**3.** *Racing Extinction* **and** *Seaspiracy***—Context and Synopsis**

*Racing Extinction* is a 2015 documentary that weaves together themes of animal protection and climate change, connecting the inherent cruelty in wildlife hunting to the ecological harms of biodiversity loss. Director Louie Psihoyos' previous film, *The Cove*, has been criticized for demonizing Japanese fisherman in contrast to an ecologically mindful West (Freeman 2012; Haynes 2013, p. 28). Freeman (2012) argues that *The Cove*'s limited focus on cetaceans ignores the exploitation of fish generally, discussing fish only as food or for their role in ecological stability (Freeman and Tulloch 2013). Although *Racing Extinction* has not received as much scholarly attention as *The Cove*, it has similarly been criticized for generating a Manichean dualism between unfeeling Chinese traders and Western environmentalists (von Mossner 2020), leading Truscello (2018) to conclude that the film produces a "orientalist visual grammar" (p. 264).

*Racing Extinction* follows Psihoyos and ocean conservationists Paul Hilton and Shawn Heinrichs around the world, drawing connections between local pollution, the wildlife trade and species extinction. The film begins at The Hump, an LA-based restaurant where the film crew successfully orders whale meat, resulting in protests against Japanese whale fishing. The crew then travels to the Cornell Bioacoustic Laboratory where they encounter audio recordings of blue whales and extinct species, such as the mating call of the last male Kaua❛ i ❛ o¯ ❛ o. Heinrichs and Hilton lead the viewer through several Chinese ¯ wildlife markets where shark fins and manta gills are traded, before infiltrating a shark slaughterhouse in Pu Qi. Briefly touring an oyster hatchery and cows grazing in the U.S., *Racing Extinction* proceeds to Lamakera, Indonesia, filming Lamakerans killing mantas. After heading to the U.S. to observe various environmental efforts—a prairie reserve, a greened Empire State Building, a low emission racing car and Elon Musk's plea for citizens to use electric vehicles—the grand conclusion of the film takes place in New York City, where Psihoyos projects images of endangered species onto major buildings from a retrofitted Tesla. Interspersed throughout the film are interviews with scientists describing the threats facing ocean wildlife and the need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

*Seaspiracy* is a 2021 animal advocacy documentary by Ali Tabrizi centered on the harms of fishing. Beginning with the effects of plastic on marine life, the film follows Tabrizi through major fishing areas: Japan, Hong Kong, West Africa, Norway and more. Interviewing a mix of marine biologists, nutritionists and ocean activists, *Seaspiracy* challenges the impetus behind sustainable fishing, favoring "a hands-off" approach that eliminates fishing wherever possible. Critical of the Western focus on notorious fishing practices in Asia (e.g., shark-fin soup, the Taiji dolphin hunt), *Seaspiracy* aims to show that there is *no* ethical or sustainable fishing, but that the attention on Asian industries displaces focus away from Western marine exploitation masked by rubber-stamped regulations and greenwashing (such as "dolphin-free tuna" certifications, which are heavily criticized in the film). For example, Tabrizi is shocked to realize that bycatch (the killing of non-target marine species by fisheries) near the coast of France kills ten times as many dolphins a year as the infamous Taiji dolphin hunt, which is the subject of several eco-films, including Psihoyos' *The Cove*. As a result, *Seaspiracy* outlines a universalist ethic towards marine exploitation, declaring that all fishing, even "sustainable" practices, must be rejected on ethical and environmental grounds.

#### **4. Methodology**

As there is no universal method for film analysis (Mikos 2014, p. 420), the author followed Mikos' (2014) recommendation of developing a general cognitive purpose (a guiding set of questions) before observing the object of interest, reflecting on the levels of analysis potentially relevant for investigation. As analysis may be guided by any single or several different levels depending on the cognitive purpose (Mikos 2014, p. 413), analysis centered on the interplay of narration, characters and aesthetic choices that direct the viewer towards certain impressions of species extinction. Guided by an interest in intersectional approaches to nonhuman animal imagery in climate communication, the author transcribed the film's core plot structure, recording every instance of animal imagery and noting the duration and species of animal depicted (as far as possible). Salt (1974) recommends that a quantitative approach to film be carried out through comparison of one primary film to another within the same genre. Although this paper focuses more on the meaning generated within two specific films (rather than of the style of the director, as Salt does), I do take note of both the total number of shots or sequences and the length of each shot. The intent of such a "statistical method" of film analysis is to ground analysis in a repeatable, close reading of a film-maker's choices rather than a purely interpretative approach (Salt 1974, 2009, 2001). However, this approach goes beyond mere analysis of shots and shot length—making use of such quantitative metrics as the basis to chart the influence of a particular film-maker's beliefs or aesthetic desires (Salt 2001, p. 99).

