Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 47

ANIMAL WELFARE AND HUMAN BENEFIT: RATIONALE EXPANSION AS STRATEGYIN THE ANTI-VIVISECTION CAMPAIGN

Karl R. Kunkel, Southwest Missouri State University ABSTRACT Research in the construction of social problems examines claims-making activity as groups attempt to define conditions as problems. Previous research on domain expansion documents how established claims become the foundation for new sets of concerns. In the campaign for the rights of laboratory animals, groups attempting to construct these conditions as problems do not solely rely on cruelty rhetoric for moving the public and lawmakers to action. Realizing the culture does not provide inherent sympathy for these animals, groups attempt to link their concern to other rationales, threat to humans and waste of taxpayers' money, for supporting a desired outcome.

INTRODUCTION as subjects in psychological research (Ulrich Vivisection, the use of live animals in re­ 1991 ). Consistent with the philosophy advo­ search, has been a major concern of the ani­ cated by many animal rights groups, animals mal rights movement since the campaign have the right not to be used as instruments for began in the late 1970s (Finsen, Finsen 1994; human benefit and, because they suffer and/ Jasper, Nelkin 1992). Two early examples of or die in this type of research, vivisection is a public protest illustrate this saliency. During problem that needs elimination. :=::;976, armed with the moral stance advocated Numerous organizations are concerned !!!!!'Jy Singer's (1975) Animal Liberation, Henry with defining the use of animals in research as :=;pira lead a group demonstrating against a a social problem. Examples of these organi­ =ong-running research program on cat sexu­ zations include People for the Ethical Treat­ iiillity at the American Museum of Natural His­ ment of Animals (PETA), Physicians Commit­ -:ory in Manhattan (Jasper, Poulsen 1993). tee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Psy­ ~his action was later followed by Spira's 1980 chologists for the Ethical Treatment of Ani­ =::irganized protest of animal testing in the mals (Psych ET A), Last Chance for Animals ~reduction of Revlon cosmetics (Jasper, Nelkin (LCA), the American Anti-Vivisection Society jjji1992). The campaign against vivisection was, (AAVS), and the National Anti-Vivisection Soci­ jjjjiand continues to be, at the center of the animal ety (NAVS). Their objective is to end cruel treat­ =rights movement. Estimates vary on the num­ ment of animals. These groups strive to -ber of animals used in research each year in change people's attitudes and habits so that the United States. The National Anti-Vivisec­ members of the public will put pressure on !!!tion Society (n.d.) claims the number is be­ both companies and governmental agencies - tween 17 and 22 million ("The Campaign for that either conduct or fund research on ani­ ::Life"). Other sources (American Anti-Vivisec­ mals, as well as policymakers who are asked iition Society n.d.) report numbers as high as to outlaw certain vivisection practices. PET A, = 100 million ("STOP Why We Oppose Vivisec­ in its journal Animal Times, provides lists of !!!tion"). companies that test products on animals and • The use of animals in research takes many asks members to boycott these companies. =terms, all of which are objectionable in the Animal rights groups concerned with vivisec­ :: eyes of animal rights sympathizers. Animals tion also lobby for legal restrictions on animal iiare used in product safety testing, including experimentation. For example, various local :::cosmetics and various household products. jurisdictions have outlawed the Draize eye =Animals are used in medical research includ­ test, where substances are placed in the eyes :=ing basic biological education, the study of of rabbits to test for toxicity, and the California :drug and alcohol addiction, observing the general assembly has considered such a =etiology of disease, developing surgical tech­ measure on the state level (Millsaps 1990). =niques, vaccinations, and drugs. Furthermore, PETA asks members to write legislators urg­ .-animals are subjects in a variety of research ing them to support legislation restricting or :;::;projects sponsored and performed by the U.S. outlawing vivisection. ~ilitary. Examples include radiation exposure This examination of claims-making rheto­ :;:::ind attempts to understand war injuries (e.g., ric concentrates on attempts to construct the iiiJead injuries) so that treatment can be devel­ use of animals in biomedical research as a ==,ped (Maggitti 1994 ). Animals are also used problem requiring change. This issue is of 48 Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology particular interest because vivisection propo­ Animals; Robert Sharpe (1988), The Crue1 nents believe research on animals is impor­ Deception: The Use of Animals in Medica/ tant for human health. It is widely claimed by Research; and Peter Singer (1975), Anima/ pro-vivisectionists that improved human health Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of and increased longevity is dependent on re­ Animals. Qualitative content analysis of the

