The Public Life of Pets: On Animal Micro-Celebrities and Their Potential For Human-Animal Bonding

(1)

The Public Life of Pets

On Animal Micro-Celebrities and Their Potential For Human-Animal Bonding

Fig. 1 Micro-celebrity cats (Benchetrit)

Joris van Breugel 10331492

(2)

Abstract

The recent death of Grumpy Cat has shocked the world and made international headlines. Millions expressed their grief over the loss of Grumpy Cat. It is apparent that this cat meant something to a lot of people, which raises a question: can the animal micro-celebrity improve the bond between humans and animals? By using concepts from digital media studies, animal studies and disability studies, this thesis analyses the Instagram profiles of micro-celebrity cats. We find that while the format of a micro-celebrity does hold some merit for the lives of animals, a lot of the time they are just instruments for monetary gain. Furthermore, the animals are often individualized and objectified, leading to skewed image of those animals. In order to make the micro-celebrity animal more favourable for a better understanding of animals, the representation should be more truthful to the animal’s personality and humans should be less involved in creating a narrative around the animal.

Keywords: Micro-celebrity, animal, cat, instagram, disability, human gaze, humanization.

(4)

1. Introduction

RIP Grumpy Cat

On May 14th _{2019 a cat passed away. Normally this would not be major news, as hundreds, if not}

thousands of cats die every day. But the death of this cat became major international news and has caused grief for millions of humans worldwide. This cat was a celebrity of sorts. Her name was Tardar Sauce, although she was better known by the name Grumpy Cat. After a picture of her got a lot of attention on Reddit, her pictures quickly became immensely popular online. Tardar Sauce’s human companion _{Bundesen saw the online popularity and decided to create social media profiles for the cat} and trademark the name ‘Grumpy Cat’. From this point on, Tardar Sauce was an online celebrity. Over the years, Bundesen and Tardar Sauce built the Grumpy Cat brand, until Tardar Sauce became one of the most recognizable cats of this time. She garnered masses of fans, reaching 2.8 million followers on Instagram and 8.3 million followers on Facebook._{While there was some attention for} Tardar Sauce herself and all that she has done in her life, Dutch news media quickly focused the narrative around how much money she made for her humans (‘Chagrijnig Kijkende Kat Maakte Serveerster Multimiljonair’). Of course, Grumpy Cat had become a big global brand and Tardar Sauce was featured in multiple books and movies and even had her own clothing line. In this sense, focusing on the amount of money she made does not seem like a terrible narrative. However, this narrative obscures what made Tardar Sauce such an interesting cat: she forced millions of humans to consider the life and world of an animal.

Cats and humans have for the longest time lived together in a relationship of mutual benefit. When humans settled down in one place and began practicing agriculture, the stored food also attracted rodents and snakes. Luckily enough, this was the prime prey of cats. And so humans and cats tolerated each other as the cats took care of the rodents whilst the humans provided the cats with prey. One could argue that, in this way, cats domesticated themselves. Contrary to cats, all other animals were forced or taught to work for humans. We forced oxen to pull the plough, we rode horses to get around and we taught dogs to herd sheep. Now cats find themselves in a new role, as they have become a part of the cultural production process. The online animal celebrity provides content for social media platforms and generate millions in advertisement revenue. This new role calls for a reevaluation of the dynamics between animals and humans.

While cats have for long not been considered a productive species, animals as a whole have for long not been considered in the academic world. It was not until the late 1970s that animal studies gained traction in academia. The field of study mostly focuses on understanding animals and the

(5)

relations between animals and humans. Being such a young field of study, researchers, like Rogers (2013), Fudge (2002, 2016) and Baker (1993), come from a plethora of academic backgrounds, such as literature, history, philosophy, psychology and media studies. As researchers come from various fields of study, animal studies does not have a set methodology. Rather, scholars determine what methodology they are most adept at and suits the particular study. While animal studies is an academic field of study, it is also highly engaged politically with the subject. Researchers aim to simultaneously do quality academic work on how animals and humans relate and to improve the lives of animals in human society. Thus, animal studies research often has an impact on both society and academia.

There is however another aspect of Tardar Sauce, and many of the celebrity animals like her, that cannot be explained by animal studies alone: Tardar Sauce has a visible handicap. While animal studies has answers for why we look at animals and how they have become intertwined with human culture, not much is written about animals with handicaps. It is therefore important that we take the perspective of disability studies into account when we look at these celebrity animals, bridging the gap between the two fields. While disability and chronic illness have been studied in a medical context for a long time, it was only since the beginning of the 1980s that a new perspective emerged. Understanding disability through the lens of a medical academic or professional does not give any insight into the lived experience of disability. The objective for disability studies is to deconstruct cultural norms, attitudes and behaviour in order to make disability visible and improve the lives of disabled people. For example, Garland-Thompson deconstructs the politics of staring at disability and the lives of disabled people in visual culture (2002). While animals play a small role in the field of disability studies, this thesis takes a different approach by using concepts from both animal studies and disability studies.

Online celebrity animals are mostly active on online digital platforms, such as Instagram. While the study of digital technology and computers already existed in the 20th century, the field of digital media studies is still developing. Many of the analytical practices stem from film and television studies, although researchers are developing new means of studying large datasets from social media platforms. The Digital Methods Initiative have developed an entire suite of research tools for digital platforms, including YouTube, Facebook, Google, and Instagram (Digital Methods Initiative). By using the data that the tools collect on their users, researchers can access large datasets for study. For example, cross-referencing Wikipedia articles from different regions can uncover cultural differences (Pfeil et al.). Or, by studying related video networks on YouTube, researchers can study the biases and the political implications of the use of algorithms on the content platform (Matamoros-Fernández). As the field is constantly and rapidly changing, the research methods and tools are also constantly in flux.

(6)

Our understanding of digital culture goes beyond the delivery of content and stored data. The user interface is the main way through which a user interacts with the platform, and thus forms the most powerful method to guide users through the platform. Online platforms can thus mostly be understood by considering their affordances. First conceptualized by Gibson, it refers to how a being can interact with objects (Gibson). This concept has been developed and made into a framework which can be employed by researchers to study digital platforms and how they encourage and discourage user behaviour (Stanfill). While the main focus of affordances studies are the interface, what type of content, what users have access to what and how a platform can be accessed are also considered (Davis & Chouinard).

