The editors of the Journal of Animal Ethics recently criticized the use of the words “owners” and “pets” to describe the relationship between humans and domesticated animals. Instead, they prefer the terms “human caregivers” and “animal companions”. In its guidelines for publishing articles, the Journal advises authors to avoid using words that are derogatory to animals such as “beasts”, “vermin” or “critters”. Not surprisingly, this position has elicited a fair amount of controversy. Critics claim that the announcement is yet another example of political correctness gone awry. As author and psychologist Christopher Thurber jests, this can lead to a slippery slope where eventually we will be referring to “pet rocks” as “mineralized family members” so as not to offend someone.
The idea that language influences peoples’ attitudes toward groups in society is nothing new. The feminist movement, in particular, brought attention to the fact that a principal message embedded in our language is that women are inferior to men. Whether it was male generic language that failed to recognize the existence of females (e.g., policeman standing as a proxy for both male and female officers) or terms that defined women in terms of their relationships with males (e.g., women receiving the moniker “Miss” or “Mrs.” compared to “Mr.” for males regardless of a man’s marital status), the underlying message was that women were subordinate to men.
Because we develop our thoughts and communicate using language, feminists argued that attitudes toward women would not change until facets of our language did. I would argue that the opposite was true as well: people would not change the way they used language until their attitudes toward women began to change. Thus, over time there has been incremental progress in both the reduction of language that is derogatory toward women and in gender inequality. Granted, in both respects, there is still much improvement to achieve.
Should we expect to witness a similar transformation in the treatment of animals and the language used to describe them? Compared to the success of the feminist movement, changes in the language used to describe animals have lagged advances in animal welfare. In the aftermath of Peter Singer’s groundbreaking book Animal Liberation, treating animals as creatures deserving our moral consideration gained credence. Since then, society has questioned practices such as factory farming, puppy mills, and killing animals for sport that historically received little attention. The view that animals should be treated ethically is now the predominant opinion.
Now, the Journal of Animal Ethics is calling attention to the language we use to describe animals. However, it is questionable that the terms its editors identify are on par with the ones that denigrate women. While the etymology of the word “pet” is not certain, it appears to be related to the term “petty”, which implies being lower in rank or importance. Regardless of what the word’s origins were, today “pet” is generally used as a synonym to “animal companion” and is not meant to demean animals. In fact, one can claim that the word “animal” itself has a negative connotation. If someone calls a person an animal, he or she likely won’t consider it as a compliment. The term “owner” should cause greater concern than the word “pet” since it unequivocally indicates a superior/subordinate relationship. However, this may simply reflect reality: under the law, domesticated animals are chattels that people own. If there is a concern with the term “owner”, then perhaps the best course of action is to attempt to change the law rather than language. Otherwise, despite a change in semantics, the law will remain.
Any time that a group questions our use of language that has become entrenched in our daily usage, there is likely going to be public resistance to change since language is the way in which we express ourselves and is considered to be an important aspect of freedom of thought and speech. However, language is always evolving and adjusts to reflect new beliefs and values. Recently, we have witnessed the modification of the meaning of words such as “sustainability” and “green” that mirror our growing concern about the environment. Perhaps there will come a time when attitudes toward non-human life forms will change in such a manner that our language referencing animals will change as well.
