The Importance of Recognising Your Audience
I have noticed lately what is (unfortunately) a widespread phenomenon in vegans that have supposedly "bucked the system." Even though they claim compassion and a more intelligent morality regarding nonhuman people, they abide by the same anachronisms of carnist culture. This, I believe, is possibly the second-worst failing of the Animal Rights movement (the first being getting the majority culture to focus on welfare only, excluding Animal Rights philosophy in the process); we can't get our own members to "buck the mindset."
I can't tell you how many times I've heard an Animal Rights activist refer to nonhuman people(s) as "living things" or "it"s, or use an indirectly-derogatory phrase to describe a human failing. It's mind-boggling in its counter-productivity. Why, after all, listen to someone that espouses rights-equality between species, but thinks their sex is irrelevant?
The problem with the phrase "respect all living things" is that plants and bacteria are living things as well; by veganism's own admission it is impossible to respect something or someone that you are exploiting and, for the latter, slaughtering in the billions, even if by an action as innocuous as taking a breath. Of course, the natural -- and rational -- solution to this is to recognise that plants and bacteria, while they are living things, are not living persons; they do not have mental, intellectual, and emotional interests as animals (including humans) do. Plants and bacteria only have biological interests; they are devoid of a consciousness (well, an individual consciousness, anyways -- my concession to those who believe in an all-permeating Consciousness). Any chemical reaction in plants to injury is trumped by "quorom sensing" in bacteria, which -- to the ignorant -- would suggest that bacteria have a consciousness (quorom sensing, though, is caused by various chemicals, I believe). Thus I do not feel an obligation to respect plants and bacteria; they do not have a Self to respect. Anyone observing an animal for any amount of time can clearly tell that the person has a Self (unless suffering from confirmation bias).
Have you ever wondered where carnists came up with the "plants have feelings too!" argument? We, by our own inadvertant admission -- grouping animals in with plants and bacteria -- have opened the door for this argument (however pathetic it may be).
Furthermore, animals are not things; they are (as discussed in a previous post) people, as well as beings -- a precursor for being a person. If you were called a "thing," in anything other than such a phrase as "you poor thing," wouldn't you object? I might remind you: the first step to stripping away someone's dignity is to depersonalise them -- to make them into a thing.
I'm going to take a minute and tie this in to Children's Rights. Children are largely seen as ineffective, ignorant, and a group of people to be controlled and taught what to do, when they are, in reality, far more in control of themselves than others (i.e. adults) think them to be. Contrary to the popular adult worldview, children are much more perceptive than we assume them to be; they can see the world in ways we cannot, and in a much purer way -- at young ages, they do not have the social brainwashing to tell them to ignore pain (whether their own or someone else's), which is essentially our society's problem. They are not blank slates, waiting to be written on; they have a constant internal commentary on everything that happens to them. In all these things, they are much like animals.
Children -- especially young children, e.g. infants -- and animals are able to be depersonalised with ease. As with animals, I've seen humans refer to them as "it", as though they are a thing; remember, things are inconsequential, powerless, and objectively worthless. Only persons have worth.
I wish to eradicate this way of referring to those who are vulnerable, or from whom their rightful freedoms have been stripped by greed and human blindness. It is a horrible way of referring to anyone, whether human or nonhuman. Things are objects; objects have no feelings, and thus, no need for anyone to consider them. And we, as Animal Rights activists, should recognise this.
What ties all these things in -- phrases and depersonalisations both -- is one crucial thing: you, as an Animal Rights activist, have the ability to literally change the way someone thinks with how you speak to them. After all, we didn't get to the current routine of degrading animals, women, and children just by suddenly agreeing all at once that we would. No, we didn't; these derogatory ways of referring to our fellow peoples seeped into the culture, beginning with one single person speaking to others, and employing these anachronisms while doing so.
We must remember that our words provoke reactions in others. When I refer to animals as people in public, I turn heads -- and maybe give them something to think about. More powerfully, when we as a group refer to animals by their true sexes; by not acting as though their sex is irrelevant; by not using the word "thing" when referring to animals; and, above all, by not using words that provoke anti-animal sentiment in our audience, we have the power to change the way the world thinks.
But it's up to you, honestly. You, as an Animal Rights activist, must do this; you must do all of the above, and correct yourself when you slip. Not only do your actions have power, your words have power. By refusing to "go with the flow" and strip nonhuman peoples of their dignity, you may be restoring a little more of that dignity in your audiences' minds.
Tips:
Ants without wings, and your average bee, are female.
Snails (except for a few species) and worms are hermaphroditic: you could try using gender-neutral words such as "ze" for she/he and "hir" for his/her. Or just the ubiquitous "they."
When you're unsure about an animal's gender and you feel awkward about saying "he or she", you could ask what his/her sex is, or just refer to them as "they."
Instead of referring to people (such as fish) that are "caught" or "hunted," use "anyone" instead of "anything" -- and, if you're feeling especially brave, correct others that make this mistake.
When referring to animals in general using an "any" prefix, again, use "anyone" instead of "anything."
Ask what a baby's sex is before referring to him/her as either -- don't make assumptions on their sex.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard an Animal Rights activist refer to nonhuman people(s) as "living things" or "it"s, or use an indirectly-derogatory phrase to describe a human failing. It's mind-boggling in its counter-productivity. Why, after all, listen to someone that espouses rights-equality between species, but thinks their sex is irrelevant?