Each sequence that shows one or more nonhuman animals was recorded as a distinct data point (although overall time onscreen was also recorded). Sequences were distinguished by "cuts" that resulted in a temporal shift, change of location, transition in subject of analysis, or otherwise interrupted running footage. Although this runs the risk of potentially repeating nonhuman animals across scenes, it is virtually impossible to identify if a given shark or dolphin reappears in wide shots that feature hundreds of animals. In any case, the montage itself is a necessary unit of analysis as decisions concerning perspective, backdrop or transition to new angles generates meaning through the editing process (Mikos 2017). As eco-films construct a particular reading of a topic through conscious decisions of what to include or leave out, it is particularly important to examine what is *not* shown (Loy 2016). Indeed, the invisibility of nonhuman animals in major films may be a dominant

way of propagating anthropocentric ideology (Loy 2016; Nibert 2002, p. 208; Taylor 2015). The analysis thus also critically interrogates what forms of animal imagery were not shown and what such silences reveal about the film.

Sequences that featured nonhuman animals were coded as *unharmed wildlife* (nonhuman animals not under immediate danger—either in natural habitat or forced into sanctuaries or other forms of captivity), *extinct* (preserved remains of extinct species), *threatened* (nonhuman animals depicted as injured, dying or dead and their body parts—flesh, gills, fins, etc.) or *other* (domesticated animals on farms, cartoons, etc.). Information and location of the actor that posed a threat (for threatened subjects) were also recorded. Although violence is levied against animals in a variety of direct (e.g., fishing, dismembering, trapping) and indirect ways (e.g., plastic pollution, greenhouse gas emissions), the *threatened* code emphasized the visual presence of direct imminent harm to animals rather than a general state of being threatened—which risked categorizing *every* animal featured as under threat of harm from captivity, climate change or habitat destruction. For example, although removing fish from their natural habitat and containing them within aquariums is an act of violence, sequences with aquariums were not coded as "threatened". However, visual indications of animal disappearance were coded as threatened—as in projections of animals with a population counter plummeting to zero or images of animals dissolving into pixels with associated priming words such as "extinction".

A similar difficulty arose in classifying nonhuman animals as *Racing Extinction* is filled with images of animal corpses and dried remnants. Informed by a Critical Animal and Media Studies (CAMS) perspective that seeks to make the hidden processes of violence against animals recognizable (Almiron et al. 2016), I coded images of animal body parts (e.g., gills, fins, flesh of fish, cows or whales sold for consumption) as *threatened* even though such threats may have occurred prior to filming. A CAMS perspective rejects the anthropocentric privileging of human interests over other animals, acknowledging the ethical demand to bear witness to the violence inflicted against other animals (Freeman 2009, p. 104). A central aspect of CAMS is an intersectional framework (Crenshaw 1989) that examines the discursive interconnections between animal and human oppression—unpacking how anthropocentric discourse acts in tandem with colonialism, racism, gender normativity, sexism, ableism and more—to constitute a collective matrix of oppression built around a distance from an idealized male, White European human subject (Almiron 2019). This is particularly important for animal advocacy that makes use of environmental frames, as such strategies may advance a genuinely universal approach to animal oppression (Almiron 2019; Freeman 2014) or further solidify such violent systems by enhancing racist tropes (Kim 2015) or advancing eco-friendly oppression of animals (Cole 2015). The former has been termed the "total liberation" or "abolitionist approach" to animal liberation (Nocella et al. 2015; Francione and Charlton 2017). Other scholars have argued that scholarship examining media aimed at a largely Western audience ought to challenge anthropocentric framings within a "decolonial telos" that centralizes the role Western actors play in reproducing colonial violence, animal oppression and masking their own complicity (Muller 2021). This is not to abdicate critique of non-Western animal oppression or advance a moral relativism that denies global violence against animals. As Kim (2015) argues, the aim is not to say that "there is no *there* there" when facing animal suffering, but to critique how non-universal frames selectively choose certain animals as a "vehicle for ethnocentrism and even imperialism", re-creating speciesist hierarchies of value along national and racial lines (pp. 82, 83, emphasis mine).

#### **5. Results**

The results first describe the number and location of animal images in *Racing Extinction* (Figure 1) and in *Seaspiracy* (Figure 2). Total time of footage and more specific analysis is discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, but the absolute number of sequences was used to generate the graphed comparison.

**Figure 1.** *Racing Extinction's* Animal Imagery.

**Figure 2.** *Seaspiracy's* Animal Imagery.


The U.S. was predominantly associated with unharmed wildlife, totaling 69 sequences (176 s and 49.28% of total sequences), surpassing the number of sequences (65, 431 s) associated with Natural Habitats (46.4% of total), the next highest location. The only other

unharmed wildlife imagery was five sequences (20 s) of whale sharks in Isla Mujeres (3.57% of total) and a single sequence (2 s) from news footage of an unknown country in Africa (0.71% of total).

Representations of wildlife in their natural habitats are paired with upbeat, happy music and a narration that affirms the importance of leaving these animals be. Imagery of unharmed wildlife in natural habitats was one of the most significant categories, encompassing 65 sequences and 431 s of footage—exceeded only by unharmed animals in the U.S. However, 69 sequences of unharmed wildlife in the U.S. only covered 176 s of footage, mostly within reserves or captivity—suggesting that footage of animals in their natural habitat featured long, extended shots of a broader environment.

#### 5.1.2. Extinct Animals

Extinct animals were most commonly associated with an unknown location (16 sequences, 27 s, 48.48% of all extinct sequences), followed by Mongolia's Gobi Desert (9 sequences, 24 s, 27.2%) and then the U.S. (8 sequences, 59 s, 24.2%).

