Analysis of Communication of Animal Welfare and Animal Rights in Aquariums

Introduction

Writers and writing within the scientific discourse community are greatly shaped by the media that they need to produce, what the media consists of, and whom the media needs to reach. Discourse communities are areas of rhetorical context, yet are often narrower than cultures as a whole. Within discourse communities, loose community-based ideals and norms can influence how writing within that community is done. When analyzing a discourse community, the members of the discourse community are the most important factor, not the audience. The expectations shared by the members of a discourse community provide for a sense of belonging. These expectations are shown in the work produced by the discourse communities, which are conditioned and formed by members of the community.

Discourse communities require oral and written modes of communication that affect the purpose of the media produced, roles for writers, and specific genre conventions that are defined based on the communicative situation related to the topic being covered (Beaufort, 1997). These discourse communities are the foundation for efficient communication of information within fields. Without a scientific discourse community, the research that scientists do to understand the surrounding world and try to improve it would never be seen and engaged with by other scientists. Scientific discourse is built on accountability and factual evidence. At the heart of scientific discourse is the genre of the experimental report, since it provides vital evidence that supports this accountability (Bazerman, 1988, 2000). Furthermore, Montgomery (2014) states, in reference to scientists, “Communicating is our life’s work—it is what determines our presence and place, a shared reality in the world” (p. 2). This statement shows that because communication is so important in creating and sharing science, being a good scientist requires one to also be a good communicator. As Montgomery (2014) elaborates, “To a large degree, your reputation will rest on your ability to communicate,” (p. 4). The stronger one’s scientific writing is, the more effective one’s impact in science will be.

As one example of a scientific discourse community, animal welfare experts communicate across many types of media. For members of the aquarium animal welfare discipline, an immense amount of communication takes place within this scientific discourse community composed of aquarists and other scientists, as well as among members of this discourse community, advocacy groups, and the general public. Depending on an expert’s particular argument regarding aquarium animal welfare and what audience they are addressing, the act of communication takes place in one of many different genres.

The use of specific genres provides scientists and writers with a sense of community, since discourse communities often focus on specific genres. Genres are also flexible categories that are continuously evolving in terms of their purpose and form, so animal welfare experts are always learning how to better communicate with one another and the public (Reiff & Bawarshi, 2016). Scientific articles are first addressed to the scientific discourse community and their targeted audience is mainly scientists and students of science. Science is a process that largely focuses on accountability and scientific papers are a great source of that accountability since they provide detailed evidence of experiments performed (Bazerman, 1988). Policy documents, such as “Caring for Wildlife: The World Zoo and Aquarium Animal Welfare Strategy,” are also often used in zoos and aquariums. This document is aimed towards zoos and aquariums with a targeted audience of those in the scientific field, focused on animal welfare. Despite not being a scientific article published in a journal, the document still follows the specific genre standards for an academic paper set by the scientific discourse community. It contains an introduction, literature review, and organized layout with section heading labels (“Caring for Wildlife,” 2016).

In this paper, I will analyze the differences in communication styles and genres in two different cases. Each brought the scientific discourse community of animal welfare experts into contact with the animal rights discourse community, exposing both challenges and opportunities regarding how animal welfare experts communicate with others within and beyond their own discourse communities.

Animal welfare and animal rights may seem similar but are vastly different topics. Animal welfare is scientifically based, while animal rights is not. Aquarists and other scientists studying animal welfare focus in their communication on how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. The topic of animal rights isn’t based on science but rather on one’s ethical philosophy. The animal rights discourse community focuses on the premise that animals should not be viewed as clothing, food, entertainment, property, or research subjects. The common goal of this discourse community is to accomplish things such as getting animals out of captivity, research labs, zoos, and aquariums as well as eliminating animals from clothing and diets.

Whether or not aquariums are ethical can be seen as a debatable and even controversial topic. Many people have fond memories of visiting aquariums as children and being highly entertained and inspired by witnessing dolphins performing marvelous tricks, viewing exotic tropical fish, or participating in touch-tanks filled with stingrays or starfish. However, the welfare standards that allow for having such animals on display are often questioned by aquarists and other members of the animal welfare discourse community. This issue is debated across a range of media, such as journal articles, webinars, and conference presentations. Animal welfare standards are often discussed in different ways depending on the purpose. There can also be misconceptions regarding these standards that are falsely communicated by people such as animal rights activists, and often aquarists and other members of the animal welfare discourse community try to counter these false claims through different genres, such as magazine articles, conferences, documentaries, or in some cases the news. Meanwhile, animal rights activists often share ideas about moral ethics with one another and the public through social media posts, protests, conferences, magazine and newspaper articles, and documentaries, such as the widely seen 2013 documentary Blackfish, produced by Magnolia Pictures and CNN Films (Cowperthwaite, 2013)