| abstract | This dissertation is concerned with the uses of anthropomorphism and sentimentality by animal organization websites in the
United States. These include secular groups: (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) and
religious groups such as, (All-Creatures.org and Jewish Veg), and religious departments of secular organizations (Faith Outreach of the Humane Society of the
United States and Jesus People For Animals). Religion plays a role in the history of the development of the welfare movement, and particularly strong in the
19th century. As the movement faded and redeveloped in the 1970s, Christianity and Judaism were particularly derided. Yet, religion has had a renewal of importance
in animal studies, especially in the last 20 years, demonstrated in part by the presence of religious animal groups. Disparaged by some in the scientific community,
anthropomorphism portrays animals in human terms. Animal philosophers have viewed sentimentality, which evokes emotions such as compassion, empathy, sympathy, and
care as inappropriate for activism and philosophical discourse. Public stereotypes of animal advocates as overly emotional or only care about animals have been
used against the movement. There is a link between the two concepts in the way that animal organizations use anthropomorphism and sentimentality simultaneously
to build support. The purpose of this dissertation is descriptive, showing how animal organizations use anthropomorphism and sentimentality at a rhetorical
level for persuasion. The dissertation argues that a developed moral theory of sentimentality, based on ecofeminism and contemporary sentimentalist philosophy
grounded in the work of philosophers such as Josephine Donovan, David Hume and Adam Smith would further the movement. Such an expanded moral theory provides
organizations with a moral grounding that moves beyond and avoids the criticisms of rights and utilitarian philosophy that have plagued the movement. |