#### 5.1.3. Threatened Animals

Threatened animals were mostly commonly shown within China with 56 distinct sequences (216 s), encompassing 45.5% of all threatened sequences. Lamakera was the second most frequent, with 38 sequences (169 s) or 30.9% of the total. Lamakera was followed by the U.S., with 12 sequences (33 s) or 9.75% of the total. The fourth most frequent location for threatened sequences was Natural Habitats, with 11 sequences (22 s) or 8.9% of the total. Finally, an unknown country in Africa featured on a news broadcast, the 2013 CITES meeting in Thailand and an Unknown Location each had two sequences (3 s) of threatened animals, or 1.6%, respectively. Notably, Lamakera and China were unique in *only* being associated with threatened animals. The 2013 CITES meeting in Thailand was also only associated with threatened animals, but this consisted of manta gills from Lamakera and footage of manta hunting by fishermen from Lamakera.

#### 5.1.4. Threatening Actors

The actors that threatened animals differed greatly by location. In China, the threatening actors only consisted of Chinese fishermen, workers and consumers who killed sharks or traded their body parts. In Lamakera, the only threatening actor shown was Lamakera villagers, who were shown hunting and carving up mantas. In the CITES meeting in Thailand, the threatening actor was also Lamakera villagers, as gills and footage from the manta hunt were shown during deliberations. In the news broadcast discussing the future of the Ivory Trade in Africa, an unknown person with a gun was the threatening actor to elephants. The most common threatening actor for the Natural Habitats location was Japanese fishing boats (7/11 sequences), followed by unknown actors (4/11 sequences).

Animals under threat in the U.S. were threatened by markedly distinct actors. For one, only a single sequence showed an immediate threat to animals clearly connected to human activity—a 6 s recording of fish swimming in polluted waters near a sewer pipe in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Two sequences (5 s total) were of whale flesh purchased at The Hump, which the film connects with the Japanese whale-fishing industry. Eight sequences (totaling 20 s) consisted of projections of endangered animals onto buildings in New York City. These projections featured animal images (often of a single animal in the style of a portrait), with a general indication that these species were under threat. For example, several projections paired an endangered species (a Gray Wolf or Ocelot) with a population counter that rapidly fell to zero, before fading the animal image to black. For other species, such as the Florida Panther or the Francois' Langurs, as the population counter hit zero, the animal images disintegrated into pixels. The most explicit depiction of the threat facing endangered wildlife was a projection that transitioned images of lions, eagles and apes into

skulls, while the caption reads "In the next 100 years, we could lose 50% of all species on earth".

Animals under threat in countries other than the U.S. were often showed being killed. Footage from Pu Qi featured extended footage of dozens of whale sharks being carved into pieces. Sequences affiliated with Natural Habitats primarily showed images of Japanese commercial whale fishing, spearing whales before hauling corpses onto ships or piling bloody sharks to be processed. Footage from Lamakera overwhelmingly showed villagers stabbing manta rays with machetes, dragging corpses to shore and removing organs.

#### 5.1.5. Other

Animals in the *Other* category included domesticated animals such as cows, oysters and images of animals (cartoons, etc.). *Other* animals were most commonly shown in the U.S., with 13 sequences (55 s), or 81.25% of the total. U.S. other animals included 11 sequences (50 s) of cows grazing under aerial shots and lighthearted music, 1 sequence (4 s) of oysters in a hatchery and 1 sequence (1 s) of a projection of a cow outside a McDonalds. Shark cartoons and statues in Isla Mujeres were three sequences (12 s) or 18.75% of the total.

#### *5.2. Seaspiracy's Visuals*

#### 5.2.1. Unharmed Wildlife

Unharmed wildlife was predominantly associated with unspecific locations in the Ocean, encompassing 65 sequences (279 s and 65.6% of unharmed wildlife sequences), surpassing that of an unspecified Marine Park (10 sequences, 47 s and 10.1% of total sequences), Liberia (10 sequences, 40 s and 10.1% of the total), Scotland (4 sequences, 11 s and 4% of the total), Faroe Islands (3 sequences, 25 s, 3%), Taiji, Japan (3 sequences, 14 s, 3%), Hong Kong (3 sequences, 13 s, 3%) and Kii-Katsuura, Japan (1 sequence, 3 s). In contrast to *Racing Extinction*, which associated unharmed wildlife primarily with the United States, unharmed wildlife could be found in most major regions in *Seaspiracy*.

#### 5.2.2. Threatened Animals

Threatened animals were shown in a roughly equal manner across many major locations. The most predominant location was the Ocean, with 57 sequences (221 s, 11.3% of total *Threatened* sequences), followed by Kii-Katsuura, Japan with 29 sequences (96 s, 12.2%), the Faroe Islands (Denmark) with 28 sequences (133 s, 11.8%), Liberia (27 sequences, 118 s, 11.3%), Scotland (23 sequences, 56 s, 9.6%), England (18 sequences, 53 s, 7.6%), Taiji, Japan (16 sequences, 34 s, 6.7%), Norway (11 sequences, 48 s, 4.6%), Hong Kong (8 sequences, 20 s, 3.4%), France (7 sequences, 27 s, 2.9%), The United States (5 sequences, 16 s, 2.1%), Unknown locations (5 sequences, 16 s, 2.1%) and finally Thailand (3 sequences, 13 s, 1.3%).

