Of course not. It not only sounds ridiculous, it IS ridiculous. But that's how I often feel about the term non-human animals too, even though I understand why it's used, and use it on occasion myself. So this post is about how we name the beings we care about and fight for, because after seven years of being vegan it's something I still haven't been able to resolve. Obviously I'm not alone in this what-to-name-other-animals quandary, as the more-than-qualified Vegan Feminist Agitator herself wrote a brilliant post on this very topic not so long ago. And I considered linking to her post and leaving it at that because I really don't want to repeat her many good points, but, my need to muddle through this in writing with you in the hopes of finally solving this maddening linguistic conundrum proved to be stronger. Ready?
So, what do we (what do you?) call other animals when you're trying to convey that humans are animals too? Because sadly, we often forget or even actively squash our own animalness when trying to differentiate ourselves. Specifically, how do you refer to other beings who* are animals but not human animals? And how can we do this without implying that human animals are somehow superior, or the norm? Because as we know, naming is crucial in how we identify and interact with others. Naming is not neutral, is not objective, but determines from the outset how something or someone (or whether something is in fact someone) will be treated.
[* Spelling and grammar check suggested who should be that. Naturally I disagreed.]
The problem of course with the term "non-male humans" is that it posits male humans as the norm and places female humans in the category of Other. (Now I would argue that in practice we still act as if women deviate from the norm, but at least our language reflects an ideal of treating men and women as equals.) Unfortunately, the term "non-human animals" does the same thing (in this case positing human animals as the norm), except that it doesn't sound as ludicrous. Perhaps this is because we're so used to the term, or because speciesism is ingrained enough that even vegans haven't quite outgrown our outmoded language.
Back to the question: How do we refer to other animals?
- animals
- non-human animals
- humans and other animals
- other animals
- beings
- other beings
- sentient beings
- earthlings
- insert your term here
Of those eight terms I try to avoid using animals as much as possible because for most folk that word excludes humans. I also try (but often fail) to avoid non-human animals for the reasons discussed above. Humans and other animals is a bit cumbersome so I tend to shorten it to other animals. I like sentient beings quite a lot, and will often use that, in addition to beings or other beings. The only term that I haven't really used even though I see it a fair bit is earthlings, not because I don't think it appropriate, but because for some odd reason (maybe I've read or watched too much sci-fi?) the word always makes me think of Martians. And I mean always, snort.
Sadly, I slip and sometimes find myself using animals (see how ubiquitous animal use really is?) when I don't actually mean to, so I wish I could settle on one term once and for all. One term that is clear, compact, and sounds just right.
What about you? How have you solved the problem of what to call those not called Maria? ;)
I sometimes use terms like "living souls", "living beings", "our fellow creatures" and things like that. And I do say "other animals", too. I'm not in communication with a lot of people so it doesn't always come up. It comes up in comments on blogs or on petitions. The whole thing about names is very frustrating too because, as we've mentioned before, not all of us feel fond of the term vegan either. One of the things that really makes me mad is reading comments sections in news stories and seeing things written about heinous criminals like "he's an animal", "he's no better than an animal", "dogs don't even do that"....things like that. Because, really???? I've spent a vast amount of time in my 46 years with humans, with dogs, with cats, with birds and not as much, but also a lot of time with many other species (I also use species a lot, I guess) and I'll tell you what...human beings have zero reason to claim superiority. I love my family and friends and I know there are good folks out there, but as a whole, our species is the only vicious one. And the only ignorant one, too. "Other animals" are never dishonest, they show compassion and love and appreciation and often even to the human beings who don't deserve it. In fact, they show all of the good qualities that humanity likes to bestow on itself and then get those "he's an animal" comments....it's sad and wrong.
It's very important to fix this language problem, but seems like one of the ones that is very far out of control. I think I wrote before that in the German language, they don't even use the same VERBS for things like when a human eats compared to when an "animal" eats. And they are normally called "it" instead of he or she. I've noticed that he/she/it changed a bit, but only a very little. And since I've rambled so much already I'll spare the anecdotes about certain communities I've been exposed to here who I am pretty sure think of women and girls as "non-male humans". Not pretty sure, just, sure.
