Carol Glaser, Vegina.net
July 2012
In this post I will focus on how language oppresses (and how we can liberate that language) as it applies to nonhuman animals and speciesist ideology. Importantly though, as I will describe below, it is impossible to discuss speciesist language without also discussing racist and sexist language, as they are all interlinked by a prevailing structure of inequality that operates within most institutions, belief systems, governments, and cultures globally.
Language oppresses in various ways. In relation to animals, the most notable ways that language reinforces and solidifies inequality is through pronouns, the use of “mass terms,” inaccurate language, derogatory terms/insults, and culturally specific idioms and adages.
Through slang terms, idioms, insults, and standardized grammatical constructs, language reflects current social inequalities. It is packed with the vestiges of a culture’s history of domination, exploitation, and discrimination. In this way, language not only reflects inequality but also has the potential to oppress. In using problematic language, we reinscribe abuses and inequalities. However, by simply not using such language, we can free our own words of exploitation, forcing others to confront these issues when they hear us speak.
In this post I will focus on how language oppresses (and how we can liberate that language) as it applies to nonhuman animals and speciesist ideology. Importantly though, as I will describe below, it is impossible to discuss speciesist language without also discussing racist and sexist language, as they are all interlinked by a prevailing structure of inequality that operates within most institutions, belief systems, governments, and cultures globally.
Language oppresses in various ways. In relation to animals, the most notable ways that language reinforces and solidifies inequality is through pronouns, the use of “mass terms,” inaccurate language, derogatory terms/insults, and culturally specific idioms and adages.
pronouns. One of the most obvious ways that the English language oppresses is through the de-sexing and objectification of animals with pronouns. Many of you have seen the wonderful advertisements to promote veganism, which show an image of a “farm animal” with copy that reads: “Someone not something.” This distinction between subject (someone) and object (something) is extremely important for changing the way that people think of nonhuman animals. It is in the objectification of other animals that we deny them sentience and personhood so that we may use their bodies for sport, transportation, entertainment, clothing, food, work, or whatever else we humans please.
This transformation of other animals from subject to object, happens
quietly through the use of pronouns. Animals are “it,” not “he” or “she;”
they are “that” and “which,” not “who” or “whom.” Rendering an animal
sexless, classifying him or her as “it that” rather than “s/he who” takes
away a crucial aspect of the way in which the English language identifies
(human) subjects.
Making the shift to “s/he” rather than “it” is simple but very powerful. If
you don’t know someone’s gender, just do what authors do when talking
abstractly about humans—switch back and forth between he and she. Never use
“that” or “which,” always use “who” or “whom.” This is a very easy thing to
do in your speaking and writing and for many animal advocates it will likely
feel good and become natural rather quickly. More important than its being
easy, it will be noticed. Sentences will just feel “off” to listeners, as
this is technically not “correct.” Your spell-check will try to correct you
and if you write professionally your editors will, too. But as you persist
in speaking accurately about nonhuman animals, people will notice and be
forced to confront the issue in their own thinking.
mass terms. This objectification of other animals via
language also occurs through what Carol J. Adams identifies as “false mass
terms.” This phrase refers to the lumping together of many individuals into
one undifferentiated group (“mass terms”), thereby erasing individuality and
establishing an inaccurate (“false”) sense that all in the group are one in
the same. One way to think of it is as an extreme stereotype or profiling.
As Adams explains in her article A War on Compassion: “Mass terms refer to
things like water or colors; no matter how much of it there is or what type
of container it is in, water is still water…Objects referred to by mass
terms have no individuality, no uniqueness, no specificity, no
particularity.” This is a problem, because, “…humans make someone who is a
unique being and therefore not the appropriate referent of a mass term into
something that is the appropriate referent of a mass term” (emphasis added).
The way this works in regard to animals is through the identification of
classes of animals and species of animals as if it stands in for any
individual animal, and such that any individual animal stands in for the
whole group. For example, by making someone a “farm animal” we classify her
as a type of animal that can be killed for food. Further we often identify
animals by species, as if all in that species are the same. This also allows
for us to abuse animals en masse for the purposes of food and clothing. It
also allows for policies to be set in place that are not in the best
interests of some animals. If any cheetah is one in the same as the next
cheetah, then trapping and caging some of them for “education” or
conservation efforts in zoos becomes acceptable. If each cheetah matters,
though, kidnapping any cheetah would be (rightfully) unacceptable.
We use false mass terms when we rely on inaccurate binaries as well. The
most prevalent and harmful is human/animal. This is an us/them construct,
which establishes a hierarchy that asserts that anyone not like “us” is not
as valued. It is nonsensical since humans are also animals, but by
establishing all nonhuman animals as “them”, it masks the fact that we are
similar to them and they to us; in this way what we do to them can more
easily leave our consciousness.
False mass terms are just another way we thing-ify living others, thereby
linguistically masking their value as individual living beings. When we use
simply “animal” in our language rather than “other animal” or “nonhuman
animal” we fall into this trap. By seeking to identify the individual nature
of other animals in our language, we better serve our cause.
insults. Derogatory phrases reflect those whom a society
devalues (either in the past or present) and highlights racist, classist,
abilist and speciesist ideology. Phrases like lame and cunt are insults, as
such they devalue those whom they are associated with—people with
differently abled bodies and women, respectively.
Animals and animal-related phrases are often used as well to establish the
devaluation of others. It is here that we can see how racism, sexism and
speciesism are intertwined. Throughout US history, there are two things in
common about whichever ethnic minority is being blamed for social problems.