search involving animals. Some people have anti-vivisection rhetoric contained in these 1

trouble feeling sympathy for research animals books provided additional data for this case 1 when the perceived alternative is loss of hu­ study of anti-vivisection claims-making strat. man life and quality of life. Furthermore, most egy. animals used for medical research are ro­ dents making sympathy and mass public Cruelty Rhetoric action unlikely. Groups claiming biomedical The victim, a winsome little squirrel monkey, vivisection is a social problem solely because is shown swinging happily in his cage. Then, the practice is cruel to laboratory animals step by horrifying step, he becomes less and probably will not convince many people to less a sensate creature and more a speci­ support their cause. men. First, he is immobilized in a plexiglass An examination of rhetorical claims-mak­ yoke for anesthetizing. Then, still alive, cut ing by various anti-vivisection groups reveals open along the abdomen. Then beheaded. their strategy does not rely solely on the cruelty The skull is cracked away from the brain. The issue. Much of the rhetoric does stress the brain, eyes still attached, is frozen, bisected, suffering of animals in research labs; how­ and sliced like a ham. The slices are mounted. ever, rationale expansion can be seen in their A scientist peers at one slice under the micro­ strategy. Current rhetoric can be divided into scope. The monkey is now only an abstract two broad categories of claims: 1) the contin­ composition, a cluster of dots in a dull sea of ued issue of cruelty supplemented by recent protoplasm. "Beautiful,• says the scientist, development of alternatives to vivisection, and with rare emotion in his voice, "Just beautiful". 2) alleged lack of benefit from animal experi­ (AAVS n.d. STOP: Why We Oppose Vivisec­ mentation and the tremendous taxpayer cost tion) of such research. The initial and primary concern involves th, STUDYINGRHETORICALSTRATEGY AMONG suffering and death of animals in researc ANTI-VIVISECTION GROUPS laboratories. Pamphlets distributed by the, Data for this study were derived using a organizations reflect the notion of cruelty. Fe qualitative content analysis of claims-making example, monkeys are pictured locked i' activity and rhetorical devices used by indi­ small cages peering through the bars or ir. viduals and groups in the anti-vivisection move­ mobilized in laboratory equipment. Dogs ar,: ment. Data sources include newsletters, other cats are displayed in similar situations. It 1 mailings, and organizations' home pages on common to see leaflets, pamphlets, and oth, the World Wide Web, as well as observations written material containing pictures of livir; and interviews conducted at two animal rights monkeys, dogs, and cats with pieces of scie· conferences in June 1990 and November tific equipment embedded in their heads, mar 1991. These data provide insight to the rheto­ of which have wires connecting the animals: ric and strategies used by activists when ad­ machines recording biological functions. vancing the rights of animals. Data were col­ Animal experiments are graphically d lected from June 1990 through February 1996. scribed in leaflets, such as one distributed I During the course of analyzing rhetorical LCA entitled, "Facts About Vivisection." Th content of claims-making activities by anti­ rhetorical device contains the following se: vivisection groups, it became apparent that tion: these groups universally advocate, quote, and endorse particular books critical of vivisection Vivisection is inhumane. There are no laws and written by people said to be experts. guaranteeing protection from pain in research These monographs are claimed by anti-vivi­ laboratories. Anesthetics are not regularly section groups to be articulations of their posi­ used; dogs are debarked to eliminate their tion and arguments. Recommended books cries of agony. 100 million animals a year are include: Michael W. Fox (1990), Inhumane shot, electrocuted, irrigated, force-fed toxic Society: The American Way of Exploiting substances, burned, drowned, suffocated, Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 49

crushed, tortured, forced to cannibalize, EXPANSION OF CRUEL TY RHETORIC: starved, frozen, deprived of the company of ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMALS TESTING other animals, sleep, and water. They are Vivisection is unnecessary. Many superior kept in restraining devices for months at a alternatives to animal research have been time, unable to move, while their brains or their developed. They are cheaper, the results can sexual organs are shocked or removed­ be safely applied to humans, and do not and as many more atrocities as the human require animal suffering and death to per­ mind can imagine. (LCA n.d. Facts About form. The Ames test is a good example. It uses Vivisection) a strain of salmonella bacteria to test for the potential of chemicals to cause mutation in the Anti-vivisection groups encourage mem­ structure of