The story of Tardar Sauce can be placed within three distinct fields of study: animal studies, digital media studies and disability studies. What makes Tardar Sauce, and micro-celebrity animals like her, so fascinating, is that they force us to consider them from multiple angles simultaneously. After all, we can understand the digital animal as a new means to interact with animals through digital means, as Kamphof did in her analysis of webcam footage in wildlife reserves (Kamphof). Or we could study the relation between animals and disability, as Laforteza does in her study ‘Cute-ifying disability’ (2014). In yet another combination, we could approach disability online by studying self-representation on social-media, as Locatelli (2017) and Hill (2017) do. By looking at the overlap of three distinctive fields, this thesis will be able to deepen our understanding of the animal micro-celebrity. Utilizing concepts of these three fields of study combined, this thesis aims to answer the following question: how can the micro-celebrity animal contribute to the relation between humans and animals?

(7)

2. Theoretical Framework

Introduction

One of the main conceptual challenges for this research is to clarify the relationship between humans and non-human animals mediated by technology. This conceptual challenge takes place within three distinct disciplines, each taking on a similar debate from a different perspective: animal studies, digital media studies, and disability studies. Each of these fields point out certain discussions: new media studies provides a larger contextual framework by focusing on notions of power and identities. Animal studies looks into the relationship between nature and culture and the position of animals in human society. Disability studies looks at the normative discourses surrounding disability in human culture. It is where these theoretical frameworks meet that marks the positioning of this research. It is crucial to first expand on these fields, in order to later identify the roles they play in the non-human animal and human relationship.

Culture against nature in animal studies

Animal studies is fundamentally discussed in terms of nature versus culture. This often leads to a discussion of power dynamics, in which culture aims to dominate nature. Non-human animals are represented by nature, whilst humans have power over culture. Prominent academic Randy Malamud, who specializes in the representation of animals in culture, argues that human culture is more powerful than ever before (_{An Introduction to Animals and Visual Culture 22). Consequently, humans} are increasingly dangerous to animals. The danger Malamud describes is twofold. Ecologically, by using animals as resources, or “devouring animals” in its literal meaning (22). Secondly, the consumption of animals within a cultural framework: “[...] the construct may also denote a kind of cultural consumption - watching, framing, representing, characterizing and reproducing the subject in a certain way - that may comparably devour animals” (22). Malamud herein highlights the underlying nature versus culture debate. Nature loses in this conflict and is increasingly doing so. As such, animals are increasingly placed within a human cultural context:

Our cultural exploitation of animals often facilitates – directly or indirectly, consciously or subconsciously – this agenda of disempowering animals. We seem to embrace Freud’s expression that a civilized society is one in which ‘wild and dangerous animals have been exterminated’. (130)

(8)

This statement highlights the power dynamics at play. According to Malamud placing animals into a “human tableaux” is inherently exploitative (2). This includes anthropomorphism, as it demonstrates the practise of only seeing those parts of animals that reflect a human perspective, therefore employing animals for human gain: “People’s weird constructions of animals are a way of figuratively exterminating them: defusing their wildness and danger, transforming these properties into harmless, clownish impotence” (130). Anthropomorphism, according to Malamud, is a manner to essentialize the animal to a form that fits into a human framework. By denying the wild, or as he would argue ‘natural’, aspects of the animal, humans reduce animals to a form that fits within a man-made, cultural context. This is problematic when the aim is to deepen the understanding between humans and non-humans as it prevents humans from seeing animals wholly, both their forms and their emotional world.

The conditional return of animals in the human environment

Similar to Malamud’s statement on placing animals in a cultural environment, Berger claims that humans are increasingly taking animals out of a natural context (3-28). According to Berger, this started during the Industrial Revolution. Before then, humans lived in a more natural balance with nature and non-human animals. Animals were used as tools in the production of food, from which they then both gained sustenance. However, with the industrialization and mechanization of production, the need for animals as means of production diminished. Animals were relegated to living outside human spaces; the dog in a doghouse, the cow and horse on the farm. With industrialization came urbanization. Large numbers of people moved to the city looking for work. With the decrease of a natural environment in our everyday lives, humans started seeking out animal companionship in different ways, such as zoos, paintings and cartoons (12-16). Additionally, Berger points out an important function of animals by stating that animals provide a mirror to humans, and society overall. The lack of animals in our environment also took away the rhetorical function of the animal (13). Wilson adds that humans have a need to connect with other living beings, which he calls biophilia: “the connections that human beings subconsciously seek with the rest of life” ( _{The Diversity of Life} 350). The void that animals left in our environment was compensated for by zoos and anthropomorphism. As a consequence, where animals disappeared from our environment, humans started seeking out animal companionship on human conditions. These conditions fit the description of Malamud’s cultural tableaux, as they are ideologically induced and only seek to re-establish human attitudes (16).

The human conditions are best exemplified by zoos: “Within limits are free, but both they themselves, and their spectators, presume on their close confinement” (Berger 24). The animals are locked in cages resembling their natural habitat, that simultaneously functions as a theater stage for

(9)

the spectators and as the bare minimum living situations for the animal. The cage is a simulation of the natural world; however, it does a poor attempt of simulating that world. Even the animals seem painfully aware of the fakeness of their surroundings, usually seeking the comfort of the edge of their confinement. They spent their lives inactive, waiting for the next time they are being fed, staring aimlessly into the outside. The humans that have come to gawk at the animals in the zoo do not see animals. Instead, they only see the animal form, stripped of all the impulses, completely inactive (Berger 25). In this sense, the zoo does not teach humans anything. It does not grant humans any insight into the animal world. It only serves to subject animals to the human gaze (25).

To Malamud, the animal within the human context is a taxidermied animal: their original forms have been retained, but the essence of what they are has been stripped away. He argues that the relation between humans and animals is always one of domination, stating that “We are a selfish species, and we are skillful, and ethically habituated, in the mechanics of ecological abrogation. We take what we want” (25). This is however not the only aspect of domination in celebrity animals. According to Malamud, the existence of celebrity animals itself is proof of human domination (_{Famous Animals in Modern Culture} 5). Where humans inscribe their own emotions and experiences to individual animals, sometimes even unknowingly, the celebrity animal is subjected to more than just the gaze of one person. As he puts it “How does an animal become famous? The answer, simply, is that people make it famous: fame – like so many other human constructs that animals bear the burden of carrying – is something that we impose, in accord with our cultural logic, prejudices, and whims” (5). This then raises the question: why do we use animals in human culture?

