Person/Thing Dichotomy and "Beings"
One of the reasons you will often hear me referring to animals as "nonhuman people(s)" is a social injustice that is often overlooked. It is present in every representation of a being that we do not respect; I have named it the "Person/Thing Dichotomy".
Feminists will know that there is a dichotomy in our society -- Trans activists will know that it is even more insulting than it is wrong. The dichotomy that these groups often focus on is the gender dichotomy of male/female -- that is, if one is not male, one must be female instead. Often, when the gender of one that has power is unknown, ze will be referred to as "he" rather than the gender neutral "they" or "she", with its accompanied implication of powerlessness. This is why I think Feminists need to listen the hell up and change their ways of representing their brothers and sisters in fur, feathers, and scales.
As a general statement, the Person/Thing dichotomy is only employed when the being in question is seen to be completely powerless (something which, luckily, women have never had to face). When the being in question is completely powerless, ze are referred to as "it"; they are objectified in far more severe a way than women have ever been. Even pornography cannot objectify a woman so deeply; at least the presence of her gender is recognised -- which, in all its power-playing chaos, is doubtlessly part of why pornography is seen to be arousing; you have control over an inferior -- this inferior that is so underneath you that she chooses to pose for you.
This, no doubt, is also why zoophilia is seen to be arousing; animals are wrongly seen to be so far inferior to humans that they are abject slaves. They are objects. And our language proves it.
When you refer to an animal, do you refer to hir as "he/she", "ze", or "it"? Think about this for a moment. Can you guess why many will get upset about you calling their companion animal an "it"? When you call an animal an "it", you are taking away that animal's very real self, their very identity.
"It" turns people (again, a category which includes animals) into mere objects. And objects, of course, have no wants, desires, needs or feelings -- you can do anything to and with them and they won't complain or object in any way. Is it surprising that our society wants to keep thinking of animals this way? If we admitted that they were beings like we are, we would have to admit that we are even in the slightest way similar to them.
And, after all, the first step to killing someone is to make hir into a thing.
This is how rapists and pornographers succeed. They turn the woman they are viewing into an object for mere consumption -- something we do to animals every day. They deny her feelings, that she could have feelings; they deny that she could in any way be like them. So again do we do this to animals; and, like women, one should not assume that they are inherently different lest one become as numb as that rapist and pornographer.
"Being" is not enough, either; I reject that word as an all-over noun for animals. Animals are not simply beings, they have selves and morality (as seen in social law) just as we do; we simply choose to ignore it. "Being" still allows any human to distance themselves from the animal -- as humans do not think of themselves as "beings". They think of themselves as people. And we have denied nonhuman animals that title as well for far too long.
Feminists will know that there is a dichotomy in our society -- Trans activists will know that it is even more insulting than it is wrong. The dichotomy that these groups often focus on is the gender dichotomy of male/female -- that is, if one is not male, one must be female instead. Often, when the gender of one that has power is unknown, ze will be referred to as "he" rather than the gender neutral "they" or "she", with its accompanied implication of powerlessness. This is why I think Feminists need to listen the hell up and change their ways of representing their brothers and sisters in fur, feathers, and scales.
As a general statement, the Person/Thing dichotomy is only employed when the being in question is seen to be completely powerless (something which, luckily, women have never had to face). When the being in question is completely powerless, ze are referred to as "it"; they are objectified in far more severe a way than women have ever been. Even pornography cannot objectify a woman so deeply; at least the presence of her gender is recognised -- which, in all its power-playing chaos, is doubtlessly part of why pornography is seen to be arousing; you have control over an inferior -- this inferior that is so underneath you that she chooses to pose for you.
This, no doubt, is also why zoophilia is seen to be arousing; animals are wrongly seen to be so far inferior to humans that they are abject slaves. They are objects. And our language proves it.
When you refer to an animal, do you refer to hir as "he/she", "ze", or "it"? Think about this for a moment. Can you guess why many will get upset about you calling their companion animal an "it"? When you call an animal an "it", you are taking away that animal's very real self, their very identity.
"It" turns people (again, a category which includes animals) into mere objects. And objects, of course, have no wants, desires, needs or feelings -- you can do anything to and with them and they won't complain or object in any way. Is it surprising that our society wants to keep thinking of animals this way? If we admitted that they were beings like we are, we would have to admit that we are even in the slightest way similar to them.
And, after all, the first step to killing someone is to make hir into a thing.
This is how rapists and pornographers succeed. They turn the woman they are viewing into an object for mere consumption -- something we do to animals every day. They deny her feelings, that she could have feelings; they deny that she could in any way be like them. So again do we do this to animals; and, like women, one should not assume that they are inherently different lest one become as numb as that rapist and pornographer.
"Being" is not enough, either; I reject that word as an all-over noun for animals. Animals are not simply beings, they have selves and morality (as seen in social law) just as we do; we simply choose to ignore it. "Being" still allows any human to distance themselves from the animal -- as humans do not think of themselves as "beings". They think of themselves as people. And we have denied nonhuman animals that title as well for far too long.
posted by Avian Mooch, or a Really Angry Cow at
3:14 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent, insightful, thought-provoking. There is so much here, I think I have to break my comments into multiple parts, as I mull over different sections of your post. I'll start with this this: challenging feminists to rid themselves of exploitative language is refreshingly - for lack of a better word at the moment - brave. What you're exposing is that victims of exploitation are not immune from being exploiters. Victims may be victimizers. I don't mean to single out feminists; the generality is the sobering and incriminating point: we attain a state of normalcy and peace and freedom and justice not just when we are liberated but when we are liberators ourselves.
By
Gary, at 8:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home