#### 5.2.3. Threatening Actors

The actors that threatened animals generally aligned with the location. In Taiji or Kii-Katsuura Japan, the threatening actor was usually Japanese workers and fishermen who killed dolphins, finned sharks or transported tuna. In the Faroe Islands, the Faroese were the only threatening actor to whales, which is mirrored in England, Hong Kong, France, The United States and Thailand, etc. The two exceptions to this were Liberia and the Ocean. In Liberia, the threatening actors were predominantly European and Chinese fishing vessels that had come to illegally fish in more abundant waters. In the Ocean, a variety of actors were shown threatening animals. For example, *Seaspiracy* highlighted the Japanese whaling industry, French bycatch of dolphins, turtles trapped in U.S. fishing gear, seals caught in English plastic waste and the general practice of bycatch by commercial fishing vessels internationally.

Unlike in *Racing Extinction,* animals in every location were shown being brutally killed by a variety of actors. Sequences from the Faroe Islands featured a prolonged and bloody hunt of pilot whales. In France, dead dolphins caught in nets accompanied revelations about abhorrent bycatch practices. In Scotland and England, beached whales, dead seal pups and sick salmon were connected to fishing gear and other waste. In Hong Kong and Japan, shark and tuna were shown first as dying individuals and then as products for sale. Indeed, one of the notable aspects of *Seaspiracy'*s animal imagery is its equal attention to the global harms of commercial fishing– as the number of threatening sequences in Scotland, Taiji, Kii-Katsuura, England, the Faroe Islands, Hong Kong and Norway are roughly similar.

#### **6. Discussion**

The use of nonhuman animal imagery in climate communication may be a valuable tool to facilitate greater concern and awareness for environmental harms *and* animal exploitation. Departing from a purely ecological focus, *Racing Extinction* portrays several commonly denigrated wildlife species as individuals worthy of concern and protection. In this way, the film is a significant rupture of hegemonic portrayals of species such as sharks within a "Jaws narrative" (Cermak 2021) and aligns with recommendations by Freeman and Merskin (2015) to represent animals in their natural habits and as individuals with their own interests and desires.

The film's narrative also supports a view that mantas, sharks and whales have value intrinsically, not just instrumentally. Narrating footage of a tawny nurse shark dying after her fins were amputated, Heinrichs calls the scene "horrific" as this "beautiful" shark was "trying to swim, but it couldn't swim. And it was heartbreaking". Recalling the killing of a manta in Lamakera, Heinrich tears up, saying "I watched its soul just disappear in front of me". In Hong Kong, a member of the film crew, Dr. Heather Rally, is overcome with emotion looking at the racks of shark fins, saying "Jesus" and looking away. As the camera pans over thousands of shark fins drying in racks, Psihoyos declares "I feel like this world is absolutely insane". Before traveling to Lamakera, Heinrich is shown removing a fishing hook from a manta and looking at the manta in the eyes, before remarking in the voiceover, "you're gonna be okay" as he realized that "she knew I was trying to help her". Discussing species extinction, Psihoyos is so overcome with emotion over the Baiji Dolphin that he has to temporarily stop speaking. As footage rolls of Lamakera villagers carving gills out of the bodies of dead mantas, Hilton remarks "It's just losing a bit of magic, you know? The world, without that species, to me, it's empty, you know?" Going beyond questions of the ecological sustainability of manta ray fishing, Heinrichs declares a mission of making it "socially unacceptable to consume these animals".

However, *Racing Extinction* does not extend this consideration to other marine life. When the film exposes The Hump for serving whale, the crew discuss their other dishes; having ordered whale and horse and already eaten the flesh of cows (high-grade Kobe beef), codfish and shrimp. Of these various animals, only one (whale) serves as a spectacle for shock, inspiring protests and the film's condemnation of Japanese whale fishing. Indeed, only the whale flesh is visible to the viewer—the rest are discussed but not shown. This message is repeated in the film's positive regard of anti-whale environmental protestors outside The Hump, particularly the projector work of Adi Gil. The camera lingers over signs with messages such as "Japan stop slaughtering whales", "whales don't belong on plates", "stop the murder, stop the death", "No Whale Sushi", an image of a whale with the caption "Not 4 Sushi" and a sign reading "No Whale!" accompanied by an image of a person holding chopsticks. Of course, the irony of such a protest is that the business model of The Hump necessitated the murder of fish and other animals, far before whale flesh found its way to the film crew's table. As a result of this selective focus, *Racing Extinction* reproduces the disappearance of less charismatic animals—rendering them "absent referents" to the film's outcry against whaling. The distinction between acceptable consumption of shrimp, cows or other marine life (with their own environmental consequences, some discussed

in the film) and those that cross this threshold (whales, mantas, sharks) seems to reflect a Western intuition over which animals are consumable more than the avoidance of disparate environmental effects or genuine care for the well-being of nonhuman animals.

