Lady Gaga's Meat Dress

She may mean well, but Gaga's rare brand of activism does nothing to advance human rights.

Lady Gaga, in spite of herself, continues to provide insight into the ethical and political incoherence that dominates our society. This month, after wearing a bikini made of animal flesh of the cover of a fashion magazine, Vogue Hommes Japan, she appeared at the MTV Video Music Awards in an entire flesh ensemble, including dress, boots, handbag, and hat.

These outfits are neither surprising nor original; although Gaga has built her career on wearing outrageous ensembles, in 2008, contestants on America's Next Top Model wrapped themselves in raw meat and posed in a slaughterhouse, and in the 1980s, Canadian artist Jana Sterbak constructed a meat dress from 50 pounds of cow flesh and let it rot on a hanger in the National Gallery.

Nevertheless, the costumes stirred up the predictable and desired publicity. While PETA president Ingrid Newkirk sensibly observed that “flesh from a tortured animal is flesh from a tortured animal” and that “[m]eat represents bloody violence and suffering,” the Globe and Mail organized a web chat with three of its writers to discuss if this was “Brilliant, disgusting, or both?” – as if it’s debatable. Gaga may have dismissed PETA’s criticism by pointing out that no one had objected when she wore leather costumes, but at least this served to highlight the hypocrisy of those Globe readers who might have voted for “disgusting.”

After television host and vegan Ellen DeGeneres presented Gaga with a kale bikini, the pop star stated that she intended “no disrespect to anyone that is vegan or vegetarian.” Of course, far more than “disrespect” was involved for the cows who died so that Gaga could prance about wearing their flesh. But Gaga’s response to DeGeneres is also instructive. It points to the widespread tendency, even among some vegans themselves, to see veganism as merely a personal choice. Thus, Gaga can eat or wear flesh, while others can be vegetarian or vegan; meanwhile the animals are made morally invisible.

Gaga went further, however. According to the Globe, she insisted the Vogues Hommes meat bikini was “a human rights statement of sorts.” Exactly what sort of human rights statement it was remains unexplained. One must strain to see the connection between the bikini and accessible health care, or water, or education. It is difficult to see what comfort Gaga’s costume might offer, say, to the millions of displaced people in eastern Congo who are still being victimized by the multitude of armed groups that prey upon them, or to those whose fundamental rights are being suppressed by the Government of Thailand’s Emergency Decree, or to the thousands of Iraqis who are being held by the U.S. forces in secret prisons without trial and are at risk of torture.

Gaga seems to believe she was making a feminist statement, as she told DeGeneres: "If we don't stand up for what we believe in and if we don't fight for our rights, pretty soon we're going to have as much rights as the meat on our bones … And I am not a piece of meat.” Feminist writers such as Carol Adams have made such analogies, examining the intertwined oppression of women and nonhuman animals. Yet surely Gaga’s decision to drape herself in flesh shows a complete lack of understanding of arguments like Adams’, and Gaga’s exploitation of animals – either as raw flesh or as leather – simply mirrors the very patriarchal values Adams rejects.