Verbal Vivisection

Hugvísindasvið Verbal Vivisection Animal Abuse and the English Language Ritgerð til B.A.-prófs Íris Lilja Ragnarsdóttir Október 2010 Háskóli Íslands Deild erlendra tungumála, bókmennta og málvísinda Enska Verbal Vivisection Animal Abuse and the English Language Ritgerð til B.A.-prófs Íris Lilja Ragnarsdóttir Kt.: 051181-4419 Leiðbeinandi: Matthew Whelpton September 2010 ABSTRACT Deceptive and evasive use of language plays a major role in human exploitation and abuse of animals. With language comes power and responsibility. Without the linguistic means for their own defence, animals are currently situated at the deepest level of oppression. This essay explores issues in the linguistic exploitation of animals, focusing mainly on lexical semantics and grammatical construction. Firstly, the historical and philosophical background to animal rights will be reviewed. Starting for real with the introduction of Christianity, animal exploitation in the Western world has culminated over the last century. However, in recent decades, people have started to see through the deceptive discourse surrounding animal exploitation and have begun the battle for animals‟ rights. Secondly, the relation between language and power will be examined through the discourses surrounding warfare and women. Emphasis is placed on the Sapir- Whorf Hypothesis, which builds on the notion that language influences thought. Lastly, the role that language plays in perpetuating animal exploitation will be explored and the importance of attitude change emphasised. Linguistic devices such as euphemisms, jargon, derogation and possessive and passive forms promote emotional and cognitive distance from animals and foster the speciesist beliefs that sustain their abuse. The discussion adopts a moderate version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and is largely based on Joan Dunayer‟s book Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (2001). A list of suggestions to alternative language can be found in the appendix. The central thesis is that as long as our unjust treatment of animals stays linguistically hidden our attitudes towards animals are unlikely to change and they will continue to suffer. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. ANIMAL RIGHTS 3 2.1 Attitudes Towards Animals 5 2.2 A Brief History of Animal Rights 9 2.3 Animal Exploitation Today 11 3. LANGUAGE AND POWER 16 3.1 Language and the Powerful: Warfare 17 3.2 Language and the Powerless: Women 22 4. THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND ANIMAL ABUSE 28 4.1 Twisting the Words Against Animals: Lexical Semantics 30 4.1.1 Historical development 31 4.1.2 Dichotomy 31 4.1.3 Jargon 32 4.1.4 Euphemism 33 4.1.5 Metaphor 35 4.1.6 Semantic reversal 36 4.1.7 Oxymoron 37 4.1.8 Doublespeak 38 4.1.9 Derogation 40 4.1.10 Puns and wordplay 41 4.1.11 Categorisation and labels 42 4.1.12 Personal names 43 4.2 Exerting Authority Over Animals: Grammatical Structure 44 4.2.1 Pronouns 45 4.2.2 Count vs. mass nouns 47 4.2.3 Active vs. passive 47 4.2.4 Subject position 48 4.2.5 Possessive 51 4.3 Attitude Change 52 5. CONCLUSION 53 REFERENCES 54 APPENDIX 56 1. INTRODUCTION In recent decades, more and more people have joined the battle for animal rights and as their voices get louder it gets harder to cover up the unjust treatment of animals. One of the most powerful tools man has against the animals is language. In fact, it can be said that it is the standard use of the English language that sustains the exploitation and abuse of animals. The consequences of people‟s actions have disappeared from the language and both the victims and the perpetrators have been removed from the context. Animals retain a low status within our society because of the way they are talked about. To a great extent, the way we talk about animals mirrors the way we treat them. People rarely stop and think about how their actions are affecting countless animals. Most prefer to go about their day in their usual manner, eating meat, hunting for sport, wearing fur and buying cosmetics. Evasive and deceptive use of language enables people to continue their callous treatment of animals. When it comes to our and other species, we deceive ourselves. The language that maintains these deceptions ranges from everyday language to the highly specialized and is evident in almost all aspects of English, in particular in lexical semantics and the exploitation of grammatical construction. This essay will explore issues in the linguistic exploitation of animals. First, the philosophical and historical background of animal rights will be examined. Then, the relation between language and power will be explored. Lastly, the role that language plays in perpetuating animal exploitation will be reviewed and the importance of attitude change will be emphasised. The discussion will mainly be based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which builds on the notion that language influences thought, and on Joan Dunayer‟s work Animal Equality: Language and Liberation (2001). The title of this essay, Verbal Vivisection, is borrowed from 2 Dunayer (2001, p. 117) and refers to the purpose of the essay: the dissection of the linguistic ploys that facilitate and reinforce animal exploitation. 