The function of animals in human culture

Animals have functioned as icons in human culture for millennia. Berger highlights the metaphoric function of animals: “What distinguished man from animals was the human capacity for symbolic thought, the capacity which was inseparable from the development of language in which words were not mere signals, but signifiers of something other than themselves. Yet the first symbols were animals” (9). As such, there are numerous examples of animals as symbols. In classical Greece, each hour of the twelve hours of a day was represented by an animal (8). In ancient Egypt, gods were depicted as animals, such as Anubis, Bastet and Khepre for example (Schwabe). Similarly, Hinduism is filled with animal icons, such as Ganesha, the elephant, Hanuman, the monkey god and cows, although the latter is not a god as such, but rather a gift from the gods (Robinson et al.). In this sense, animals function in the same fashion as religious figurines (Baker). They represent human attitudes and beliefs that are not necessarily derived from the animals themselves. This adoration of icons in present in most, if not all, of human spiritual philosophies and religions. For example, the Nordic goddess of Freyja, depicted by a woman, represents fertility and fortune (Jennbert 36). The Hindu

(10)

goddess Lakshmi, also a woman, represents fortune and prosperity. The meaning humans derive from their figurines has nothing to do with who they are, but rather what we have attributed to them. Women are not a sign of fertility or fortune per se, we have given them that meaning.

The iconic function of animals presents an interesting dualistic relationship between humans and animals. Where animals have been used as icons and deities throughout human history, they have also been used and abused for entertainment, labour and food. As Berger puts it: “They were subjected _and worshipped, bred _{and sacrificed” (7). According to Berger, this stems from a} recognition of the self in animals. When we look at animals, we see beings with similar anatomies, with similar needs and, to some extent, similar behaviour. When we look at an animal, wondering what they are thinking, the animal looks back at with a similar gaze, wondering if we are a threat to them. This recognition also forces us to differentiate ourselves from them. This is where humans ascribe animals with supernatural powers and attributes. Because we cannot understand animals. We can not know what they think and feel, and so we fill it in for them. At the same time, this recognition draws us closer to animals. It is because we can see that they are similar to us, but not us, that makes animals attractive to us. It provides humans a companion in a world that is void of other humanoid species.

Whilst Berger argues that this dualism seems mutually exclusive, it is in fact not. It would seem logical that a person who cares for an animal would not murder and eat that animal. Berger argues that this is not the case for many of the people who live closely with animals and depend on them for survival (7). It is precisely because these animals provide labour and food, that the human cares for them. The farmer who has fed and made his pigs grow big is happy to eat their meat, as he has lived so closely with them. Sometimes these two attitudes even go hand in hand. For example, in Japanese folklore there is a legend about the bakeneko where, when cats get older, they will stare at the moon, raise their tails and turn into witches (McDermott). To prevent the cats from turning into witches, the people would bob their tails. Here the animals are firstly ascribed supernatural powers by human culture, and then mutilated for that power. The animal is both idolized and feared. We see similar occurrences in western cultures, for example in the Belgium Kattenstoet. In this tri-annual parade, the people of Ieper throw cat figures from the central tower and hold ceremonial witch burnings. According to Opsommer, this was originally done to limit the breeding of the cats in the city (Opsommer & Dejonckheere). Ironically, the humans were the ones that took the animals into the city to combat the rodent problem of the city. In this case, the animal is first put to work for the humans, but then restricted in the manner in which they do so. Secondly, the animals are punished for another part of their natural behaviour, mating. We can also see this dichotomy in pet culture. Pet animals live closer to humans than any other animals. They live in our houses, they eat next to us, and they sometimes even sleep in our beds. But, they are also subjected to some of humanity’s most brutal

(11)

behaviour. For a long time, it was common for house cats in America to be declawed, where the tips of their toes, and thus their claws, were snipped off (Declawing cats: Far worse than a manicure). This prevents them from scratching people’s furniture and from climbing, thus making them more suitable for living in a human home. But this robs them of their ability to fully utilize their bodies, it greatly reduces their ability to relieve stress and it is a very painful procedure. It shows that, while on the one hand humans have respect for animals and like to be close to animals, on the other hand we make them brutally subjected to us, when they cross the boundaries we have set up for them. This is the dual nature of our relationship with animals.

Celebrity animals

Malamud references Berger’s duality in his analysis of two celebrity animals: Topsy the elephant and Rin-Tin-Tin, the famous German shepherd who starred in twenty-seven movies. Malamud notes the importance of animal welfare beyond their physical wellbeing when it comes to animals in human culture (25-27). The life of Topsy was one of captivity, being forced to perform in a circus for human entertainment. In her captivity, she had killed three people, including a trainer who had attempted to feed her a lit cigarette. She was sentenced to death and electrocuted by Thomas Edison, who was attempting to prove that his DC power was superior to the competing AC power. Topsy was treated badly throughout her life so that she could entertain humans, and was eventually murdered for human profit. While Topsy’s story is horrifying, this is not to say that all famous animals were physically treated poorly. Often they would be pampered on set, feeding on food that even lower class humans would dream of. For example, Rin-tin-tin, a famous animal film star that was actually multiple dogs, dined on fine tenderloin steaks prepared for him by a private chef daily (26). These two animals, one treated poorly and one treated well, exemplify our dualistic relation with famous animals. On one of the extremities we treat them as nothing more than an instrument to laugh, tell a story or test inventions on. On the other hand, we revere them as world-class performers and gods. Nowadays, the former is much less visible, although we still test products on animals. The latter, however, is very common on social media platforms. To Malamud, however, these animals have both been devoured by human culture.

In the same sense, Malamud would condemn internet phenomenon as Grumpy Cat as exploitation. The Grumpy Cat brand has been expanded into a worldwide emporium. She has over 2.8 million followers, just on Instagram. The earnings of the sales of her merchandise is estimated between one and a hundred million dollars (Sands). She has gone viral, inspiring hundreds of memes and other cultural products. Malamud argues that these famous animals are subjected to a human gaze and that these animals are made famous by humans for the benefit of humans.

(12)

A person makes an animal famous by looking at it and then culturally developing that gaze in some way. The imposition of fame is likely to be motivated by some sort of human profit, though it is certainly conceivable that the condition of fame may be more altruistic in intent. (5)

In_{Animals on Film: the ethics of the human gaze} , Malamud defines the human gaze by comparing it to Laura Mulvey’s concept of the male gaze (Mulvey qtd. in Malamud 6). Instead of women, the animals are objectified and essentialized. The human gaze subjects animals to a dichotomy in which animals can be either useful (to humans) or a threat, the monstrous other (7). Tardar Sauce, who has feline dwarfism and an underbite, is by no means a threat, thus falling into the former category. Malamud argues that “cute animals are like dumb blondes” to highlight how the subject is irrelevant within this gaze (7). The agency of the subject is diminished to a cute form. This form then becomes the anchor for the human narrative.

The human gaze is used to create human narratives. The human narrative is a central term in Malamud’s book An Introduction to Animals and Visual Culture. He uses the term to define how the lives of animals are subjected to human stories. While Malamud uses the term throughout his book, he never clearly defines the concept. For the purposes of this research, the human narrative is defined as a cultural construct in which a story is created around an animal, wherein the animal is ascribed attitudes, feelings, and behaviour that do not necessarily have any foothold in reality. The animal serves as a mere vehicle, a man-made canvas on which the animal is painted with human ideas to our own liking, confined within the boundaries of the frame (30).