The problem with the phrase "respect all living things" is that plants and bacteria are living things as well; by veganism's own admission it is impossible to respect something or someone that you are exploiting and, for the latter, slaughtering in the billions, even if by an action as innocuous as taking a breath. Of course, the natural -- and rational -- solution to this is to recognise that plants and bacteria, while they are living things, are not living persons; they do not have mental, intellectual, and emotional interests as animals (including humans) do. Plants and bacteria only have biological interests; they are devoid of a consciousness (well, an individual consciousness, anyways -- my concession to those who believe in an all-permeating Consciousness). Any chemical reaction in plants to injury is trumped by "quorom sensing" in bacteria, which -- to the ignorant -- would suggest that bacteria have a consciousness (quorom sensing, though, is caused by various chemicals, I believe). Thus I do not feel an obligation to respect plants and bacteria; they do not have a Self to respect. Anyone observing an animal for any amount of time can clearly tell that the person has a Self (unless suffering from confirmation bias).
Have you ever wondered where carnists came up with the "plants have feelings too!" argument? We, by our own inadvertant admission -- grouping animals in with plants and bacteria -- have opened the door for this argument (however pathetic it may be).
Furthermore, animals are not things; they are (as discussed in a previous post) people, as well as beings -- a precursor for being a person. If you were called a "thing," in anything other than such a phrase as "you poor thing," wouldn't you object? I might remind you: the first step to stripping away someone's dignity is to depersonalise them -- to make them into a thing.
I'm going to take a minute and tie this in to Children's Rights. Children are largely seen as ineffective, ignorant, and a group of people to be controlled and taught what to do, when they are, in reality, far more in control of themselves than others (i.e. adults) think them to be. Contrary to the popular adult worldview, children are much more perceptive than we assume them to be; they can see the world in ways we cannot, and in a much purer way -- at young ages, they do not have the social brainwashing to tell them to ignore pain (whether their own or someone else's), which is essentially our society's problem. They are not blank slates, waiting to be written on; they have a constant internal commentary on everything that happens to them. In all these things, they are much like animals.
Children -- especially young children, e.g. infants -- and animals are able to be depersonalised with ease. As with animals, I've seen humans refer to them as "it", as though they are a thing; remember, things are inconsequential, powerless, and objectively worthless. Only persons have worth.
I wish to eradicate this way of referring to those who are vulnerable, or from whom their rightful freedoms have been stripped by greed and human blindness. It is a horrible way of referring to anyone, whether human or nonhuman. Things are objects; objects have no feelings, and thus, no need for anyone to consider them. And we, as Animal Rights activists, should recognise this.
What ties all these things in -- phrases and depersonalisations both -- is one crucial thing: you, as an Animal Rights activist, have the ability to literally change the way someone thinks with how you speak to them. After all, we didn't get to the current routine of degrading animals, women, and children just by suddenly agreeing all at once that we would. No, we didn't; these derogatory ways of referring to our fellow peoples seeped into the culture, beginning with one single person speaking to others, and employing these anachronisms while doing so.
We must remember that our words provoke reactions in others. When I refer to animals as people in public, I turn heads -- and maybe give them something to think about. More powerfully, when we as a group refer to animals by their true sexes; by not acting as though their sex is irrelevant; by not using the word "thing" when referring to animals; and, above all, by not using words that provoke anti-animal sentiment in our audience, we have the power to change the way the world thinks.
But it's up to you, honestly. You, as an Animal Rights activist, must do this; you must do all of the above, and correct yourself when you slip. Not only do your actions have power, your words have power. By refusing to "go with the flow" and strip nonhuman peoples of their dignity, you may be restoring a little more of that dignity in your audiences' minds.
Tips:
Ants without wings, and your average bee, are female.
Snails (except for a few species) and worms are hermaphroditic: you could try using gender-neutral words such as "ze" for she/he and "hir" for his/her. Or just the ubiquitous "they."
When you're unsure about an animal's gender and you feel awkward about saying "he or she", you could ask what his/her sex is, or just refer to them as "they."
Instead of referring to people (such as fish) that are "caught" or "hunted," use "anyone" instead of "anything" -- and, if you're feeling especially brave, correct others that make this mistake.
When referring to animals in general using an "any" prefix, again, use "anyone" instead of "anything."
Ask what a baby's sex is before referring to him/her as either -- don't make assumptions on their sex.
posted by Avian Mooch, or a Really Angry Cow at
3:19 PM
1 Comments:
Thank you for pointing out that our language is still tainted by notions of animals as property, as commodities. Your posts have helped me realize that I haven't fully disengaged myself from phrases - and perhaps mindsets - that implicitly devalue animals.
A larger and perhaps more fundamental point that you raise is that we should never become complacent about our presumed enlightenment. All of us have a long way to go, vegan or non-vegan. The day we think we're beyond oppressive, elitist, and/or patronizing thinking is the day we cease to recognize our own foibles and participation in archaic or self-centered hierarchies; more importantly, it's the day we stifle our potential for being of humble yet joyous service to others.
By
Gary, at 4:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home