The Power of Language in Human-Animal Relationships

Symbolic interactionism explores the idea that symbols are used to represent the world, all in order to make sense of it (Arluke and Sanders, 1996, p. 9). These symbols are not inherently fixed but are rather subjective, influenced by an individual’s cultural, racial, and experiential background. Despite their subjective nature, these symbols are often collectively agreed upon within specific cultures or societies, shaping a shared understanding of meanings and representations. This is the core idea of E.O. Wilson’s biophilia which highlights the influence of culture on our relationship with the world around us (Herzog, 2010, p. 30). Ochs and Schieffelin’s perspective on socialization adds another layer to the understanding of how our attitudes and behaviors are shaped. They argue that, through the process of language acquisition, individuals also learn cultural meanings and become socialized into a competent member of society (Ochs and Schieffelin, 1984). It is through such a process that we can explain how and why we act in certain ways toward certain things. Our actions and attitudes are driven by the meanings that we have assigned, which have been acquired through culture, but ultimately processed and altered individually.

The way that these meanings are passed around and shared in the first place is through shared symbols. One common symbolic system is language. The words that we assign to different ideas have the power to shape and/or create new meaning associations. Taking animals as an example, there are many metaphors and sayings that affect our perceptions. For example, “It is easier to order a pound of beef from the butcher than a pound of cow” (Herzog, 2010, p. 31). This juxtaposition starkly illustrates the different connotations associated with the two terms. The act of ordering a pound of cow conjures a distressing image, evoking the inhumane treatment and handling of a living being. On the other hand, ordering a pound of beef illustrates a mundane act of ordering food. This simple example demonstrates how words are not just neutral tools for communication. Instead, they are mirrors reflecting our attitudes and moral views.

Moreover, the context from which the terms originate is significant. Different contexts justify distinct language patterns when referring to animals. In biomedical research laboratories that use animals as test subjects, animals are often depersonalized, devoid of names to maintain a detached, clinical approach. This practice ensures that researchers do not form emotional attachments to the subjects of their experiments (Birke, 2007). Similarly, in the realm of factory farming, dehumanizing and objectifying terms are used to refer to animals, reducing them to mere commodities. As seen in the documentary titled Death on a Factory Farm, employees of the Wiles hog farm used degrading terms when speaking to or about the animals they were about to painfully slaughter, serving as a precursor to the violence that would soon ensue (Simon, 2009). In one incident, an employee labels one of the piglets as a “stupid little pig” moments before smashing its head against a wall to “let it bleed out” (Simon, 2009). In another instance, another employee says that he would like to, “shoot the motherfucker [because he hates] pigs” (Simon, 2009). Such derogatory terms are most often not used when speaking about household pets who have assumed the roles of family members. The specific words used to describe animals in these contexts can either evoke neutral, negative, or positive connotations, thereby shaping the societal attitudes and treatment of these beings accordingly.

By framing animals in language that carries negative connotations, an inherent anthropocentric view is constructed. “Anthropocentrism … refers to the related idea that humanity is and should be the measure of all things” (Noske, 2007, p. 78). In this perspective, humans tend to see themselves as separate from the rest of nature, often viewing other living beings and the environment primarily in relation to human interests and needs. This perspective prioritizes human desires, ambitions, and overall well-being above those of other species. Language use further reinforces this idea, perpetuating a social construct that legitimizes human dominance and control over non-human animals. In doing so, humans are unfairly placed at the top of the sociozoological scale by their own standards, relegating non-human animals to a lower status (Arluke and Sanders, 2010, p. 170). This hierarchy becomes evident in the terms and phrases commonly used, many of which carry subtle but profound negative connotations. Words and phrases like “vermin,” “pests,” or “beasts” can connote a sense of inferiority, portraying animals as nuisances or inferior creatures in comparison to humans.