the genes. It costs about $300.00 bers to engage in acts of civil disobedience to perform and gives results in 3 days. The and other public demonstrations. Each year, same test in a dog costs about $150,000.00 In Defense of Animals (JOA) sponsors "World and takes 3 years to give less reliable results. Laboratory Animal Liberation Week." Numer­ Researchers are reluctant to develop alter­ ous regionally coordinated conferences and natives, however, because the funding is not demonstrations are held worldwide. This an­ as lucrative when these procedures are nual event is now in its twelfth year. Demon­ used. (LCA n.d. Facts About Vivisection) strations and acts of civil disobedience typi­ cally are held outside places where alleged Anti-vivisection groups claim scientists vivisection is practiced or in front of govern­ have developed superior alternatives to using ment offices where funding for vivisection is animals in research. Pamphlets, brochures, distributed. These demonstrations involve articles, and columns in newsletters and jour­ people carrying signs with pictures of animals nals, all discuss alternatives to the use of being tortured in laboratory settings. animals in research. For example, NAVS pub­ These organizations publish newsletters lishes a brochure (n.d.), •A Compendium of Al­ and journals sent several times a year to ternatives," which includes detailed discus­ dues-paying members. Publications discuss sion of the feasibility of using alternatives to specific campaigns against particular projects. animal research. Cell, tissue, organ, and bac­ LCA prints elaborate descriptions of work teria cultures, computer and mechanical conducted by individual researchers. These models, placentas, and human subjects are descriptions show pictures of alleged vivisec­ discussed. This rhetoric often contains quota­ tors followed by such descriptors as "kitten tions from doctors claiming the data gener­ crippler," "brain destroyer," "cat tormentor," ated from these alternatives are superior and and "skull driller." Telephone numbers are much more applicable to humans than data also provided so that interested persons can generated from animals in medical research. call these individuals to express feelings of The implication of this rhetoric centers on the outrage. assertion that vivisection not only involves Anti-vivisection groups clearly oppose the pain, suffering, and death for animals, but it is use of animals in research because it is a even more cruel because it is not necessary. violation of fundamental animal rights. Their Anti-vivisection groups claim these alterna­ basic philosophy is one of anti-anthropocen­ tives yield results more applicable for better­ trism arguing humans cannot use animals for ing human quality of life. human benefit because animals are sentient Anti-vivisection rhetoric goes beyond the creatures, capable of feeling pain. Obviously emotional issue of cruelty and the rational those believing research on animals brings plea for using alternatives to animal research cures for human ailments and saves human by questioning what is really learned from lives challenge this notion. Since anti-vivisec­ research on animals. These interest groups tion groups are battling a culture that places expand rationale for opposing vivisection by human life above that of animals, these groups questioning the very applicability of this re­ expanded their rhetoric to other concerns. One search. expansion involves rhetoric claiming there are bona fide alternatives to the use of animals in Rationale Expansion: research. Danger to Human Health Another problem with a great deal of animal research is that it cannot be reliably applied 50 Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology

to humans. The tragic birth defects caused by Use of Animals in Medical Research. This thalidomide occurred because of reliance on book argues reduced mortality since 1900 animal testing. But thalidomide is just one of (life expectancy in 1900 was 47, today it is 72) many drugs (including DEX, Oraflex and Zo­ is not due to advances from animal experi­ max), which were tested in many species of mentation, as various pro-vivisection groups animals and judged safe, but had the potential argue, but is due to increased public health, to cause disastrous effects if taken by hu­ particularly improved sanitation, immuniza­ mans ... Conversely, aspirin can kill a cat and tion, and the use of antibiotics. Additionally, an· penicillin is highly toxic to guinea pigs. It should NAVS brochure, "The Campaign for Life," fur­ be remembered that all disease is the result ther argues recent studies have determined of the malfunction of cells, and, consequently, cure rates for the most common forms of the primary study of disease should be at the cancer and heart disease are not improved cellular level. Studying whole animals ignores and contemporary gain in the fight against this basic fact... (AAVS n.d. STOP: Why We them is primarily due to improved lifestyles Oppose Vivisection) and prevention, not techniques and drugs developed through vivisection. Anti-vivisection rhetoric