Similarly, when *Racing Extinction* tours several oyster hatcheries, the film does not explore the fate of oysters but limits this sequence to interviews with hatchery production managers, who describe how ocean acidification threatens food chains by killing oyster larvae. Oysters are only shown for a single sequence as a generalized mass, rather than as individuals. There is some controversy over the extent of a moral responsibility to oysters popular vegans such as Peter Singer have deemed it acceptable (Cox 2010), claiming that oysters lack a complex central nervous system and thus process pain differently than other animals or not at all, but others have strongly criticized this perspective, arguing that oysters may feel pain (Feliz 2017), that moral responsibility to animals is not limited to pain (Bekoff 2010), and that there is a need to be precautious in the face of uncertainty (Francione 2020, p. 147). In any case, *Racing Extinction* does not explore the possibility of oysters as beings rather than things for food, either narratively or visually.

Along with oysters, cows are only discussed in light of ecological harms. In sharp contrast to the marine life killed elsewhere, *Racing Extinction* does not show the killing of a cow, only a quick shot of flesh cooking on a grill—the violence inherent to the process of converting living cows into flesh for consumption occurs out of sight (Adams 2015a, 2015b). This contrasts the actions in Pu Qi, where the film crew releases photographs of dead sharks in what they label a "shark slaughterhouse". The association stuck, and dozens of headlines by major news outlets featuring the term "shark slaughterhouse" flash by the viewer. Despite the willingness to use the term slaughterhouse, at no point is "slaughterhouse" associated with the meat or dairy industry. In this way, *Racing Extinction's* heightened visibility of sharks killed in the Pu Qi slaughterhouse is juxtaposed to the invisibility of the slaughter of domesticated animals in the U.S.

Narratively, Psihoyos frames the killing of cows as a problem of inefficiency, not ethics—arguing "One cow is not a problem, but now we have 1.5 billion of them. And it's an incredibly inefficient way of producing food". Lester Brown, the founder of the Earth Policy Institute, also stresses ecological harms as "the more dependent we are on meat, milk, and eggs, the greater the CO2 and methane emissions". In the conclusion, a projection states "Eat more plants!" while the film quantifies the impact of meat and dairy reduction with the statement "if every American skipped meat and cheese just one day a week for a year, it would be like taking 7,600,000 cars off the road". The conclusion features a projection of a cow wearing a methane-gathering bag next to a McDonalds, captioned "Got Methane?" The narration by Dr. J.E.N. Veron of the Australian Institute of Marine Science features a lighthearted plea for a new diet on ecological grounds: "It sounds a bit silly. Change your diet and save the planet, but if humans could become vegetarians now, you would make a massive difference". Juxtaposed to Heinrichs' campaign to absolutely ban manta consumption, *Racing Extinction* favors requests to simply moderate consumption of other animals. The difference in tone (one as suggestion, the other as punitive) reveals a differential relationship to animal individuality. As it is "easier to sell Americans on dolphin and whale protection because Americans don't eat them", the concern for manta rays, sharks or whales may be premised on the distinction between the intrinsic value of unfamiliar wildlife in distant places and more routine violence overlooked domestically (Freeman 2012, p. 112).

However, *Racing Extinction's* selective recognition of animal individuality goes beyond species hierarchy. Contra Whitley and Kalof's (2014) critique of animal imagery, *Racing Extinction* does not divorce humans from images of animal suffering. Showing nonhuman animals being killed and having fins and gills forcibly removed, *Racing Extinction* does not shy away from depicting graphic footage to garner sympathy for animals. Such moral shock footage may be a necessary disruption of hidden violence against animals (Fernández 2019, 2021; Taylor 2015), what Freeman and Tulloch (2013) have termed "a reverse panopticon" where an animal may look back at the human viewer (Derrida 2008). However, the film

problematically limits the causes of species extinction to a select group of people. Threatened animals were overwhelmingly shown in China and Lamakera, together encompassing more than 75% of all sequences of violence. For the vast majority of threatened animals, the threatening actors were Chinese fishermen, traders, consumers and Lamakeran villagers. In other locations threatening actors were either Japanese whaling (natural habitats) unknown (Africa, natural habitats, unknown location), Lamakera fishermen (Thailand) or the unknown Chef at the Hump (U.S.). These threatening actors were featured in graphic footage, such as mantas being killed in front of the camera (Lamakera), bloody shark bodies being piled on boats (Japan) and the carving up of sharks and mantas for fins and gills (China, Lamakera). Although the U.S. was associated with some threats, the threatening actors were diverse and not graphic: a sewer pipe, an unknown actor grilling cow flesh and projections of endangered animals.