The exploited animal celebrity and the bond between humans and non-human animals

It is clear that Malamud disagrees with the use of animals in human culture. It strips them of their agency and personality, all for human profit. For Malamud, there are no redeeming features to the animal celebrity. Marga DeMello, on the other hand, argues that animal celebrities can hold some merit for animal life. DeMello acknowledges the faults of humans in creating animal celebrities. She argues however that there are possibilities to better understand animals through animal celebrities, by carefully reproducing their real-life personalities on digital platforms. By speaking for animals through online social media, humans can let other humans get to know the animals they live with, creating new possibilities for humans and animals to grow closer (246). Moreover, these celebrities could also help improve animal life in general, as the reach that online animal celebrities have can be massive. By utilizing this reach, celebrity animals can distribute animal rights messages, raise funds and learn humans how to properly care for the animals in their surroundings.

(13)

DeMello argues that in setting up social media profiles for animals, humans are creating a hybrid human-animal identity (247). Humans set out to interpret the animal’s personality, but, according to a study by Schally and Couch, they are not always able to separate their own identity from the one they attribute to the animals (66). Thus, the profiles that we see online are not profiles of animals, but a symbiosis of both the animal and the human. As the identity of the animal is intertwined with the identity of the human, the profiles are anthropomorphic in nature. Here, Malamud would argue that the animal has been devoured by the human. Contrary to Malamud’s argument, DeMello does not agree that this symbiosis between human and animal identity is inherently exploitative. Whilst not disagreeing on Malamud’s argument, DeMello sees potential in animal representations (248). She uses the term humanize to describe how humans can become the voice of the voiceless animals. It is important to note here that humanization should be done in good faith to really tell the story of the animal. This happens “if those humans who are creating the accounts, and ‘speaking’ for the animals, do so with sensitivity” (248). She argues that giving animals a voice can help humans better understand the position of animals in human society. For the greater part of human history, animals have been seen as empty vessels without personality or emotions. Interpreting animal personalities in animal biographies has made their identity visible to humans, filling the void that our lack of understanding has left. In this sense, using anthropomorphism not to use animals to represent humans, but using human interpretation to represent animals is seen as a desirable form of anthropomorphism by DeMello. And thus the online animal profile, provided it is constructed in good faith, grants humans the opportunity to better understand animals and improve their lives in human society.

The interpretation of an animal’s personality is something that every human that lives with animals has done, for example when going to the veterinarian. According to Sanders and Arluke, when humans take animals to the doctor, they do so because they see that their behaviour is different than usual (380-382). They see that the animal is not their normal self, differing from their regular personality. The humans interpret this behaviour and translate it to human language for the doctor. The human becomes the voice for the voiceless animal. In this sense, interpreting the animal’s behaviour is for the betterment of their lives. DeMello also signals this form of interpretation in animal social media, such as Bunspace and Catster (247). The humans that manage the profile have an intimate relation with the animals, as they live in the same space, and thus ‘know’ the animals’ personalities. They put the effort in to reflect the animal’s personality on their profiles online, granting other users the opportunity to get to know these animals. DeMello argues that incorporating the animals’ personality in such a manner, humanizes animals and can therefore be understood as representation in good faith as it further encourages an understanding of the various aspects of the animal’s life.

(14)

The humanization of animals becomes problematic when it comes to celebrity animals. Like human celebrities, many of the popular animal celebrities have a PR team that carefully constructs the animal’s identity and presence online. For example, there is nothing to suggest that the cat Tardar Sauce, better known as Grumpy Cat, was an unhappy cat. However, her facial expression closely resembles that of a grumpy human. When her image got traction and became a viral hit, the public latched onto the human-like facial expression and Tardar Sauce became a meme format. In turn, her facial expression became the focal point of her online identity that was maintained by her PR team. In this sense, the world did not get to know the real Tardar Sauce, but instead only knew what she looked like to us. Her identity did not matter, only her form did. Although DeMello acknowledges problems with celebrity animals, she still argues that the constructed identities can be of use for the betterment of animal life: “They help make the animals real; they humanize them. By showing that animals have personalities, that they have wants and desires, that they have emotions like love, joy, being sorry, and frustration, makes them appear more like us, and thus, more worry of our consideration” (249).

Disabled celebrity cats

Something that stands out amongst celebrity cats is the over-representation of handicapped cats. As such, it becomes a necessity to ground this thesis in thought on disability. Demello states that animals are often seen as dumb, arguing that humans aim to be the voice of the voiceless (245-247). Animals have for long been associated with disabled humans (S. Taylor 1). Disabled people often hear animal-related insults, such as eating like a dog or walking like a monkey (103). These insults are meant to simultaneously belittle people with disabilities and animals. Taylor, who is disabled and an expert in the field of animals studies, finds herself wondering ‘why animals exist as such negative points of reference for us, animals who themselves are victims of unthinkable oppressions and stereotypes’ (P. W. Taylor 194). As Taylor points out, much of our thought on both animals and disabilities are being shaped by each other:

We [humans] have a sense of gratitude at the good fortune that we were not born one of them [animals], a sense that comes sharply into focus when, through some abnormality of birth or by some accident or disease a human being is reduced to leading an animal’s simple kind of life…In comparison with the severely restricted kind of existence that is the lot of plants and animals, our own human modes of life are naturally appreciated for being so much richer, fuller, more interesting and desirable in every way. (158)

Taylor argues that applying work on disability to studies of animals and vice versa can grant researchers new insights into the oppression of both disabled people and animals. In line with

(15)

Taylor’s argument, this thesis will take a similar approach to both animals and disability, in using thought on disability to analyse animals online.

Disability studies in academia is bipartite. First of all, disability is discussed within the context of the medical model of disability. According to the medical model of disability, the disabled body is abnormal and requires medical attention in order to rehabilitate the patient (McKeever and Miller 2004, McLaughlin 2005). The medical model first arose in the 19th century, when the scientific method for medicine was developed (Jewson). Before then, medical research and medical care were often performed by practitioners simultaneously. Diagnosis was done based on people’s individual lifestyle, beliefs and values. In the new medical model the role of the doctor changed and focused more on gathering information that could translate into a diagnosis based on biological causes that were also signaled in other patients (Bury 266).

From the 1960’s onwards, academics started questioning the medical model, arguing that the medical model views disability as an individual deficit or defect that can solely be ‘fixed’ through specialized medical care (What is Disability Studies?). By defining disabled people as patients and disability as a disease, the focus is more on fixing the ‘problem’ and less on living with disability. Furthermore, this perspective on disability has a normative function. Fisher and Goodley argue that the “growing preoccupation with ‘normality’ meant that illness and disability became separated from everyday life and were constructed as forms of individual pathology” (67). This grants medical professionals the ability to define what is normal and what is not normal.