contains numer­ Rhetoric provided by anti-vivisection groups ous claims that the biological systems of claims the findings from most animal re­ animals and that of humans are not the same. search are not significant, many studies sim­ Therefore, research findings on one species ply reflect the confirmation of common sense. cannot necessarily be assumed valid for an­ Neil Barnard, president of PCRM discussed other. Many claims also argue this situation an example of such research in an interview can be dangerous for humans. For example, conducted for adocumentaryfilm onthe"March LCA distributes a booklet, "Vivisection: Sci­ for the Animals" held in Washington, D.C. ence or Sham," written by Roy Kupsine, M.D. during the summer of 1990. He claimed a (n.d.). In this booklet he provides details on the head injury study was conducted by research­ physiological differences between human and ers at Louisiana State University, during which non-human animals, such as rhesus mon­ 700 cats were shot in the head and, allegedly, keys, dogs, mice, rats, rabbits, and cats. The the only valid conclusion reached by the project argument centers on the notion these biologi­ was that cats stop breathing when shot in the cal systems are not representative of one head. The AAVS pamphlet, "STOP: Why We another and findings from research on one Oppose Vivisection" presents the following: species are not transferable to another. The doctor also presents a list of 28 drugs found One does not have to be an expert to deter­ "safe" on animals that killed or injured hu­ mine whether experiments such as the fol­ mans. The list of afflictions to humans in­ lowing are moral or useful: cludes, but is not limited to, cataracts, birth defects, various cancers, and heart problems. *Burn studies to determine the amount of Furthermore, NAVS (n.d.) distributes a leaflet, liquid necessary during the recuperative "What Physicians Say About Vivisection," con­ period. taining 132 quoted statements from medical *Aggression, induced by electric shock and doctors claiming information obtained from other painful manipulations. research on animals is not relevant to treating *Department of Defense research on the humans. effects of radiation, chemicals, and ex­ Various anti-vivisection groups claim there plosives. is little progress from animal-based research. *Addiction to various drugs and withdrawal. For example, NAVS argues in a brochure, "The *Prolonged exposure to temperature ex- Campaign for Life," only 6 percent of all animal tremes. experimentation has any direct influence on ·stress-induced heart studies. medicine. This rhetoric also cites a compre­ *Sleep deprivation. hensive study demonstrating vaccines and *Pain studies including battering, striking and drugs account for only 3.5 percent of the 69.2 crushing. percent decline in overall mortality between *Learned helplessness, induced by electric 1900 and 1973. Anti-vivisection groups urge shock. members and other concerned people to read (American Anti-Vivisection Society n.d.) Sharpe's (1988), The Cruel Deception: The Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 51

It can be implied from examining this rheto­ programs such as Medicaid, leaving poor ric that anti-vivisection groups argue animal people without access to adequate prenatal experimentation yields little value to bettering and postnatal care ... This [research) of course the human condition and improving quality of conjures up in the public's mind a picture of re­ life because the findings are misguided and searchers working night and day over hot trivial as illustrated by this quotation from the Bunsen burners in a "basic laboratory" mixing Council for Progress in Science and Medicine up immediate cures. We fail to see how this (CPSM) on its World Wide Web page: applies to experiments showing that mon­ keys are afraid of snakes or that chicks A Lie That is Killing Us whose wings have been bound by adhesive Animal experimentation, also known as vivi­ tape since hatching cannot learn to fly. Yet section, is directly responsible for the ram­ both experiments were paid for by the NICHD pant growth of cancer, heart disease, diabe­ [National Institute of Child Health and Human tes, birth defects, arthritis, muscular dystro­ Development). (UAA n.d. Your Child or Your phy, leukemia, all kinds of mental diseases, Dog?) and an endless list of many other old afflic­ tions as well as scores of new ones, such An additional theme in anti-vivisection rheto­ as Alzheimer's disease, and AIDS. These ric involves the cost of this research. Claims­ diseases are causing the most massive, makers state money spent on this type of re­ systematic and widespread destruction of search, in light of the "payoff," is wasted. Rheto­ human health ever known. The reason is fun­ ric stresses taxpayers pay the bills for these damental: Today's research is based al­ "scams." most entirely on animal experimenta­ United Action for Animals (UAA) publishes tion, which is medical and scientific three pamphlets that include descriptions of fraud. It is impossible to re-create a natu­ various experiments involving