Well, sorry for the rambling. I had another really tough week and am not capable to express myself as clearly as I wish.
I smiled when I saw this post...one reason was because I too go all over the place in trying to reference beings who aren't me and who don't belong to my species and also because I started reading a book recently that smacked me on the head about some possible reasons why this referring to "others" is such a dilemma at times. The book is titled: "Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Fathers' Tongues" by Julia Penelope who was a linguist.
In the book she tackles the invisible and usually unacknowledged fact that english was a language constructed mostly by white men and many elements of english were put in place to implement and enforce patriarchy and hierarchy and and and. It just may be that part of the problem of trying to figure out how to use english words to describe and think about things has not so much to do with our inadequacies of conceptualizing and understanding but rather to do with the built in biases and structures and word constructions of english itself. These biases obviously can and do exist in other languages also...I would suspect the more the language is male dominated the more difficulty there is in expressing ones self without engaging in hierarchical and/or oppressive structuring.
Audre Lorde wisely observed that you can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools...Julia Penelope did a great thing by trying to point out that the english language itself is one of the master's tools.
I got so excited when I started reading the book that I jumped on a used book site and bought myself a copy because I wanted to highlight and underline parts of it. I haven't read the whole book yet...but just the realization that "otherness" and hierarchy and patriarchy is built into the english language was so liberating that I'm still smiling about all of it.
The flim-flams and confusings that perpetuate oppression are deep and wide and ubiquitous and part of it...just maybe has to do with the fact that we try to talk about it and understand it with language tools that were devised and maintained and enforced by oppressors themselves.
Saying all this to say...it might be useful to expand the area of consideration when trying to figure out how to use words for expressing ourselves to include the often overlooked fact that english (and many other languages) were way over influenced and controlled by males to the exclusion and/or the domination of "others".
You can read a little about Dr. Penelope here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Penelope
Your post was so stimulating and inspirational that I had to write about it and about this whole language thingee. Thank you. http://veganelder.blogspot.com/2015/08/do-yourself-favor.html
Hi Friend,
Your posts are so thought provoking and leave me puzzling and puzzling about what I think. But that is a good thing. Carry on!
Language is so important and I focus on it quite often on my website.
The issue of calling others "others" because we consider ourselves to be the norm or superior is an interesting one. We can not do other than come from our own perspective using the limitations of the language we speak, but this does not necessarily mean that we, as individuals, consider our perspective to be the norm or superior. Many do of course and I have been subject to many put downs over the interpretation of a word. The latest was yesterday when I was showing our new home to a male friend of ours.(I use the term loosely) When I showed him "my" office he laughed and said, "Your office? You have a job? All right then." - all said in what was a sarcastic tone. He knows after all these years that when I am silent, I am actually saying to the universe and to him that he is one of the biggest idiots(fill in the blanks: Ass..les) that I know. And I was silent in this instance.
So, he and I greatly dispute the definition of the word job. One does not have to be paid for one's work to have said work be valuable. In fact some of the most valuable work and jobs in my opinion are volunteer. Never mind that his is a double put down. I would bet the farm that my "friend" would never have said this to another man - No sireee bobberoonie.
So, I do have a point and I am going to get to it. I try, to the best of my ability and depending on the context,to choose the correct reference for species other than human. I will use beings, fellow beings, furry companions, non human animals(although less and less now) and sometimes animals when I am including humans in the mix. Dr Will Tuttle often says "fellow mortals" which I kind of like. I never use the word pet anymore and I don't refer to myself as the owner of a pet. Farm animals are farmed animals.
The second part of this equation, which I feel is as important as the language itself, is how I say whatever I am saying. If I use any of the words I choose with reverence and respect then the shortcomings inherent in the word itself become less significant. I deplore the disrespect shown to all species through language and labels, but I do try to inform, educate and encourage people to be more circumspect in their choice of words.
Take care friend.
Anne