This critique led to a second academic perspective on disability: the social model of disability. This model takes on an interdisciplinary perspective, focussing on social oppression, cultural discourse and environmental barriers (Davis 197). Social disability studies as a movement challenges the concept of disability as an abnormality, calling for a focus on disability as a social construct. Doing so, social disability studies focuses on the lived experience of disability in society, rather than disability as an individual defect. For example, Seidel argues that “an autistic person should no more be held at fault for eccentric or challenging behavior in a social environment than should a visually impaired person be held at fault for difficulty navigating an unfamiliar environment” (1). She continues by arguing that “we are socialized to assume that all humans share common cognitive and emotional attributes” (1). The goal for academics in the field of disability studies then becomes to unpack how we as a society include or exclude disability. In this research, I will focus on the second model of disability studies, the social model. This model shares many similarities with animal studies in both its aims and practices, and provides a theoretical framework for analysing the normative social constructs surrounding disabled animal celebrities. Rather than understanding animal celebrities from a medical perspective, it provides a framework to understand narratives

(16)

surrounding disability, providing insight on how we look at disabled animals and how this supports further dominance of nature within human social constructs.

Jan Grue is one such academics who uses the social model to theorize the constructs of the disabled. He argues that when disability is discussed online, disability is often represented as inspiration porn. Grue defines inspiration porn as following: “Inspiration porn is the representation of disability as a desirable but undesired characteristic, usually by showing impairment as a visually or symbolically distinct biophysical deficit in one person, a deficit that can and must be overcome through the display of physical prowess” (847). Additionally, Grue identifies three discourses in the representation of the disabled: Objectification, Devaluation and Individualisation/Mystification (840). Objectification, according to Grue, is a logical consequence of the pornographic gaze in which impairment is fetishized. Objectification is often highlighted in the narrative that “things could be worse”. It is used to show how disabled people do something completely normal, but are constructed as extra-ordinary, as fun-house mirrors so to speak (842). The central element within this narrative is that impairment inspires viewers with the fantasy of a simpler life (842).

Similarly, devaluation is the result of the expectations placed on the disabled. Through highlighting ordinary activities as extra-ordinary, it is implied that the disabled should be able to only achieve these ordinary activities, thus setting limits to what is expected. By celebrating mundane tasks as an accomplishment, we devalue who they are and what they could achieve. There is a clear parallel between the object of desire as described by Malamud and the term inspiration porn as defined by Grue: “The achievements depicted in inspiration porn may be commonplace acts (e.g. walking on prosthetic legs). People with impairment are thus represented as having a smaller scope for achievement than is the case” (840). This is problematic when placed within the human gaze as it sets the limits of what a person or animal could achieve.

Lastly, individualisation and mystification. Grue defines this discourse as follows: “Because of its focus on visible impairment and physical prowess, inspiration porn represents disability as a problem located in individual bodies, to be overcome through individual efforts” (840). DeMello also signals the problem regarding individualisation in her analysis of online animal biographies (254). By focusing on individual animals, their suffering and rescue from suffering, we tend to forget the structural problems that enable animal suffering. In Tardar Sauce’s case, this aspect is highlighted in the part where she has overcome her disabilities, as well as her disabilities being her trademark.

The three discourses put forth by Jan Grue exemplify how the disabled animal is used as a vehicle for human narratives. These narratives consequently obstruct viewing the animal as an animal, as the animals themselves become irrelevant. Rather, through the human gaze, the animal becomes one with their disability, and the narrative becomes one of overcoming this disability. Everything that the animal does, even though it is normal behaviour for the animal, then centers around how special

(17)

this specific animal is and that they have ‘beaten’ their disability, whilst obscuring the underlying structural domination of nature. This problematizes De Mello’s argument that animal representation can create a better understanding of animals as the animal doesn’t matter within these human constructs (248). Furthermore, viewing the disabled animal as an animal becomes impossible, as they are hidden by the narratives that humans have created. Tardar Sauce is then a standalone survivor. She is a disabled cat and can never be just a cat.

Cutifying disabled animal celebrities

Tardar Sauce exemplifies how the social model of disability provides a framework to analyse humans looking at disabled animals. What makes Tardar Sauce such an interesting case is that she portrayed as cute, not despite her disabilities, but because of her disabilities. Where disabilities in humans are often met with an empty gaze, taking in the spectacle of the disability, or with averted eyes (Garland-Thomson 57), Tardar Sauce makes her disabilities palatable. This is a common tactic according to Laforteza. She states that cuteness invites the human gaze to rest on disabilities, without the need to look away (1). Tardar Sauce’s features do not make her less cute, but instead enhance her cuteness. Viewers are invited to look at her disability, without feeling bad for staring. While cuteness encourages the human gaze to look at disabledness, it also strips the animal of agency by framing the animal as non-threatening:

Her disability is framed as non-threatening, less confrontational than other cats, and therefore is a cuter, loveable option. In this context, disability is used to neutralise and make disability a manageable spectacle that can be commented on. Consequently, cuteness makes disability palatable by rearranging how people can consume and grasp the spectacle of disability. (Laforteza 1)

Malamud already stated how animals are subjected to the human gaze, in which they can be either useful or threatening. Cuteness in disabled animals further underscores his argument, reinforcing how cuteness strips the animal of agency, further dominating animals. The concept of cuteness was first defined by Konrad Lorenz, and can be used to explain what causes people to feel the need to care for and protect young children and animals:

Juvenile features that cause an affective reaction, somatic cuteness…namely, large head and small, round body; short extremities; big eyes; small nose and mouth. Whether genetic, or activated by learned signals, the cuteness response is also associated with a range of behavioral aspects, including: childlike, dependent, gentle, intimate, clumsy, and nonthreatening. Such physical and behavioral features trigger an attachment based on the desire to protect and take care of the cute object. (1)

(18)

It is striking that one of the key aspects of cuteness that Lorenz notes is non-threatening. By portraying animals as cute, we then further narrow down the scope of the human gaze. The animal can then only be cute, and nothing else. Dale argues that cuteness is more than a trigger for affective behaviour in humans. He argues that while cuteness does indeed bring forth an affective reaction in humans, it serves more than a biological function. It provides humans with a temporary relief from the anxiety caused by contemporary capitalism (10).

Cuteness, and the affective reaction it causes in humans, offers us an explanation for the popularity of animals on social media. Looking at cute animals makes us feel good and offers us relief from our daily struggles. Ironically, this cuteness is extensively used to market products and brands. According to Raine, cuteness is deployed to “forge affective relations with others, while actually displacing this affect onto mediated commodities” (192) via advertisements. While the cute-ified animal is already a diminished reflection of the animal, it does create an affective relation between the animal and the human. By utilizing our affective reaction to cute animals to promote commodities, our ability to bond with the animals we see is minimized.