2. ANIMAL RIGHTS Animal rights is something everyone should concern themselves with. Everyone, except perhaps strict vegans, participates in the exploitation of animals in some way or another. Here are a few examples. In 2008, the average Icelander ate roughly 25 kilos of chicken, 23 kilos of mutton, 21,5 kilos of pork, 12,5 kilos of beef, and 47 kilos of fish (Statistics Iceland, 2010). Most people own at least one pair of leather shoes, and some drive around in cars with leather seats or lounge on leather sofas after a hard day‟s work. When people bathe they use a soap or shampoo of some kind. A very common ingredient in soaps is sodium tallowate, which is rendered from beef fat. Many alcoholic drinks either contain animal products such as dairy or are produced using filters made from animal parts such as fish bladders. Simple everyday activities might therefore involve more animal exploitation than people realise. Most people cannot deny the part they play in the exploitation of animals and for this reason they should concern themselves with their rights. The Macmillan English Dictionary (2002) defines animal rights as “a belief that animals should be treated well by people and not killed or used for scientific purposes” (p. 47). This is one simple way of looking at the term. However, in recent decades, people have increasingly concerned themselves with the rights of animals and as a consequence the term has become more specialised, depending on who is using it. According to the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (1998) the philosophy behind animal rights can be split into two opposing categories, that is “animal welfare” and “animal rights” (p. 42). Animal welfare maintains that there is 3 nothing wrong with human exploitation of animals, for example for food, research or sport, as long as the human benefits outweigh the harm and the animals are not caused any unnecessary pain or treated inhumanely. The animal rights view, on the other hand, holds that all exploitation of animals is wrong and should be abolished. In other words, any animal pain or death should be unnecessary. In this way, the animal welfare view can be seen as a form of utilitarianism applied to animals, and the animal rights view can be seen as a type of Kantian philosophy (Encyclopedia of Animal Rights, 1998, p. 42). Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) “offered an account of morality that places strict limits on how individuals may be treated in the name of benefiting others. Humans, […], must always be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means” (Encyclopedia of Animal Rights, 1998, p. 42). Those that follow the animal rights view have extended Kant‟s view so that it applies to animals as well. In their eyes, it is always wrong to harm another being for ones own benefit, no matter how great it might be. The animal rights view will be the main philosophy behind most of the ideas and arguments put forth in this essay. To understand animal rights people must also be familiar with the term speciesism, which is a key term within this field of study. The term, coined in the 1970‟s, is not listed in all dictionaries or is often marked as informal. Peter Singer (2009) an Australian philosopher and a pioneer in the animal liberation movement, defines speciesism as follows: “Speciesism – the word is not an attractive one, but I can think of no better term – is a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one‟s own species and against those of members of other species” (p. 6). That is to say, speciesism is species bias, in the same way as for example racism is race bias or sexism is sex bias. Singer (2009) explores the idea of speciesism further and notes that avoiding speciesism does not mean that people 4 must hold all life, e.g. the life of a dog and the life of a human, as equally important. In his view: The only position that is irredeemably speciesist is the one that tries to make the boundary of the right to life run exactly parallel to the boundary of our own species. Those who hold the sanctity of life view do this, because while distinguishing sharply between human beings and other animals they allow no distinctions to be made within our own species, objecting to the killing of the severely retarded and the hopelessly senile as strongly as they object to the killing of normal adults.

Load more