By employing such demeaning language, there comes an inherent distancing or “othering” of these non-human animals, reinforcing the perception of them as entirely separate and less deserving of empathy or consideration. This process of “othering” involves the psychological, social, and linguistic mechanisms by which individuals or groups are marked as inherently different or “other” from the dominant societal group or norm. In the context of animals, this “othering” manifests in various ways, primarily through language and societal attitudes. When animals are labeled with derogatory terms or reduced to negative stereotypes, it consequently reinforces the perception that they are less deserving of moral consideration or ethical treatment. This linguistic distancing perpetuates a societal mindset that wrongfully justifies the exploitation and mistreatment of animals, as they are perceived as inferior or insignificant compared to superior humans.

As a further result of the “othering” of non-human animals comes the widespread abuse and exploitation of these creatures to fulfill human needs and desires. This distancing from animals creates a moral disconnection, allowing for their mistreatment without due consideration for their welfare. Animals are often objectified and reduced to mere commodities or resources, viewed primarily in terms of their utility to humans. This perception of animals as inherently inferior or devoid of significant moral consideration justifies their exploitation across various industries, including agriculture, entertainment, fashion, research, and more. Consequently, as seen in the film Earthlings, animals are subjected to confinement in factory farms, exploited in circuses and entertainment industries, used for their fur or skin in the fashion industry, and subjected to unethical experiments in laboratories (Monson, 2005). The process of “othering” not only justifies but also perpetuates these exploitative practices, creating a cycle where animals are marginalized, their suffering disregarded, and their rights dismissed in favor of human interests and convenience.

The “othering” of other beings solely based on their species, otherwise known as speciesism, is best understood in the context of a familiar concept: racism. Marjorie Spiegel draws an insightful comparison between racism and speciesism, identifying them as two ways of “othering” certain groups (Spiegel, 2007). Both racism and speciesism involve the judgment and discrimination of a group of animals based on perceived differences when compared with the presumed “superior” group. As such, a subjective hierarchical categorization unfolds. This classification leads to the justification of the discrimination, exploitation, and mistreatment of those deemed inferior based on arbitrary characteristics, whether that be race or species. In both ideas, the oppression of the “other” is damaging especially because there is no sound way to decide “who is better than whom” when looking through a strictly evolutionary lens (Spiegel, 2007, p. 238). This goes to show that the differences we have drawn between groups are completely fabricated. They have no sound reasoning behind them, except for made-up ways to put others down to elevate themselves. Consequently, the unwarranted utilization and exploitation of these marginalized groups, whether in industries like factory farming, fashion, or entertainment, stand as morally unwarranted actions.

Yet, the abuse and exploitation of animals continues. The reason for doing so serves one main purpose: to elevate the status of humans. Humans, who already regard themselves as the highest-ranking animals on the sociozoological scale, employ all means necessary to ensure that no other animal comes close to occupying this level (Arluke and Sanders, 2010). To do this, they put other animals down and make sure that they cannot pass them up. One way they do this is by belittling animals. Starting from degrading words such as “treacherous and cowardly” when speaking of dogs, this manifests itself in the lowering of animals’ worth through tangible actions (Spiegel, 2007, p. 235). As a result, animals are often marginalized and viewed as inferior, justifying their unfair treatment and abuse. This is evident in dog fights. In dog fights, dogs are abused to entertain a crowd and to, ideally, boost the ego of male dog owners (Evans et al., 2007). The dogs’ well-being is the last concern of the participants in this show. They can be thrown around, seriously injured, or even killed, but those issues are not weighed as important as the reputation of the dog owners amongst peers. Just this one example is strong enough to display the unfortunate carelessness of humans regarding animals, for the sake of their own status. All in all, it just shows that humans, as a whole, lack basic empathy and ethical consideration of non-human animals.