Elaine Laforteza argues that the cute disabled animal celebrity not only stands to better the situations for animals, but also for humans with disabilities (1). In this sense, cute-ifying disabilities through animal celebrities can bring good for both animals and humans that live with disabilities. However, the difference between how humans with disabilities and animals with disabilities are seen is stark. The popularity of, and support for, animals with disability barely flows over to humans with disabilities. Furthermore, this would place the animal, celebrity or not, once again in the service of humans, creating a new form of exploitation of animals. Focussing on an animal's disabilities and cute-ifying them only grants humans new ways to deny an animal's personality and serves as a new hook to attach human narratives to animals. We do not get to know the animals and form bonds with them. Instead, we get to know their disabilities.

Micro-celebrities

The interplay between culture, animals and the disabled body happens within a digital media context, specifically Instagram. There is a myriad of research done into the various aspects of Instagram, from the self-branding of individuals to its platform-specific affordances. There is however a big gap in theory on Instagram, in that they all assume that the poster is representing themselves or an organisation they are a part of. This is not the case in regard to animals on Instagram, as animals are not able to represent themselves in human culture and especially not on digital media. Still, to come to a sensible understanding of how to understand the representation of animals on Instagram, this thesis will focus on theory on self-representation on Instagram. This follows the argumentation of DeMello,

(19)

wherein humans have to be the mediator between animals and human culture (245-246). By interpreting and representing the animal in digital media, the animal becomes a part of the human’s identity, thus making theory on self-representation relevant to the representation of animals on Instagram. DeMello states that the online identity becomes a dual human/feline persona (247). This is interesting as it refers to the dualistic relationship Berger describes. DeMello therefore suggests that the dualistic relationship has evolved into a dual relationship wherein human and feline identities have merged together. The micro-celebrity can therefore be understood as a dual identity.

A definition of micro-celebrity comes from Alice Marwick, who studied micro-celebrities through YouTube and Tumblr. She argues that micro-celebrities take ‘fannish’ discourse, and flip it around, making the narrative centered around themselves instead of the content (341). Then, the work of the micro-celebrities is to create and broadcast their identity, or a construct of that, to their audience. This also signifies a second characteristic that Marwick notes, namely that micro-celebrities make an effort to construct an audience and hold it (339). This is often measured in terms of popularity through the engagement metrics that most social media platforms offer. The effort to hold an audience is often reinforced by the micro-celebrity through communication with the audience. Marwick notes that micro-celebrities “know their fans, respond to them, and often feel an obligation to continue this interaction to boost their popularity, breaking down the traditional audience/performer spectator/spectacle dichotomy” (345). I would argue that these two characteristics are not sufficient to fully grasp what a micro-celebrity is. In fact, we see that all micro-celebrities that are successful in creating and holding an audience, have that same audience across multiple platforms, creating an ecosystem around their persona. For example, a viewer first watches a YouTube video by a micro-celebrity and then uses Twitter to communicate with said micro-celebrity. The overlap between platforms allows the micro-celebrity to better communicate with their audiences and thus create a stronger bond between the creator and their audience.

The concept of the micro-celebrity builds upon theory on self-branding and contemporary social media. Popularized for the modern age by Peters, self-branding refers to applying the marketing tactics of big companies to people (Peters). As Peters puts it: “To be in business today, our most important job is to be head marketer for the brand called You” (Peters). He argues that workers should create a personal brand identity around themselves if they want to stand out to potential employers and should be able to provide consistent quality work to their employers to reinforce this brand. While Peters’ argument is mostly focused on workers seeking employment, it has gained a lot of traction under content creators on the web 2.0 and micro-celebrities. The focal point has shifted from attracting potential employers, to attracting viewers and advertisers (Zulli 3-4). Self-branding serves to attract viewers in a saturated media-landscape, with an abundance of content-creators and media

(20)

providers for viewers to choose from. By creating a strong brand around themselves, micro-celebrities can attract viewers with both their content and their personal brand.

While the personal brand helps to build and consolidate an audience, it is also an important asset in attracting advertisers. Hearn and Schoenhoff note that the way micro-celebrities generate revenue is “by cultivating as much attention as possible and crafting an authentic ‘personal brand’ via social networks, which can subsequently be used by companies and advertisers for consumer outreach” (194). The lion’s share of a micro-celebrities’ income is generated through advertisements (Lieber). According to Khamis, Ang and Welling a brand requires consistency of personality of the micro-celebrities that represent them (2-3). They furthermore argue that “in the packaging of image for commercial and/or cultural gain, it makes sense that users enhance what they consider their most appealing or lucrative aspects, and underplay those that do not further their branding objectives” (9). Thus, content creators have to balance the interests of advertisers, their fans and themselves in creating an online persona. The goal here is to be relevant in a saturated media landscape and generate enough revenue.

One might be tempted to argue that advertising might be the driving factor in presenting an embellished representation of our persona online. However, in a 2006 study on online dating, Ellison et al. found that users tend to represent themselves as their perceived ‘ideal self’ (426). While the ideal self is related to the user’s actual self, it lacks what the user sees as negative aspects and embellishes their positive traits. This relates to Marwick’s argument of fannish discourse around the content creator instead of the content, as developing the ideal self becomes the narrative of the content and the fandom. We see these similar trends on Instagram, where users are more prone to post pictures of themselves having a good time than posting pictures of themselves performing everyday tasks. Ellison et al. note that users do not see this idealized representation as deceptive or fake, but rather as a foreshadowing of the characteristics the users wishes to develop (426-427). The profile then becomes more of a blank canvas for the user to paint their vision for who they want to be, rather than who they actually are.

The ideal self is problematic in the context of the humanization of animals and the representations of animal’s personalities. Where Malamud describes two ways in which the human gaze sees animals (threatening or useful/cute), the constructed ideal self of animal micro-celebrities solely falls into the latter category. Cute animals are advertiser-friendly, as they are consistently non-threatening. Their cuteness triggers an affective reaction in the viewer, which is beneficial for both the micro-celebrity aiming to build an audience and the advertisers. However, by only allowing the animals to be cute, the viewers can not bond with the animals. Instead we only see an essentialized version of the animals. It is hard to argue that the cute animal micro-celebrity is a good faith representation of the animal’s personality. While cute-ifying animals does make looking at disabled

(21)

animal-celebrities palatable and offers a fruitful platform for advertisements, it does not contribute to a better understanding between animals and humans. Instead, the viewer bonds with the idealized and cute-ified version of the animal, rather than the animal itself.