animals. "Your rally occurring disease in a healthy animal Child or Your Dog?," "Animal Agony in Addic­ simply because once it is "re-created" it is no tion Research," and "Science Gone Insane," longer the original, natural disease. The pre­ describe specific research projects on child­ dictable result of looking at artificially dis­ hood issues, mental illness, and drug addic­ eased animals is that the data (are) not tion. The description of each project includes applicable to man and this is tragically the amount of money the research cost taxpay­ misleading. This is the reason why no dis­ ers. For example, the following are listed in a ease has been cured in the 20th century ex­ UAA pamphlet (bold print in the original): cept for the control of infectious diseases, which was accomplished thanks to nutrition, *Electric shocks to the brains of morphine­ hygiene, and public sanitation. Consequently, addicted monkeys causes withdrawal all the old diseases along with the new ones symptoms (Yale, 1987. COST $55,000). are killing and damaging more and more people *Squirrel monkeys dosed with lithium, a po­ every day, including you and your family and tent drug used in the treatment of friends. (CPSM n.d.) [bold in original) psychotics, lose their appetites. (National Institute of Mental Health, 1986. COST: The claim is one of waste - wasting ani­ $407,200). mals, wasting research, wasting time, and *Dogs with narcolepsy (a disease causing wasting quality of human life. This claims­ uncontrollable sleeping) spend more time making also includes the waste of taxpayers' drowsy and asleep than normal dogs. money on research involving animals. (Stanford University School of Medicine, 1986. COST: $847,000). Secondary Rationale Expansion: *Young pig tail monkeys housed in groups Fiscal Waste have disorganized sleep patterns be­ Congress continues to waste millions of dol­ cause they spend much of their time lars annually on this "basic," "no-goal" animal playing. (University of Colorado, 1982. experimentation, even as the Administration COST: $173,500). has cut spending for maternal and child health (UAA "Science Gone Insane" n.d.) programs by 18%, reduced funds for nutri­ tion programs such as WIC (Women-Infants­ LCA provides another example of this rhe­ Children), and plans further cuts in federal torical form. They published a brochure (n.d.), 52 Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology

"Inside the UCLA Brain Research Institute: A 1990). Taxpayer's Report." The claims in this "report" Jenness (1995) discusses gay and les. describe a project funded by the National bian activists' domain expansion of the cat. Institutes of Health (NIH) over a 20-year pe­ egory of hate crimes to include attacks on riod. They claim almost $24 million in taxpay­ homosexuals. Claims-makers argued that ers' money was spent to study induced dys­ violent crimes against gays were like attacks function in cats' brains with the hope this re­ on members of religious and ethnic minon. search may provide answers to human brain ties in that hate or bias motivated the violence. dysfunction. Another information sheet dis­ Once violent attacks against gays became tributed by LCA discusses cat research at established as a form of hate crime, activists UCLA. This sheet describes a project in which sought to expand the domain further. Because the spinal cords of kittens and cats were they too involved a predator-prey relationship, severed to ostensibly learn something helpful verbal harassment of gays, domestic violence for humans with spinal cord injury. The report in gay intimate relationships, and the multiple discusses the research procedures and discrimination suffered by African-American claims the research was sponsored by two or Jewish gays were also framed as forms of grants from NIH amounting to $2.8 million and sexual terrorism. Each expanded claim in­ $360,000. spired new policies (i.e. hot lines and educa­ Recent rhetoric provided by NAVS on their tional strategies) to deal with these problems World Wide Web page makes further claims Best (1990) presents a natural history for of wasting taxpayers' money on vivisection: domain expansion. The first stage involves initial claims-making, attempts to attract pub­ Wasted Lives and Wasted Funds lic attention and then persuade the public and More than $5 billion of tax revenues are spent policymakers to define some condition as a annually on animal research. Although stud­ problem needing a solution. Often, these ies by public health experts show that lifestyle claims are dramatic in order to catch the de­ accounts for 50 percent of the causes of sired attention (Orcutt, Turner 1993). Individu­ death in this country, virtually no money in the als or groups of claims-makers strive to have National Institute of Health's budget [$11 bil­ their concern viewed as significant by both the lion in 1994] is allocated to educating the public and policy-makers, so they may find rr public in the prevention of illness. (NAVS n.d.) helpful to place their claim within a standard frame (Gamson, Croteau, Haynes, Sasson DOMAINEXPANSIONINTHECONSTRUCTION 