In contrast to China and Lamakera, the U.S. was primarily connected to indirect forms of climate violence—visuals of past extinction events, fossil fuel emissions and barren wastelands. Projections in NYC show endangered species disintegrating into pixels, melting away or fading to black. However, at no point is the specific threat to these animals clear nor are they shown in a state of harm, which facilitates the impression that the effects of climate change are far off (Born 2019; Whitley and Kalof 2014). Images of industrial smokestacks adorned with the U.S. flag were overlaid with narration by Dr. Veron that focused on carbon dioxide spikes. This transitioned into footage of volcanoes erupting, but no animals or humans were shown. When discussing the environmental impacts of the Gulf Oil spill, footage of burning oil was shown, but no animals were depicted. Although the narration by Veron discussed mass marine death as the result of ocean acidification, the sequence showed only an empty ocean, with no marine life present. Visual representations of the Sixth Mass Extinction event—narratively associated with both wildlife fishing and GHGs—were abstract; raging fires and globes struck by asteroids. The absence of any animal images from these renditions of climate change suggests both that the harm to nonhuman animals is selectively erased in *Racing Extinction's* framing of species loss (Almiron and Faria 2019) and that images of animal suffering may generate a response distinct from that of general environmental catastrophe or narrative and sonic priming (Aaltola 2014).

Somewhat similar, a minor theme in *Racing Extinction* is the metaphorization of past extinction events to the present. In the introduction, the excited squeaks and clicks of dolphins overlay images of dinosaur skeletons, while the concluding scene shows endangered species melt into skulls. Footage of fossils being uncovered in the Gobi Desert is paired with sad or thrilling music, highlighting the threat posed to current endangered species. As Smaill (2016) suggests, animals in documentary films resemble "that of animals already extinct" (p. 74), capturing a mythologized form of an endangered species disconnected from her embodied reality. As the cause of past extinction events is disconnected narratively from on-going species extinction, this metaphor also does not outline a clear sense of responsibility or actionable solution.

In total, there was *no* sequence in the film that showed an agent (a person, fishing vessel or environmental catastrophe such as oil spills) from the U.S. (or any other Western country) directly killing an animal. Although the film's narration describes the threat climate change poses to life on the planet, there were no sequences that showed animals suffering direct harm clearly brought about by climate change. As images of suffering prime intense empathic responses, including potential ethnic bias (Hoffman 2001), this omission risks positing that endangered species, and marine biodiversity generally, are primarily under attack by Asian subjects—expanding the scope of the "Asian Super Consumer stereotype" from the wildlife trade to global ecosystem stability. Visually and narratively divorcing the West from its role in wildlife eradication, *Racing Extinction* reproduces a selective ignorance to the causes of species extinction by constraining the causal mechanisms to a limited set of actions and actors. In so doing, it reproduces a hierarchy of species and a racial hierarchy of responsibility that primarily locates violence against animals outside of the Western world.

This risks the scapegoating of non-White rulebreakers (Muller 2020), whitewashing the complicity of the U.S. in speciesist violence against marine life by juxtaposition.

Kim (2015) describes the problems of animal cruelty, racism, and ecological harm as single optic issues, leading to "mutual disavowal", where each group centralizes its own focus and invalidates the justice claims of others (p. 181). Instead, she gestures towards an ethics of "mutual avowal", which takes seriously the intersecting dimensions of domination, requiring a universal commitment to attend to the uncomfortable reality of animal oppression. An ethic of mutual avowal does not neglect criticism of how marginalized subjects can reproduce oppression against animals but seeks to critically situate concern for animals within a truly universal, non-ethnocentric lens. I offer *Seaspiracy* as an example of this ethic of mutual avowal, highlighting practical lessons on representing harm against nonhuman animals.

Although *Seaspiracy* has received criticism by fisheries scientists for potential distortion of evidence (McVeigh 2021) and advancing an anti-fishing perspective deemed Western (Belhabib 2021), *Seaspiracy's* narrative and visual imagery are generally consistent with a CAMS perspective that challenges normalized violence against marine life. First, *Seaspiracy* situates the violence of the fishing industry as a global war against marine life, challenging the killing of charismatic marine animals *and* less charismatic fish consumed on a massive scale. *Seaspiracy's* central message is that sustainable fishing is a myth—greenwashing environmental harm and inherently producing unacceptable violence to marine life. Interviews of activists, such as Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's Paul Watson, defend a "leave it alone" approach to the ocean, outlining a total rejection of fish consumption where possible. Referring to commercial fishing as "wildlife poaching on a mass scale", the film collapses an easy distinction between controversial wildlife products featured in *Racing Extinction* and fishing generally. *Seaspiracy'*s ending concludes that even potentially sustainable fishing is a profound violation of the interests of individual fish. Importantly, the film does not displace issues of food access, critiquing the European Union's fishing practices that have left Liberian fishermen hungry and destitute, advancing a perspective similar to Freeman's (2014) that "hunting of wildlife may be necessary in limited survival circumstances" (p. 258).