Conclusion

The theoretical frameworks highlight larger systematic discussions that are relevant to understanding the disabled animal micro-celebrities. Berger and Malamud argue that culture has been dominating nature and that is increasingly doing so. Additionally, Berger and Malamud claim that industrialized society has placed conditions on animals in a cultural context. We can see a clear structure wherein the animal micro-celebrity is being used as a tool to develop a human narrative. This is done by subjecting the animal to the human gaze, which reduces the animal to inspiration porn for humans. As Malamud argues, humans are increasingly dominating over animals, and with platforms such as Instagram, humans have found a new way to subject and essentialize animals to the conditions we have set for them. DeMello however, also sees potential in deepening the understanding between humans and animals and indirectly levelling the gap between culture and nature, in the representation of animals online, provided it is done in good faith. She claims that by humanizing animals we can relate and identify ourselves to animals, even when this humanization takes place within the “ideologically induced tableaux and only seek to re-establish human attitudes” (Malamud 16). This is amplified by the platform itself, as users are encouraged to only post visually and culturally appealing pictures.

This thesis aims to answer how the micro-celebrity animal can contribute to the relation between humans and animals. In the next chapter, I will analyse a collection of micro-celebrity cat profiles and do a case study into three cats: Klaus and Juno, Nala and Lil Bub. I chose these three cat profiles to analyse from a larger group of micro-celebrity cats. They all match the three characteristics of a micro-celebrity as set out in the theoretical framework of this thesis; they make narratives centered around themselves, an effort to construct an audience and they have created an ecology on multiple social media platforms. To structure the case studies, I will use the main theoretical concepts from Malamud and DeMello: human narrative, human gaze and humanization. The concepts of disability studies are integrated into the concepts of animal studies. Individualisation will be discussed within the context of the human narrative. Both concepts capture the manner in which humans separate an animal or disabled person from their structural environment and make them an exceptional entity. Objectification and devaluation will be discussed within the context of the human gaze. Objectification and devaluation can be used as a means to expose the human gaze.

While a quantitative analysis of the profiles of a larger group of micro-celebrity animals might have proved fruitful, the limitations on access to the API of Instagram have made this type of

(22)

research difficult at best. To avoid being dependent on unreliable access I chose not to include a quantitative analysis in this thesis, but rely on qualitative analysis instead. I fully support the call of international academics for Facebook to open their API to researchers (Bruns), so that including quantitative analyses in research much like this one will be a possibility in the future.

(23)

3. Findings

Case Study One: Lil Bub: the cute survivor

Perhaps the most famous of all the Instagram celebrity animals is Lil Bub, with 2.1 million followers (fig. 2). She was born to a feral mother and adopted by an American music producer, Mike Bridavsky, who regularly posted pictures of the four other cats that lived in his house already and did the same for Lil Bub. Lil Bub’s pictures however, went viral and Lil Bub quickly became a popular animal celebrity online. She now generates an

estimated $30.000 of advertisement revenue on YouTube and donates $200.000 per year to animal charities (Lisa). She even has her own charity that benefits handicapped animals in shelters. She has been on countless tv-shows and even has a documentary made about her life. A glance at her agenda shows that she is quite a busy cat. She frequents animal conventions and does meet & greets with fans. But Lil Bub is not just a celebrity animal. She was born with several genetic mutations, including osteopetrosis, feline dwarfism, polydactyly and without teeth in her lower jaw, causing her tongue to hang out of her mouth. This gives Lil Bub a significantly different appearance from

most cats. It also makes Lil Bub an interesting subject for a case study, as looking at her is not just humans looking at animals, it is also humans looking at disability. _{Lil Bub is an excellent example of} how famous animals can contribute to animal life, as most of the publications surrounding Lil Bub always at least mention the welfare of animals. Furthermore, Lil Bub was able to raise over $300.000 for animals in need through her webshop and meet & greets (“About Bub”). In this sense, the animal celebrity is much more than just another celebrity. They raise awareness for the lives of non-human animals and actively strive to make their lives better.

(24)

Human narrative

The “about” page on Lilbub.com demonstrates the narrative of Lil Bub as a cute survivor (about). Analysis of Lil Bub’s cultural products shows that this narrative is carefully constructed over multiple platforms, suggesting a typical digital media business model (Khamis et al. 191-206). Malamud describes how animals serve as vehicles for human narratives (30). The animal’s own narrative is irrelevant; the animals merely facilitates the constructed story. This is problematic as it obscures the animal’s own experiences, which consequently emphasizes the distinction between animals and humans. This contributes to the domination of animals, rather than the understanding of animals by humans. The narrative constructed around Lil Bub is particularly human. Lil Bub’s story is presented as the victory of overcoming her disabilities through sheer individual effort. This underscores Jan Grue’s claim regarding individualisation of disability (847). Despite that Lil Bub has ‘overcome’ her disability, the narrative still makes her disability one of the core aspects of her persona, invoking cuteness. Her cuteness is her main selling point online. Additionally, she is presented as an inspiration and provider for other cats. Thus the story of Lil Bub is one of the cute survivor.

Most pictures show Lil Bub cuddling (famous) humans or Lil Bub doing cat things. Although Lil Bub is in all the posts, the focus of these posts is on the humans behind the posts. In one of her recent videos (fig. 3) we see Lil Bub acting as a late-night talk show host. The clip opens with an old fashioned tv in a living room. The red curtains open on the screen, suggesting a bit of circus nostalgia.

(25)

This is further emphasized in the next shot, in which the opening credits of Lil Bub’s show are accompanied by a 1960s-style voice-over. We then see Lil Bub’s human companion Mike on the stage, next to Lil Bub, who is presented as the key speaker. Placing Lil Bub on a stage as a speaker further highlights the cute survivor narrative: she is the inspiration to the audience. In post editing, sound effects have been added to make it appear as if Lil Bub speaks, another direct way in which the human narrative is constructed around Lil Bib. The script is as follows: “Hello everyone. I’m glad you all are still here”. This way Lil Bub directly addresses the audience as a community where she is the leader. Furthermore, Lil Bub is made to say: “I’m happy to partner with a company that cares almost as much about special cats as much as I do”. Again, directly reinforcing the cute survivor narrative. She is supposedly an inspiration to all other cats with special needs. It also makes the distinction between humans and animals more prominent, indicated by the word “almost”. This creates a narrative in which Lil Bub is the representative of all cats with special needs.

The video speaks to what Wilson calls biophilia ( _{biophilia 1-2; The diversity of life} 350), our need to connect with nature. This video then commodifies Lil Bub by using the human desire to connect with animals to market products. Lil Bub could have been replaced by any human or animal celebrity and the advertisement would have had the same impact. In turn, this commodification also does not help animals or humans and their relation to animals in any way. It does not grant us a better understanding of Lil Bub or serves to better the material conditions for animals. It only serves the profits of the company that sells the product.

