C. Richard King: Envisioning Justice

Envisioning Justice: Racial Metaphors, Political Movements, and Critical Pedagogy

C. Richard King

King’s article on the appropriation (or misappropriation) of racial symbols to advance unconnected messages makes some interesting points, some of which I agree with, some not.

Let’s begin with a big “not.” King argues that the visual rhetoric of PETA’s media campaigns is “conflicted and context dependent,” and that “they may have little lasting significance.” He makes these point in the context of PETA’s use of Holocaust imagery to equate animal suffering with human suffering, and finds himself “troubled” by the organization’s tactics. I think that in this example King expresses perfectly his own biases to deny that animal rights and human rights are exactly equivalent, otherwise known as a human-centric view of the world. King doesn’t consider that perhaps PETA seriously intends their images to be taken at face value, because after all, human consumption of meat is purely habit, not necessity and there is no moral reason to believe that animals don’t suffer just as much as humans. It is exactly the same mechanism of depersonalization at work in the modern abattoirs as occurred in the death camps. I doubt that a single “normal” dog or cat owner in the U.S. would accept the procedures used to turn cattle into burgers if it were their own pet being served up on the plate. So, at a very basic level, I reject King’s argument that PETA’s appropriation of Holocaust imagery is in any way inappropriate.

The whole argument about the use of racial symbols in media (like Native American mascots) stems from a position that questions ownership. The implication of King and those who oppose the use of such symbolism is that ownership resides exclusively with those groups whose stereotypes are being depicted. I disagree that the ownership and appropriateness  of such imagery is exclusive. I think that racial images and stereotypes belong in the public domain because it is in the context of the public domain that they are understood. They may not be understood in the same way by different groups and that is the point. It is a from this mistaken sense of ownership that challenges to things like Native American mascots arise. If a photographer takes an image of me I do not own the way the image depicts me any more than someone else who might see it later. The image depicts me, and either correctly or incorrectly the later viewer is obligated to interpret the image according to the schema that they, not I , possess. I’m not arguing that Native American mascots are not insensitive and shouldn’t be replaced: I merely suggest that such arguments stand outside the true representations of these images, that is that they are universally owned by any who see them and interpret them. There is no universal truth to symbolic imagery.

The PETA ads make a point. Nothing more. The Native American mascots serve a purpose. Nothing else. These points and purposes might be better served by different imagery, or not. But if PETA intends to shock, it can only do so by utilizing the available imagery in the historical canon of images. And it is because the imagery is drawn from the canon (which is limited) that multiple perspectives are implied and understood within each context. But no one interpretation is necessarily better or more correct than any other. I don’t believe that PETA’s use of Holocaust imagery cheapens or harms other interpretations of the Holocaust at all. It is nothing more than the juxtaposition of ideas, in this case, a fresh metaphor for animal suffering that is perhaps more understandable because of the juxtaposition. I am always suspicious when one group’s ideas or one interpretation of something in the public domain is asserted as the “dominant” or “correct” interpretation, or when “ownership” of any interpretation is asserted. I think that the dialogue that results from differences of opinion is more valuable than received wisdom.