Second, *Seaspiracy* situates the violence against marine life in relative terms, quantifying the causal relationships behind animal exploitation and species extinction, ascribing responsibility on a global scale. This avoids placing a myopic lens on shark, whale or dolphin fishing by Japan or China as *Racing Extinction* does but situates those industries within a broader continuum of violence against animals, rather than as aberrations from the norm. When Tabrizi heads to Taiji, Japan to observe its infamous dolphin hunt, the film connects the hunt to the demand for live dolphin performers in other countries and the eradication of competition for tuna sold globally. Lamya Essemlali, a member of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, quantifies the global exploitation of dolphins further: "One of the recent discoveries that Sea Shepherd has made is that on Atlantic French coast, up to 10,000 dolphins are being killed every year by bycatch. So, this is ten times more than dolphins killed in Taiji and no one knew about it. This has been going on for at least 30 years, because the French government has been very effective in hiding the problem. People love dolphins, and most of them have no idea that when they eat fish, they're actually putting a death sentence on the dolphin population in France". Similarly, when Tabrizi and his crew travel to Hong Kong to get a closer look at the epicenter of the shark-fin trade, they record graphic images—the removal of fins from recently killed sharks and a tremendous number of dead sharks and dried fins in major markets. Although the film exposes the brutal violence inherent to the shark-fin trade (calling it "Mafia-esque"), it is clear to contextualize the harms to sharks beyond this limited context—what it calls "following the shark story". Paul de Gelder, a shark activist, remarks that "stopping shark fin soup is only half the picture. The problem is that eating fish is just as bad if not worse than the shark finning industry because the shark finning industry is strictly held in Asia whereas everyone around the world is eating fish". Highlighting that half of all sharks

killed (50 million) are killed as bycatch by commercial fishing vessels, *Seaspiracy* transitions to a series of images of sharks dying painfully on commercial fishing vessels before being dumped overboard. Shining a light on the "invisible victims" of bycatch, marine conservation biologist Calum Roberts gives the example of an Iceland fishery that killed 269 porpoises, 900 seals and 5000 seabirds in a single month—asking the audience to consider those effects scaled up to global commercial fishing.

Third, *Seaspiracy* highlights a diversity of actors posing a threat to marine life. In contrast to *Racing Extinction*, *Seaspiracy* shows a broad range of actors harming animals, equally distributed around the world (as is seen in Figure 2). Captain Peter Hammarstedt of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society even situates European commercial fishing near West Africa as a "continuation of a history of plundering the African continent" that drives food scarcity, piracy, riskier fishing and bushmeat foraging practices. One of the longer scenes of violence against animals is the grindadráp—the herding of whales and dolphins into shallow water to be killed—in the Faroe Islands, an autonomous nation within the Kingdom of Denmark. The grindadráp sequence features footage of White, Western subjects brutally stabbing and killing defenseless whales and dolphins to the shock of Tabrizi, a marked contrast from the violence shown in *Racing Extinction*.

As environmental issues may be both self-interested and altruistic (as climate change affects both humans and nonhuman animals) (Freeman 2014, pp. 172–74), a pertinent question for environmental messaging is whether self-interest or altruism is privileged above the other. The former might appeal to a wider audience but is unable to meet the "transformational" aim of raising the level of respect for nonhuman animals generally (Freeman 2014, p. 176). The analysis of *Racing Extinction* suggests that a form of partial altruism may emerge when the call to action does not challenge self-interest: emphasizing the intrinsic value of animals culturally and spatially distant from a likely viewer (e.g., a total moratorium on shark-fin soup and dolphin hunts for their profound violence), but returning to a predominantly self-interested perspective for more familiar animal exploitation (e.g., a partial reduction in meat consumption for environmental, not ethical, reasons).

#### **7. Conclusions**

As over one-third of chondrichthyans (sharks, rays and chimeras) are threatened with extinction (Dulvy et al. 2021) it is increasingly important for visual climate communication to find effective strategies to represent the harms they face. The primary driver of chondrichthyan mortality is bycatch (in one study, 99.6% of species), particularly as depleted species may be too rare to be the desired target of fishing operations, although habitat loss, coral bleaching and shifting water temperatures are also having a significant effect (Dulvy et al. 2021). As manta mortality in Lamakera has declined significantly (86%) from their addition to CITES Appendix II in 2013 to 2018, there is strong evidence that strict conservation efforts targeted at particular species can be effective (Booth et al. 2021). However, manta mortality in Lamakera has risen significantly since 2018—the result of bycatch and a parallel increase in devil ray catch used as a substitute for manta (Booth et al. 2021). This suggests that the threat to chondrichthyans may be diverse and interconnected with other forms of fishing, complicating a species-specific conservationist approach. Indeed, there is no form of fishing that is ecologically sustainable (McClanahan et al. 2021) or avoids brutal violence against marine life. As animal imagery can be a powerful means of inspiring climate concern and empathy for nonhuman animals, media makers concerned with particular species should also recognize that they have "the opportunity to help humans view all other animals, and the animal in themselves, more respectfully" (Freeman 2012, p. 105).

Animal imagery in visual climate communication has been criticized for disconnecting animal habitats from human harm, which displaces anthropogenic causes of ecological harm (Born 2019; Whitley and Kalof 2014). *Racing Extinction* follows this pattern for environmental harm associated with the U.S.—favoring images of globes, asteroid collisions and desecrated environments lacking human or animal figures. However, *Racing Extinction* offers a challenge by showing graphic images of animal suffering almost exclusively in non-Western locations by non-Western subjects—primarily Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian actors. This focus reproduces a spatial hierarchy that invisibilizes the killing of marine life by Western commercial fishing and transforms domesticated animals into absent referents (Adams 2015a). Simultaneously, *Racing Extinction's* recognition of the individuality of large marine life such as manta rays and sharks does not extend to less charismatic marine life (fish, shrimp, etc.) or animals killed and consumed in the United States (oysters, cows, etc.), replicating a hierarchy of animal life that undercuts the film's central ethical challenge to shark-finning and manta hunting. I suggest that media representations of animal suffering could better address these problems with a universalistic ethic of mutual avowal (Kim 2015), exemplified by the 2021 film *Seaspiracy*. First, communicators should contextualize the scale of harm inflicted on endangered species and the connection to biodiversity loss and mass extinction. Using trusted sources and scientific expertise, media should situate specific practices within a larger practice of human exploitation of nature, which can avoid confusion over the relative impact of a given practice. Second, communicators should keep in mind the coverage of notorious industries (e.g., the Baiji hunt, the shark-fin trade) as they intersect with cultural unfamiliarity. It may be more productive to represent less visible forms of ecological harm that may be closer or more relevant to the targeted audience. Third, communicators should diversify depictions of actors that pose a visible threat to animals. Images of animal suffering are shocking and generate empathic distress that can inspire intense anger towards the perpetrator, including ethnic bias. It is particularly important to avoid primarily associating graphic imagery with non-White peoples from non-Western countries, which may inspire racial or nationalist bias and hide the ecological harm and animal exploitation carried out by the West.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **Note**

<sup>1</sup> The use of the term "wildlife" is intended to represent nonhuman animals who are free-living (non-domesticated) and not meaning "wild" in a derogatory sense.

#### **References**


Berger, John. 1980. Why Look at Animals? In *About Looking*. New York: Pantheon Books.

Bergin, Daniel, Derek Wu, and Wander Meijer. 2020. Response to "The imaginary 'Asian Super Consumer': A critique of demand reduction campaigns for the illegal wildlife trade". *Geoforum* 117: 285–86. [CrossRef]

Booth, Hollie, Ulfah Mardhiah, Hanifah Siregar, Jonathan Hunter, Giyanto, Mochamad Iqbal Herwata Putra, Jo Marlow, Andi Cahyana, Boysandi, Apolinardus Yosef Lia Demoor, and et al. 2021. An integrated approach to tackling wildlife crime: Impact and lessons learned from the world's largest targeted manta ray fishery. *Conservation Science and Practice* 3: e314. [CrossRef]

Borgi, Marta, and Francesca Cirulli. 2016. Pet face: Mechanisms underlying human-animal relationships. *Frontiers in Psychology* 7: 298. [CrossRef]

Born, Dorothea. 2019. Bearing witness? Polar bears as icons for climate change communication in National Geographic. *Environmental Communication* 13: 649–63. [CrossRef]


Brereton, Pat. 2015. *Environmental Ethics and Film*. New York: Routledge.

Broad, Garrett. 2016. Animal production, Ag-gag laws, and the social production of ignorance: Exploring the role of storytelling. *Environmental Communication* 10: 43–61. [CrossRef]

Brower, Matthew. 2011. *Developing Animals: Wildlife and Early American Photography*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Burt, Jonathan. 2002. *Animals in Film*. London: Reaktion Books.

Campbell, Vincent. 2014. Framing environmental risks and natural disasters in factual entertainment television. *Environmental Communication* 8: 58–74. [CrossRef]


Chris, Cynthia. 2006. *Watching Wildlife*. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cole, Matthew. 2015. Getting (green) beef: Anti-vegan rhetoric and the legitimizing of eco-friendly oppression. In *Critical Animal and Media Studies*. New York: Routledge, pp. 121–37.

Collard, Rosemary-Claire. 2020. *Animal Traffic: Lively Capital in the Global Exotic Pet Trade*. Durham: Duke University Press.

Cox, Christopher. 2010. Consider the Oyster. *Slate*. April 7. Available online: https://slate.com/human-interest/2010/04/it-s-ok-forvegans-to-eat-oysters.html (accessed on 14 January 2022).

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In *Feminist Legal Theory*. New York: Routledge.

Deckha, Maneesha. 2008. Intersectionality and posthumanist visions of equality. *Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society* 23: 249.

Derrida, Jacques. 2008. *The Animal That therefore I Am*. New York: Fordham University Press.


Fernández, Laura. 2019. Using images of farmed animals in environmental advocacy: An antispeciesist, strategic visual communication proposal. *American Behavioral Scientist* 63: 1137–55. [CrossRef]

Fernández, Laura. 2021. Images That Liberate: Moral Shock and Strategic Visual Communication in Animal Liberation Activism. *Journal of Communication Inquiry* 45: 138–58. [CrossRef]

Francione, Gary. 2020. Veganism as a Moral Imperative. In *Why Veganism Matters*. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 124–65. Francione, Gary, and Anna Charlton. 2017. *Advocate for Animals!: An Abolitionist Vegan Handbook*. Providence: Exempla Press.


Freeman, Carrie Packwood. 2014. *Framing Farming: Communication Strategies for Animal Rights*. New York: Rodopi.

Freeman, Carrie Packwood, and Debra Merskin. 2015. Respectful representation: An animal issues style guide for all media practitioners. In *Critical Animal and Media Studies*. New York: Routledge, pp. 219–34.