Human gaze: objectification of Lil Bub

Malamud argues that humans look at animals through a human gaze. The definition of the human gaze is derived from Laura Mulvey’s male gaze. The animal is a passive object of desire. This desire is to essentialize the object to the dichotomy of either being useful to us or as a threat. Lil Bub’s Instagram page clearly shows how she is subjected to the human gaze. In many of her posts she is advertising for animal products, such as cleaning products, animal foods, cat litter, and CBD oil for animals. We see her sitting next to the bottle of cleaning product she is advertising (fig. 4), in a way eerily similar to the way we see ‘dumb blondes’ (Malamud 7; fig. 5) in beer or cleaning product advertisements. The animal, or the blonde for that matter, is irrelevant in these pictures. They only serve to grasp and hold the attention of the viewer and to make them look at the products featured in the image. Thus, they are stripped of their personality and their agency. Instead, we focus on their form. The male gaze is defined by the dichotomy applied to the object of desire. The woman in figure 5 is represented as an angel, with a Greek toga and a white horse. She is pictured as a ‘pure’ woman, even serving beer labeled as pure blonde. By attaching the woman’s appearance to the beer, the commercial aims to

(26)

make the beer seen as desirable by men. The woman herself is left insignificant in the shadow of her appearance.

Malamud argues that we see a similar dichotomy in the context of animals in advertisements. On one hand we see animals as fierce and strong beasts, aiming to represent power and success. This is perhaps best exemplified by the ‘release the beast’ campaign by Magnum (LOLA MullenLowe). In this commercial, we see multiple women, represented as the whore, walking seductively, accompanied by dangerous animals. Here we see the two dichotomies of the male and human gaze clearly linked. On the other hand, animals are represented as useful or cute. The latter is depicted by Lil Bub on her Instagram account. We can see Lil Bub sitting next to a cleaning product meant to clean animal waste from carpets. There are also posts depicting Lil Bub cuddling with a bottle of CBD oil for animal use (fig. 6). These pictures are meant to portray her as cute, in order to sell a product. As Malamud argues, Lil

(27)

Bub’s representation is feminized and taken out of her animal context, making her like the dumb blonde in the beer commercial (7).

Another post (iamlilbub 5) is an ad for a company that makes CBD oil for animals. In this post we see _{Bridavsky preparing food for Lil Bub, mixing her food with CBD oil. Then the shot} changes to Lil Bub climbing the stairs. During this shot 8-bit music starts playing, giving an almost videogame-like context to the image of Lil Bub climbing the stairs. The last shot reveals that Lil Bub’s food bowl is placed at the top of the stairs. The caption reads: “At 1 year old she could barely walk, and now at 8 she can scale 16 stairs (each one taller than her) like a champ’. _{This all seems nice} at first, but is problematic within the context of the human gaze, as it suggests a limit for what she can achieve (Grue 840). _{The expectations for what Lil Bub can achieve are clearly quite low. For most} cats, who can jump as high as six times their own height, climbing these stairs would be easy. But, because Lil Bub is handicapped, this is presented as a ‘boss battle’ of sorts, with a special theme song to boot. The expectation that is set for Lil Bub in the post clearly resonates with the audience, as a lot of commenters recognize Lil Bub’s ascent of the stairs as the most that she can achieve. For example, Instagram user _{catsovercats comments: “You're doing amazing Bub! Keep up the good work!😻”.} Another comment that needs to be noted is by user _{sophia.seginack: “The cat is like I can do this I’m a} survivor”, which directly refers to the human narrative constructed on the website. This underscores Malamud’s argument that the human narrative masks the narrative of the animal as herself. Moreover, the post links Lil Bub’s struggle to the product that they are trying to sell.

Lil Bub’s actions are presented as incredible; a cat with multiple handicaps and diseases can be happy and agile. Referring back to the ‘about’ paragraph mentioned earlier reinforces this as well, as it states that Lil Bub is a survivor, a happy cat despite her physical shortcomings (about). She is almost perceived as ‘normal’. And this resonates with the audience, who cheer her on as Lil Bub does things that cats do. These actions are presented as incredible, exemplifying individualisation and mystification. Gue defines this discourse as follows: “Because of its focus on visible impairment and physical prowess, inspiration porn represents disability as a problem located in individual bodies, to be overcome through individual efforts” (840). In Lil Bub’s case, this aspect is highlighted in the discourse that she has overcome her disabilities, as well as her disabilities being her trademark.

Humanization

Lil Bub is not overly humanized. Most posts consist of Lil Bub just being herself. The posts are accompanied with text that are clearly written by a human about Lil Bub, but unlike the posts of other micro-celebrities, they are not written from her perspective. She is a little humanized in that some posts refer to Lil Bub being happy about it being weekend for example. In another post, Mike details Lil Bub’s eating process (Fig. 7). In the top left picture, we see Lil Bub waiting for her food,

(28)

captioned ‘Hurry up’. In the top left picture, we see Lil Bub move closer to her bowl in anticipation of her food being scooped into the bowl. The caption here is ‘Why is this taking so long’. In the bottom left picture, we see Lil Bub diving into the bowl as Mike puts the first scoop of food in there. The caption here is ‘Move out of the way’. In the bottom right picture, we see Lil Bub licking her face clean after eating. The caption here is ‘More’. The point of highlighting this post, is that it shows that Mike knows Lil Bub and her eating process. He then translates it to human language and posts it to Lil Bub’s followers. The mundane task of

feeding pets is made interesting with the description of Lil Bub’s behaviour and we get a better understanding of her personality. It is furthermore recognizable for people who live with cats and serves as a prime example as to what cats are like around dinner time for people who do not live with cats. Lil Bub here is humanized, although it is from a third-person perspective, and made accessible to millions of fans.

Conclusion

This brings us to the question of whether if Lil Bub can add to a better understanding of animals and if this can further help other animals. DeMello argues that it is possible to better understand animals through micro-celebrities, provided it is done in good faith (248). We do see that Lil Bub has brought about a lot of materialistic success, helping other animals monetarily. There is however room for critique on the way Lil Bub is represented as the narrative constructed around Lil Bub does not allow further bonding with Lil Bub as Lil Bub. She is constantly represented as the ‘cute survivor’, emphasising her disabilities and cute-ifying them.

Furthermore, her appearance is used as a tool for marketing, ranging from cat litter to products for special needs cats. In this sense, both her life as a cat and her life as a handicapped cat are

The Public Life of Pets: On Animal Micro-Celebrities and Their Potential For Human-Animal Bonding