1992; Snow, Benford 1988, 1992) already OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS used in the classification of social problems Domain expansion is a process whereby Standard frames involve abstract conditions established social problems form the basis already accepted by the public and policy­ for making related claims to construct new makers as problem situations (i.e. abuse, problems. Best ( 1990) noted once physical destruction, waste, etc.). child abuse gained acceptance as a social The second stage is validation of the prob­ problem, claimants began to reconstruct the lem by others, especially those viewed as problem, making new claims about related experts in a given area. Nelson (1984) referred forms of abuse. Typically, claims-makers at­ to "valence issues" as those accepted, vali­ tempted to extend the boundary or domain of dated, and established on the policymaking child abuse to cover additional situations. agenda. The third and final stage in this natu­ Thus, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional ral history of social problems involves domain abuse became recognized as forms of child expansion, where established valence issues abuse; later claims included child-snatching become the foundation for additional claims, by estranged parents, illicit drug use, inad­ both by those already involved with the issue equate social services, explicit rock lyrics, and and by new "outside" claims-makers. Insid­ even traditional sex-role socialization as addi­ ers seek to expand the problem in order to gain tional forms of child abuse. "These new claims additional resources and recognition, while can be linked to the established problem: outsiders strive to place what they see as claims-makers present new, peripheral is­ salient issues on the public agenda. "Piggy­ sues as 'another form of,' 'essentially the backing new claims upon established social same as,' 'the moral equivalent of,' or 'equally problems increases the chances that the new damaging as' the original, core problem" (Best claims will receive validation" (Best 1990) Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 53

Domain expansion has not received much DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS attention from scholars examining rhetoric in Analysis of claims-making by anti-vivisec­ social problems construction. The theoretical tion groups demonstrates expanding rhetoric propositions put forth by Best (1990) and concentrating on a desired outcome. The out­ Jenness (1995) concerning domain expan­ come is ending practices that exploit animals sion need to be examined in light of claims for human concerns, the use of animals in bio­ made by other groups about other issues. medical research. These groups do not sim­ The form of domain expansion found in the ply rationalize outcomes through claiming rhetoric of these animal rights groups differs these practices are cruel to animals but rather from those discussed in Best's (1990) analy­ concentrate on the result and expand ration­ sis of the construction of child abuse or ales for supporting policy. In this manner, they Jenness' (1995) examination of hate crimes hope to increase support for the desired out­ against gays. In the research conducted by come regardless of whether or not others Best and Jenness, claims-makers sought to have the same concerns as animal rights add new phenomena to the domain of estab­ groups. Potential supporters may or may not lished problems. In contrast, claims by anti­ be convinced by cruelty claims; however, other viVisection groups remains focused on a per­ types of claims may convince them to advo­ ceived social problem and policy outcome. cate policy outcomes desired by animal rights Anti-vivisection rhetoric expands the list of groups. Essentially, animal rights groups are reasons - the rationales - for ending vivi­ attempting to achieve backdoor support for section. Initial rhetoric focused on cruelty to their issue. laboratory animals; however, this rhetoric did not attract enough sympathy from the public or Rationale Expansion in Social Problems policymakers to generate change. As a result, Development these groups expanded their rationale. Anti­ Initial studies of domain expansion focused viVisection groups claim vivisection does not on how claims about new problems built upon produce knowledge capable of raising the established social problems. Rhetoric from quality of human life and wastes taxpayer's the animal rights groups examined in this money. This paper illustrates rationale expan­ research reveals a different sort of expansion sion as another form of domain expansion in - rationale expansion - in which claims­ the construction of social problems. makers expand their list of reasons for ad­ The political nature and controversy sur­ dressing a particular problem. Rather than rounding the animal rights movement is ripe argue an issue is the moral equivalent of an for constructionist analyses of rhetoric. Vari­ already established problem, these groups ous interest groups, both in favor of and op­ remain focused on a particular goal. When posed to the use of