In stark contrast to the degrading language often used to describe animals, there are instances where language suggests a paradigm shift towards recognizing animals as deserving of empathy, respect, and consideration. One notable example is in the realm of pet ownership, where animals are often treated as beloved members of the family rather than mere possessions. Communities within the FluentPet project exemplify this shift in perception (Wilson, 2021). Here, pet lovers invest significant time and effort into teaching their animals to communicate using specialized soundboards. Each pet is given a name, treated as an individual with distinct preferences and personalities, and afforded the opportunity to express themselves in meaningful ways. In this way, these animals are not only regarded as companions but also as sentient beings capable of forming deep emotional bonds with their human counterparts. The language used within these communities reflects a view of animals as intelligent, deserving creatures with inherent worth. By acknowledging animals’ capacity for communication and understanding, these practices challenge traditional notions of superiority and domination, fostering a more compassionate relationship between humans and animals. Through language that elevates animals to the status of deserving individuals, we begin to reshape societal attitudes and behaviors, paving the way for more ethical treatment of all living beings. For instance, animals on farms may be treated with greater consideration and compassion, even in the processes leading to their death. Take for example Nuria, a cow who was given a name and afforded a more humane end (DW Documentary, 2023). By recognizing animals as deserving of dignity and respect, farmers may adopt practices that prioritize welfare, opting for methods of slaughter that minimize suffering. On this opposite end of the spectrum, language once more emerges as a significant shaper of perceptions.

Exploring patterns in language use toward animals makes it clear that the root of the problem comes from an anthropocentric perspective that employs specific language patterns to maintain a particular order. The meanings attached to the degrading language that is used when speaking or thinking about non-human animals open the doors to their further mistreatment. This language often carries negative connotations, depicting them as inferior or unworthy of empathy. Terms and expressions laden with derogatory or dehumanizing implications not only influence societal perceptions but also establish a framework that legitimizes the exploitation and disregard of these creatures’ well-being. Justifications for their use and abuse in various industries deeply take over. By embedding negative connotations into our language regarding animals, we inadvertently contribute to a mindset that rationalizes their mistreatment, reinforcing a cycle where their suffering is overlooked, their rights diminished, and their exploitation perpetuated, all for the greater purpose of elevating human status. Instances where this is not the case are, unfortunately, few and in between.

All in all, by examining these facets, this paper underscores the intricate relationship between language and human perceptions of animals, emphasizing the significant role of linguistic constructs. Language not only shapes our thoughts but also dictates the actions that come thereafter. Influenced so much by our thoughts and attitudes, our actions reflect the degrading perceptions we have of animals. With these in mind, the wrongful exploitation of animals unfolds with the accompanying wrongful justification of them. As a further consequence of their use and abuse, humans hold on tightly to the idea that their actions are warranted as a means of maintaining their high status on the sociozoological scale. Ultimately, these detrimental consequences stem from the immense power vested in language, underscoring its ability to shape societal attitudes and perpetuate unjust practices towards non-human animals.

References

Arluke, A. & Sanders, C.R. (1996). 9-18 in Regarding Animals (Animals, Culture and Society). Temple University Press.

Arluke, A. & Sanders, C.R. (2010) The Sociozoologic Scale. Regarding Animals (Animals, Culture and Society) (167-186). Temple University Press.

Birke, L. (2007). Into the Laboratory. In Kalof, L. & Fitzgerald, A. (Eds.), The Animals Reader (323-335). Berg Publishers.

DW Documentary. (2023). Factory farming, animal welfare and the future of modern agriculture [Video file]. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VOqNVt_cmM.

Evans, R., Kalich (Gauthier), D, & Forsyth, C.J. (2007). Dogfighting: Symbolic Expression and Validation of Masculinity. In Kalof, L. & Fitzgerald, A. (Eds.), The Animals Reader (209-218). Berg Publishers.

Herzog, H. (2010). Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. New York, NY: Harper.

Monson, S. (Director). (2005). Earthlings [Film]. Nation Earth.

Noske, B. (2007). Speciesism, Anthropocentrism, and Non-Western Cultures. In Flynn, C.P. (Ed.). Social Creatures: A Human and Animal Studies Reader (77-87). Lantern Books.

Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In R. Shweder, & R. Levine (Eds.), Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion (276-320). Cambridge University Press.

Simon, T. (Director). (2009). Death on a Factory Farm [Film]. HBO.

Spiegel, M. (2007). An Historical Understanding. In Flynn, C.P. (Ed.). Social Creatures: A Human and Animal Studies Reader (233-244). Lantern Books.

Wilson, L. (2021). From Clever Hans to Bunny the TikTok Dog: An Exploration into Animal-to-Human Communication. The Macksey Journal, 2(1).