is meat culture? In A. Potts (Ed.), Meat culture (pp. 1-30). Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004325852_002
Rooney, D. (2022). 'All Fishing Is Wildlife Poaching:' Nonhuman Animal Imagery and Mutual Avowal in Racing Extinction and Seaspiracy. Journalism and Media, 3, 257-277. https://www.doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia3020020
Ros, V., O'Connell, J. M. J., Kiss, M. & van Noortwijk, A. (2018). Toward a Cognitive Definition of First-Person Documentary. In C. Brylla & M. Kramer (Eds.), Cognitive Theory and Documentary Film (pp. 223-240). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90332-3_13
Scherer, L., Behrens, P. & Tukker, A. (2019). Opportunity for a Dietary Win-Win-Win in Nutrition, Environment, and Animal Welfare. One Earth, 1, 349-360. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.020
Shen, F. Y., Sheer, V. C. & Li, R. B. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: a meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44, 105-113. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467
Siegrist, M., Visschers, V. H. M. & Hartmann, C. (2015). Factors influencing changes in sustainability perception of various food behaviors: results of a longitudinal study. Food Quality and Preference, 46, 33-39. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.07.006
Smith, N. & Joffe, H. (2013). How the public engages with global warming: A social representations approach. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 16-32. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/0963662512440913
Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667. https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T. D., Castel, V., Rosales, M., Rosales, M. & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Tilman, D. & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515, 518-522. https://www.doi.org/10.1038/nature13959
Tukker, A. & Jansen, B. (2006). Environmental impacts of products. A detailed review of studies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 10(3), 159-182. https://www.doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2006.10.3.159
Weik von Mossner, A. (2021). Feeling Bad? Veganism, Climate Change, and the Rhetoric of Cowspiracy. In C. Hanganu-Bresch & K. Kondrlik (Eds.), Veg(etari)an Arguments in Culture, History, and Practice (pp. 245-269). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53280-2_10
Weik von Mossner, A. (2022). Ecology and Emotion: Feeling Narrative Environments. In P. C. Hogan, L. P. Hogan & B. Irish (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Literature and Emotion (pp. 192-202). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367809843-20
Yeo, S. K. & Silberg, J. N. (2021). Environmental documentaries in a digital age should be ethical, not just captivating. One Earth, 4(6), 780-782. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.05.016
Metrics
|
|
Details
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
RIGHTS TRANSFER
By submitting the article for evaluation and subsequent publication in Communication & Society, the AUTHOR exclusively assigns the rights of public communication, reproduction, distribution and sale for commercial exploitation to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, for the maximum legal term in force -the entire life of the author and seventy years after his death or declaration of death-, in any country, and in any of the current and future edition modalities, both in print and electronic versions.
In the event that the article is not accepted for publication , this transfer of rights lapses with the communication of the refusal to the AUTHOR.
The AUTHOR affirms that the article is unpublished, that it has not been sent simultaneously to another publication medium and that the rights have not been transferred exclusively previously. He is responsible to the University of Navarra through its Publications Service for the authorship and originality of his work, as well as for all pecuniary charges that may arise for the University of Navarra through its Publications Service, in favor of third parties due to actions, claims or conflicts arising from the breach of obligations by the AUTHOR.
