On Words that Get in the Way
When I had that exchange with the person who didn't view cows as somebodies, I realized that I, of all people, had a language problem. I often make assumptions that I shouldn't make, and one of those assumptions is that the person to whom I'm speaking shares my definition of words such as: "somebody," "humane," or even "necessary" (as in I don't like to kill anyone unless it's necessary. Meanwhile, the other person thinks eating filet mignon is necessary.).
I thought I'd ask you for your help in compiling a list. For all I know, even we disagree on some definitions (nonviolence, anyone?). I remember using the term "sentient beings" quite frequently with a certain person who took several months to finally ask me what "sentient" means and I was shocked. We use the term all the time, but the average person? Perhaps not. Now, I'm not saying we need to dumb anything down, but we really do use some words differently from the mainstream (such as "humane") and perhaps we need to make sure we always define them in our advocacy.
Last year, I queried VegNews about doing a series like this and never heard from them. I suggested starting with the letter A, as in abolition, which I'm sure is at least part of the reason they weren't interested in such a series. That was probably a mistake and I'm sure there are plenty of other words that are problematic without getting too much into, or perhaps without naming that debate.
Here are some words and phrases that can get in the way and must be explained fully, in my experience, in order to have the message received be the same one that I intended to send:
- animal rights
- animal welfare
- compassionate
- entertainment
- exploit
- freedom
- harm
- humane
- individual (similar to "somebody")
- necessary
- pain
- pet
- sentient
- trivial
- use (and why use=exploit)
- vegetarian
- vegan
- violence (as in farming, not activism, as I don't talk about direct action, violent or otherwise, with the average person)
- pronouns, as in not calling other beings "it," but using "he" or "she," which often throws people off
Those are just the ones on my mind while walking the dogs this morning. How about you? Any you'd like to add?
I'd add intelligence. It came up recently in a comment someone made about Heidi. It is so very human-centric most of the time. But even among humans, we are always judging intelligence with ourselves as the standard.
food – That's my biggie. I don't consider sentient beings to be food sources. Others do.
diet – there's the conflict between the deprivation connotation and the medical use of the word.
For your list, the ones that most often cause conflict in conversations for me are: pet, rights, welfare, vegan, humane.
This is an important topic for me, personally. In fact, your "tag line" about deconstructing the language, et al is what caught my attention when I stumbled upon your blog. During my active animal rights days, I did a presentation to our group about the importance of language and changing the everyday phrases most people use without even thinking about them: more than one way to skin a cat; turning a sow's ear into a silk purse; a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; beat a dead horse and so on. These phrases are used as a type of shorthand without considering just how offensive they are. My suggestion to folks was substitute BROCCOLI in the phrases, which I thought was an inoffensive way to alert people to the inherent violence of their words. One co-worker, however, went ballistic on me when I changed a phrase, accusing me of caring more about animals than children.
I think the most important action all of us can take is simply using he or she instead of IT when talking about non-human or other than human animals. IT refers to a thing, an inanimate object, not a living, sentient being. I was fortunate to attend a small conference many years ago when Dr. Ned Buyuckmichi, Executive Director of AVAR at the time, brought up this point. He also used the term non human animals, which was a new concept to me. Of course, the implication is that humans are also animals, which offends many people (oooh, intelligent design/creationism vs. evolution).
To add to the list: companion animal vs pet; non human or other than human animal; kill vs euthanize. And I second Deb's suggestion of intelligence. At a AR tabling event many years ago, I had a man tell me that people are just smarter than animals. I countered his statement that a bear is smarter at being a bear than any human is. I certainly wouldn't survive very long in the woods with only my presumed superior intelligence. And then there's "pecking order." Chickens have been shown to recognize the hierarchy in flocks of 50 chickens. Heck, I can hardly remember the names of people I've just met! How can different species of birds find their way from their summer home to their winter homes, continents apart? How do Pacific salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, or sea turtles find their way back to the beach where they hatched years before?
I came across this quote years ago, which I thought best captured the essence of what animal rights meant to me. It's Henry Beston from The Outermost House: “We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.”
To add to what Elaine said (and I think I'm actually lifting this from her blog!), "meat." Animals are no more made of meat than you or I, yet omni's usually think of pigs, cows, etc. when they use the term meat – even though "meat" can also be used to describe non-animal sources (e.g., nut meat).
Also, that looooong list of dietary terminology (fruititarian, lacto-ovo vegetarianism, etc.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian )
And: freegan, free-range
There are some pretty good words/defintions in the glossary here :
http://www.humanemyth.org/
I refuse to use the word "hunter". They are "animal killers"
But the word that gives me a problem…because I don't know how to pronounce it correctly is "Speciest"
Can anyone help me with how it's pronounced
or is there another word that means the same thing?
Gingerlks,
That word is speciesist, which is an adjective and noun. Speciesism is a noun. Pronounce them like species (as in "humans are one species of great ape") + 'ist' or 'ism'.
If racism is race discrimination, and sexism is sex discrimination, then speciesism can be thought of as species discrimination.
I recommend this brief essay by Gary Francione: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=91
Thanks Nathan…it's just that I get tongue-tied
trying to pronounce words with too many ESSES…
like "specific" I've never been able to use that word and have it come out correctly.
But OH YES…as usual Gary makes good sense.
I do agree, it's really important to use words & language that will make people "think"
To me one of the worst examples is a word that very often conveys peace & serenity to those who hear it….."Fishing" which of course
is anything but and I will not let anyone get away with it without making the point that it's actually one of the cruelest forms of torture.
[DEEP SIGH….we have a long way to go..don't we?]
Gingerlks,
Speciesiest is definitely an unfortunate word. Hardly rolls off the tongue. And the iesies always trips me up when typing it.
I would recommend avoiding the word "meat" since it is an industry word and use "flesh" "cow" "chicken" "pig" etc.
Lots of people seem to think "animal welfare" is the same thing as "animal rights." Obviously they are different, but many people not familiar with these terms fail to differentiate.
Nathan also made a really great point in his latest Blog about how vegetarianism is a diet and veganism is an ethical perspective…
"Veganism is holistic, whereas vegetarianism is myopic. Vegans oppose using nonhuman animals; vegetarians oppose only the consumption of nonhuman flesh. Veganism is consistent with the abolition of nonhuman slavery; vegetarianism is consistent only with the abolition of "meat". Veganism is an ethical perspective; vegetarianism is a diet."
Hi ian… I agree with you that "flesh" is the most accurate and appropriate word. But I have found while leafletting or introducing others to veganism – if I use the word "flesh" most people get hostile or tune me out completely. I was wondering has this not happened with you? And if it has… in the long run, maybe using their words – might prove to be to our advantage?
Again… I have to say, you are totally correct in calling "meat" what it truly is – it's just that I don't know how effective it is in getting non-vegans enlightened. (?)