Interesting article on the English language and Speciesism

[Guest guest]

Message: 3

Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:22:57 -0000

" Maria Lopes " <marialopes

English and Speciesism

 

 

The following article appears in English Today, Vol. 19, No. 1 (2003), Cambridge

University Press

 

English and Speciesism

Joan Dunayer

 

Standard English usage perpetuates speciesism, which is the failure to accord

nonhuman animals equal consideration and respect. Like racism or sexism,

speciesism is a form of prejudice sustained in part by biased,misleading words.

However, whereas racist slurs rightly elicit censure,people regularly use, and

fail to notice, speciesist language. Unlike sexist language, speciesist language

remains socially acceptable even to people who view themselves as progressive.

Speciesism pervades our language, from scholarly jargon to street slang.

Considered in relation to the plight of nonhuman beings, the words of feminist

poet Adrienne Rich express a terrible absolute: " This is the oppressor's

language. "

 

Speciesist usage denigrates or discounts nonhuman animals. For example,terming

nonhumans " it " erases their gender and groups them with inanimate things.

Referring to them as " something " (rather than " someone " ) obliterates their

sentience and individuality. Pure speciesism leads people to call a brain-dead

human " who " but a conscious pig " that " or " which. "

 

Current usage promotes a false dichotomy between humans and nonhumans.

Separate lexicons suggest opposite behaviors and attributes. We eat, but other

animals feed. A woman is pregnant or nurses her babies; a nonhuman mammal

gestates or lactates. A dead human is a corpse, a dead nonhuman a carcass or

meat.

 

Everyday speech denies human-nonhuman kinship. We aren't animals, primates, or

apes. When we do admit to being animals, we label other animals " lower " or

" subhuman. " Dictionary definitions of man exaggerate human uniqueness and

present characteristics typical of humans (such as verbal ability) as marks of

superiority, especially superior intelligence.

 

Nonhuman-animal epithets insult humans by invoking contempt for other species:

rat, worm, viper, goose. The very word animal conveys opprobrium. Human, in

contrast, signifies everything worthy. Like the remark that a woman has " the

mind of a man, " the comment that a nonhuman is " almost human " is assumed to be

praise. Both condescend.

 

While boasting of " human kindness, " our species treats nonhumans with extreme

injustice and cruelty. Directly or indirectly, most humans routinely participate

in needless harm to other animals, especially their captivity and slaughter.

Whereas true vegetarianism (veganism) promotes human health and longevity,

consumption of animal-derived food correlates with life-threatening conditions

such as heart disease, cancer, and hardening of the arteries. Still, our

language suggests that humans must eat products from nonhuman bodies. As if we

possessed a carnivore's teeth and digestive tract, thoughtless cliché places us

" at the top of the food chain. "

 

To speciesists, needless killing is murder only if the victim is human. In

animal " farming " and numerous other forms of institutionalized speciesism,

nonhuman animals literally are slaves: they're held in servitude as property.

But few people speak of nonhuman " enslavement. "

Many who readily condemn human victimization as " heinous " or " evil " regard

moralistic language as sensational or overly emotional when it is applied to

atrocities against nonhumans. They prefer to couch nonhuman exploitation and

murder in culinary, recreational, or other nonmoralistic terms. That way they

avoid acknowledging immorality. Among others, Nazi vivisectors used the

quantitative language of experimentation for human, as well as nonhuman,

vivisection.

Slaveholders have used the economic language of farming for nonhuman and human

enslavement. Why is such morally detached language considered offensive and

grotesque only with regard to the human victims?

 

The media rarely acknowledge nonhuman suffering. Only human misfortune garners

strong words like tragic and terrible. When thousands of U.S. cattle, left in

the blazing sun on parched land, die from heat and lack of water, reporters note

the losses " suffered " by their enslavers.

 

Belittling words minimize nonhuman suffering and death. As expressed in a New

York magazine caption, antivivisectionists " oppose testing on any creature-even

a mouse. " The word even ranks a mouse below humans in sensitivity and

importance. There's no reason to believe that mice experience deprivation and

pain less sharply than we do or value their lives less, but our language removes

them from moral consideration. Who cares if millions of mice and rats are

vivisected each year? They're

" only rodents. " What does it matter if billions of chickens live in misery until

they die in pain and fear? They're " just chickens. "

 

In speciesism's fictitious world, nonhumans willingly participate in their own

victimization. They " give " their lives in vivisection and the food industry.

 

Further belying victimization, the language of speciesist exploitation renders

living animals mindless and lifeless. They're " crops, " " stock, " hunting

" trophies, " and vivisection " tools. "

 

Category labels born of exploitation imply that nonhuman beings exist for our

use. Furbearer tags a nonhuman person a potential pelt. Circus animal suggests

some natural category containing hoop-jumping tigers and dancing bears,

nonhumans of a " circus " type. The verbal trick makes deprivation and coercion

disappear.

 

Evil gathers euphemisms. Over millennia, speciesism has compiled a hefty volume.

Wildlife management sanctions the bureaucratized killing of free-living

nonhumans. Leather and pork serve as comfortable code for skin and flesh.

Domestication softens captivity, subjugation, and forced breeding.

 

Positive words glamorize humans' ruthless genetic manipulation of other species.

Horses inbred for racing are " thoroughbreds. " However afflicted with

disabilities, dogs inbred for human pleasure and use are " purebreds, " while the

fittest mixed-breed dogs are " mongrels " and " mutts. "

 

With complimentary self-description, humans exonerate themselves of wrongdoing.

Food-industry enslavement and slaughter cause suffering and death of colossal

magnitude. Yet, consumers of flesh, eggs, and nonhuman milk count themselves

among " animal lovers. "

 

Currently, misleading language legitimizes and conceals the institutionalized

abuse of nonhuman animals. With honest, unbiased words, we can grant them the

freedom and respect that are rightfully theirs.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Joan Dunayer is a writer whose publications include articles on language and

animal rights. Her work has appeared in journals, magazines, college English

textbooks, and anthologies. A former college English instructor, she has

master's degrees in English education, English literature, and psychology. She

is the author of Animal Equality: Language and

Liberation (Derwood, Maryland: Ryce Publishing, 2001), the first book on

speciesism and language.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~