When is a pet not a pet? Rethinking the ethics of animal terminology
Abstract
Current academic debate is exploring the idea that words, similes and metaphors that relate to non-human animals may reinforce cultural and societal notions of inequality between humans and other animals. Historically, three major philosophical traditions have biased humans over animals and have refected and reinforced an agenda of human superiority. As language is used to construct and convey meaning, it has been proposed by some that the word ‘pet’ should be replaced with the term ‘companion animal’ to refect a more egalitarian relationship between the animal and the human caregiver. Such discussions around the use of animal-related language could entail re-evaluating the general status of animals in society and how veterinary nurses respond to the emergence of the notion of animal personhood, both in professional practice and in their wider lives.
For veterinary professionals in practice, the presence of linguistic conventions helps to maintain a sense of ‘knowingness’ about the working world. Veterinary nurses know a TPR from a CPR and a CRT from an RTA. However, do they ever stop to think about the wider terms that are used to relate to animal patients or the use of negative animal-related metaphors in everyday language? Negative animal expressions such as ‘there's no use fogging a dead horse’ and ‘as sly as a fox’ together with words such as ‘beast’ and ‘brute’ are both ubiquitous and popularly employed. However, as concern about the status and welfare of animals in society grows, veterinary nurses may wish to reconsider the familiar as it applies to animal nomenclature. In 2011, the editors of a new publication The Journal of Animal Ethics suggested that language terms popularly used to describe animals, for example ‘pet’ or ‘vermin’, are historically derived from a state of human condescension and convenience. The implication is that such terms are not necessarily consciously derogatory but nevertheless harmful in the way that human beings conceptualize and consequently relate to non-human animals (Cohn and Linzey, 2011). Although an academic journal, the periodical's thought-provoking position was markedly misrepresented by the popular international media. Sensationalist headlines such as ‘Don't Call Your Furry Friend ‘Pet’ It Could Drive Them Wild’ (Daily Star Online, 29th April 2011) and ‘Animal Academics: Using The Word ‘Pet’ Insults Your Pet, Er, Companion’ (Time Magazine Online 29th April 2011) added an irrelevant distraction to the debate by suggesting that animals themselves would be offended by the use of such terminology. Unfortunately, such stories missed a very valid point. The article did not suggest that animals find such language degrading. Instead, it proposed that because language can be both descriptive and prescriptive in its application, the modern use of terms previously associated with the denigration of animals can be detrimental to the way they are perceived. To understand why this may be the case, it is important to take a look back through history and relate the historical development of attitudes towards animals to the way they are currently spoken about.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting The Veterinary Nurse and reading some of our peer-reviewed content for veterinary professionals. To continue reading this article, please register today.