First, is that people in this group will be the ones doing the most labor,
the hardest labor, and receiving the least pay or legal protection.
Currently, these roles in the US are filled by Mexican immigrants (and
similar others, i.e. Latinos) as well as by nonhuman animals (who certainly
do the most labor and receive nothing in the way of compensation, not even
having their lives spared).
Second, there will be derogatory terms linking individuals in this group
to animals. African slaves were kidnapped and brought to the US from the
1500’s to the 1800’s. They worked, were tortured, murdered, and raped—all
without pay. They were likened to monkeys in images and language, literally
being called “monkey.” In the mid 1800’s Chinese immigrants were recruited
in the US to build the Central Pacific Railroad. As they built
infrastructure for the development of the Western US and the realization of
a “manifest destiny,” they were likened to rats. They were portrayed as rats
on trading cards and in advertisements, and they were said to be “like
rats”—which stood in for meaning they were dirty, untrustworthy, and
unintelligent. Today, Latinos are working in the least desirable jobs and if
they are “illegal aliens” they often have no legal protections and are paid
inhumane wages. Latina women are said to “breed” like dogs or rabbits, other
slang includes “border bunny” (referring to illegal border crossings), pollo
(Spanish word for “chicken”, what the border patrol calls Mexicans at the
border), and mule (refers to drug mules, insinuating Latinos are drug
dealers), to name a few.
Epitaphs to degrade women by likening them to animals also abound: women are
sexualized (and objectified) through being likened to nonhuman animals (e.g.
chick, fox, vixen). Annoying women are bitches or they “henpeck” their
husbands or “brood” over their children. Unattractive women are cows. As
Joan Dunayer highlights: “Likening women to nonhuman animals undermines
respect for women because nonhuman animals generally receive less
respect—far less.” She goes on: “Viewed through speciesism a nonhuman animal
acquires a negative image. When metaphor then imposes that image on women
they share its negativity.” This use of metaphor that relies on the assumed
inferiority of nonhuman others, works to both insult the human target and
degrade the moral status of other animals.
When you start paying attention, you may be shocked at just how prevalent
“animal” insults are. By refusing to use these terms, and being vocal about
why you do it, you not only refuse to propagate these abuses, but you can
actually subvert the dominant ideologies that support multiple inequalities.
idioms. Idioms are culturally specific expressions and
adages are short memorable phrases. Both are used as shorthand to express a
message, a lesson, or a moral. “Don’t count your chickens before they
hatch,” “kill two birds with one stone,” and “don’t’ look a gift horse in
the mouth,” are all examples. These phrases often play on a culture’s
understanding of animals as inferior, as property, or as existing to be used
or killed by humans. It can be difficult to stop using them as they slip out
easily and have utility as they are typically understood by the majority of
a culture.
Idioms are one of my favorite ways to liberate language because the listener
will always take notice and a lot can be expressed through these shifts. For
example, “Free two birds with one key” is just as descriptive as “Kill two
birds with one stone,” and it totally reorients the expectation of who birds
are (individuals to live free vs. objects that are acceptable kill). Because
the phrase harkens to the original idiom, the listener will call that old
idiom into question as they consider the alternative you have provided.
Colleen Patrick-Goudreau has an amazing podcast on this topic, if you want
to hear more. At the end of this post is a list of some possible
replacements for old idioms and adages from various sources, including many
of my friends and the cookbook Vegan Vittles. If you are ever in a pinch,
though, you can check out this very clever, “Randomly-Generated Animal
Friendly Idiom Editor” by Chris Marcum.
inaccurate language. Inaccurate language is normalized in
such a way that it, in turn, serves to normalize the animal abuse itself.
Slaughtered individuals are rendered into “food” and described as delicious
or expensive or over-cooked or salty instead of as kind orplayful or tired
or clever. People wear the skins of others and call it “fashion.” People are
said to “own” companion animals. We call those who were killed for food
“meat.” A hamburger not a cow. When people eat chicken or fish, the language
is still inaccurate as these words are being used as a mass term, much like
“racing animal” or “circus animal.” We need to stop using inaccurate terms
to define the world we are living in. People will tell you that you are
alienating yourself if you say things like, “Do you sell any jackets that
are not made with cow skin?” But who cares? Animal exploitation and abuse is
so normal precisely because it is not questioned.
In talking about disadvantage, sociologist Michael Kimmel tells us that
“privilege is invisible.” What he is referencing is the fact that a man is a
man is a man, unless he is a poor man, or a black man or a gay man. All
“inferior” identities are described. As Melanie Joy points out in her book
Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, the same is true for vegetarians.
She subverts this by labeling people who eat dead animals “carnists,” I
borrow form Steve Best and call them necrovores.
When we label what we are seeing honestly we take the privilege of
invisibility away. We re-center our own language to be compassionate, which
calls out normalized cruelty to animals.
a daily practice. Every day language is used that plays off
of the normalized nature of violence against animals. It is insidious but
typically goes unnoted for the fact that it is so normal. Queering your
lexicon means to deviate from what is expected or the normal in terms of the
words you use to communicate. It is a beautiful personal act of daily
resistance to animal exploitation. Liberating your language of animal abuse
adds to the daily practice of veganism to establish a foundation of
compassion from which advocacy and activism on behalf of other animals can
begin.
Please visit and share this amazing PDF that shows:
Speciesist Idiom/Proverb - Cruelty-free replacement - Author
Return to Animal Rights Articles