animals for human con­ initial claims about animal cruelty were not cerns, attempt to convince the public and likely to achieve the desired results these policymakers that their ideology should form groups offered new rationales for eliminating the basis of public policy. Constructionist the use of animals for this human benefit. analysis of animal rights issues is recently Thus, even if people are not concerned with emerging in academic literature. These ar­ emotional claims about living and dying con­ ticles include Arluke and Hafferty (1996) on the ditions for laboratory animals, anti-vivisection construction of experience among medical groups believe they will respond to other ratio­ students working in a dog lab, Kunkel (1995) nal claims. In the case of anti-vivisection rheto­ on expanding rhetoric used by the Farm Ani­ ric, the expanded claims included "better" mal Reform Movement, Jasper and Poulsen alternatives to the use of animals in research, (1993) on social movement success and fail­ the lack of significant knowledge generated by ure, Arluke ( 1994) on the construction of labo­ this research, and alleged waste of taxpayers' ratory animals in advertisements, Phillips' money. No matter which rationale elicits move­ (1994) analysis of the construction of biogra­ ment resulting in response and behavioral phy among workers in an animal research change, the group's objective, the abolition of laboratory, and Maurer's ( 1995) content analy­ vivisection, is achieved. The strategy is one of sis of vegetarian rhetoric. Constructionists linking people concerned with different is­ are beginning to see animal rights issues as sues. In this case, those concerned with ani­ a significant source of data. mal rights are linked with those concerned with preserving human health or saving tax 54 Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology dollars. The goal is mounting a collective effort further increases the chance of success. to achieve a single outcome. The case study of anti-vivisection rhetoric Maurer (1995) categorized vegetarian suggests conditions in which rationale expan. claims using Ibarra and Kitsuse's ( 1993) no­ sion may occur. When certain putative condi­ tion of entitlement and endangerment. In veg­ tions are deeply embedded cultural practices etarian rhetoric, some claims involve entitle­ claims-makers are unlikely to generate wid~ ment where non-human animals are pre­ spread agreement that the condition consti­ sumed to have the right of consideration and tutes a problem. Therefore, groups perceiving treatment equal to human animals. Kunkel these practices as problems need to concen. (1995) found rhetoric used by the Farm Animal trate on anticipated solutions while deriving Reform Movement (FARM) also focused on other, more culturally compatible reasons for entitlement: farm animals do not deserve the supporting the policy outcome. Entitlement cruel treatment experienced under modern rhetoric centered upon a culturally unpopular farming conditions. But Maurer convincingly theme may never be persuasive or successful argues, in United States culture, claims of in problem construction. Rationale expansion entitlement do not offer solid reasons to change provides an indirect attempt to solve the origi­ dietary behavior. She suggests claims of en­ nal problem. People who accept one of these dangerment - arguments that meat is a added rationales, and take action for the cause, threat to health - offer a more concrete basis become advocates for the policy that solves for change and action. Kunkel (1995) found the original problem. Even though they may animal rights groups merely arguing that not view the original condition as a problem, modern farming techniques are cruel and their activities do indirectly contribute to the deprive pigs, chickens, and cows of inherent solution. rights does not generate enough support to launch full-scale boycotts of animal-food prod­ CONCLUSION ucts or enough pressure for legislators to From data gathered for this research it is regulate conditions on farms. Even when not possible to evaluate rationale expansion people are sympathetic to issues of animal as either a successful or unsuccessful strat­ welfare and rights, it is not easy to generate egy. Future research will be needed to deter­ sympathy for cows, pigs, and chickens. Be­ mine whether this strategy launches a suc­ cause these animals typically are thought of cessful social movement. Additional case stud­ as food, reflecting deep-seeded cultural and ies also will demonstrate how various groups personal dietary habits. cope with difficulty in expanding rationales for Along the same line, entitlement claims desired policy outcomes. For example, there probably will fail to generate enough sympathy are animal rights groups concerned with hu­ toward the plight of laboratory animals to end mans wearing fur. It may not be possible for vivisection. People may be somewhat sympa­ these groups to expand claims beyond entitle­ thetic; however, popular rhetoric from pro-vivi­ ment of animals used for fur. Can this issue be section forces claims this research is essen­ framed as an endangerment claim? Future tial for human quality of life. Furthermore, ani­ case studies may evaluate the effectiveness mals used in this type of research, typically of rationale expansion as a claims-making rats, mice, and monkeys, may not be close strategy as well as conditions under which enough to people's lives to generate much rationale expansion is or is not effective in sympathy based on cruelty rhetoric alone. As claims-making campaigns. a result, a majority of individuals may see the situation as unfortunate yet necessary. Claims REFERENCES that animals have a right to be free from this American Anti-Vivisection Society n.d. STOP: Why We Oppose Vivisection. Promotional Brochure mistreatment will not work. As was the case for Arluke A 1994 We build a better beagle: fantastic vegetarian rhetoric, as well as claims-making creatures in lab animal Ads Qualitative Sociol­ by FARM, expansion to claims of human en­ ogy 17 143-158 dangerment is necessary in order to increase Arluke A, F Hafferty 1996 From apprehension to fascination with 'dog lab': the use of absolutions the possibility of movement success. Thus, by medical students J Contemporary Ethnogra­ anti-vivisection claims also pre-sent endan­ phy 25 201-225 germent rhetoric as an additional rationale for Best J 1990 Threatened Children: Rhetoric and ending vivisection. Adding these types of Concern about Child-Victims Chicago: U Chi· cage Press claims to anti-vivisection rhetorical strategy Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology Volume 27 No. 1, May 1999 55 council for Progress in Science and Medicine n.d. Millsaps JR 1990 Governor vetoes Draize Bill Bulle­ http://www.cpsm.org/-cpsm . Accessed Feb­ tin of the National Anti-Vivisection Society num­ ruary 5, 1996. ber 2 10-11 16 Finsen L, S Finsen 1994 The Animal Rights Move­ National Anti-Vivisection Society n.d. The Campaign ment in America: From Compassion to Respect for Life. promotional brochure NY: Twayne --,,,----. n.d. A Compendium of Alternatives. promo­ Fox MW 1990 Inhumane Society: The American tional brochure Way of Exploiting Animals NY: St Martin's Press --,,-- n.d. What Physicians Say about Vivisec­ Gamson WA, D Croteau, W Haynes, T Sasson 1992 tion. promotional leaflet Media images and the social construction of n.d. http://www.cygnet.co.uk/NAVS . reality Annual Rev Sociology 18 373-393 Accessed on February 5, 1996. Ibarra PR, JI Kitsuse 1993 Vernacular constituents Nelson BJ 1984 Making an Issue of Child Abuse of moral discourse: an interactionist proposal for Chicago: U Chicago Press the study of social problems. 21-54 in G Miller, JA Orcutt J, JB Turner 1993 Shocking numbers and Holstein eds Constructionist Controversies: ls­ graphic accounts: quantified images of drug sues in Social Problems Theory Hawthorne NY: problems in the print media Socia/ Problems 40 Aldine de Gruyter 190-206 Jasper JM, D Nelkin 1992 The Animal Rights Cru­ Phillips MT 1994 Proper names and the social con­ sade: The Growth of a Moral Protest NY: Free struction of biography: the negative case of Press laboratory animals Qualitative Sociology 17 119- Jasper JM, J Poulsen 1993 Fighting back: vulnerabili­ 142 ties, blunders, and countermobilization by the Sharpe R 1988 The Cruel Deception: The Use of targets of three animal rights campaigns Socio­ Animals in Medical Research Wellingborough logical Forum 8 639-657 England: Thorsons Publishers Jenness V 1995 Social movement growth, domain Singer P 1975 Animal Uberation: A New Ethics for expansion, and framing processes: the gay/ Our Treatment of Animals NY: Avon Books lesbian movement and violence against gays and Snow DA, RD Benford 1988 Ideology, frame reso­ lesbians as a social problem Social Problems 42 nance, and participant mobilization International 145-170 Social Movements Res 1 197-217 Kunkel KR 1995 Down on the farm: rationale expan­ 1992 Master frames and cycles of sion in the construction of factory farming as a protest. 133-155 in AD Morris, CM Mueller eds social problem. 239-256 in J Best ed Images of Frontiers in Social Movement Theory New Ha­ Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Prob­ ven: Yale U Press lems 2nd ed Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter Ulrich RE 1991 Animal research: a psychological Kupsine R nd Vivisection: Science or Sham?. distrib­ ritual Animals' Agenda 11 40-44 uted by Last Chance for Animals United Action for Animals Inc n.d. Animal Agony in Last Chance for Animals n.d. Facts about Vivisec­ Addiction Research. promotional brochure tion. promotional leaflet -.,...... --,- n.d. Science Gone Insane. promotional -~- n.d. Inside the UCLA Brain Research Insti­ brochure tute: A Taxpayer's Report. promotional brochure ___ n.d. Your Child or Your Dog?. promotional Maggitti P 1994 Prisoners of war: the abuse of brochure animals in military research Animals' Agenda 14 20-23 25-26 Maurer D 1995 Meat as a social problem: rhetorical strategies in the contemporary vegetarian litera­ ture. 143-163 in D Maurer, J Sobal eds Eating Agendas: Food and Nutrition as Social Issues Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter