The bear truth of animal testing

Lush’s latest publicity stunt involved a graphic, and some would argue triggering, theatrical display by 24-year-old performance artist Jacqueline Traide.

The performance involved Traide being displayed in Lush’s flagship Regent Street shop window for ten hours of an endurance performance involving simulated torture. Dressed in nothing but a nude bodystocking, Traide supposedly represented an animal being subjected to a variety of tests for the cosmetics industry.

The event aimed to highlight the cruelty faced by millions of animals in the unrelenting pursuit of advances in the beauty industry. It was the most visual aspect of their Fighting Animal Testing campaign to date, and is almost reminiscent of animal rights group Peta. Also like Peta, Lush have realised that the female body attracts substantial attention.
Brutal barely begins to describe the performance, available to view on Lush’s website, and whilst Lush maintained that Traide could have at any point left, the whole show left me feeling distinctly uncomfortable.

I commend Lush for drawing attention to the practice, but like many others I thought that the brand hadn’t thought about the consequences of the performance thoroughly enough.
Criticisms of the campaign have argued, quite persuasively, that Lush have capitalised on a potentially titillating image, compounding gender stereotypes.

Lush have rebuked the charges of reinforcing such institutionalised gender violence, stating that “Our aim was certainly not to titillate. The bodysuit was not attractive” and issued an apology: “We are sorry if this has hurt women who have suffered sexual violence or assault”.

Moreover, it feels like Lush are trying to sell their views rather than their products. I rejoice that a company has ethics and is willing to stand up against an unnecessary, archaic and cruel practice, but campaigns such as this are inherently polarising. Disregarding human feelings in return for shocking people into supporting a cause isn’t an acceptable method.
25% of women will experience male violence at some point in their lives. Many may have walked past this display. The lack of a trigger warning shows a lack of concern for people’s feelings, which seem to have been subordinated to the ‘necessity’ of shocking their audience.

Was it really necessary, as Lush seems to think it is, for those representing the vulnerable to take the form of a young women? Whilst Traide is fully entitled to use her physicality to raise awareness about an issue she is clearly passionate about, women worldwide are abused, trafficked, enslaved and mistreated. The parallels between this performance and that reality obscures what is an otherwise noble aim.

Also interesting to note is that the testing of cosmetics on animals has been banned in the UK since 1998, and in the EU as a whole for the past 3 years. As such the campaign smacks of preaching to the converted.

Moreover, by casting themselves as the only brand that cares about animals, Lush are guilt tripping consumers into buying their products.

Lush have indulged in some very irresponsible shock-marketing for its products. And whilst the campaign isn’t as overtly sexual and doesn’t objectify the female body in the same way as Peta’s does, the fact that the victim was deliberately chosen as female, and the scientists as male, knowingly taps into gender stereotypes and social expectations.

Despite this, Lush are trying to bring attention to a very real problem, and recasting it as a feminist issue is counterproductive and could undermine an otherwise admirable campaign.
I’m not convinced that the stunt necessarily exists at the expense of any other movement, but it could certainly alienate a sizeable proportion of people who might otherwise throw their support behind the campaign.