Is the Language We Are Using to Describe Our Pets Sending the Wrong Message?

Once again we seem to have an august and prestigious group of individuals telling us that we should view animals as if they are four-footed human beings in fur coats. The Reverend Professor Andrew Linzey, PhD, DD, and his fellow editors of the Journal of Animal Ethics have put out a call for us to change the language that we use to describe our pets and other animals. Apparently, at least according to this group of individuals, most of the words that we use to describe animals are insulting and demeaning and send the wrong message.

They begin their argument by saying that derogatory words like "pests" and "vermin" should be dropped altogether and "pets" replaced by "companion animals."

They claim that despite its prevalence the word "pets" is surely a derogatory term both toward the animals concerned and their "human carers". Also, the word "owners", while technically correct in law, harkens back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just property, machines or things that can be used without moral constraint.

They take even more offense at the way we describe "wild animals" who they say should be termed "free living or free ranging animals". They claim that for most people, "wildness" is synonymous with uncivilized, unrestrained, barbarous existence. And they say that here there is an obvious prejudgment that should be avoided."

According to these scholars the danger lies in the fact that "Our existing language about animals is the language of past thought - and the crucial point is that the past is littered with derogatory terminology: "brutes", "beasts", "bestial", "critters", "sub-humans", and the like." Apparently we shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less biased adjectives in our discussions of animals and our moral relations with them.

It is important to note that Professor Linzey, is not a crackpot, but is the respected Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, with some 20 books and more than 100 articles to his credit. In 2001, he was awarded a DD (Doctor of Divinity) degree by the Archbishop of Canterbury in recognition of his 'unique and massive pioneering work at a scholarly level in the area of the theology of creation with particular reference to the rights and welfare of God's sentient creatures'. This is the highest award that the Archbishop can bestow on a theologian and the first time it has been awarded for theological work on animals. However it appears to me, that Prof. Linzey reflects the attitude which showed up so clearly in the survey which I described in a previous article, "Do We Treat Dogs The Same Way As Children In Our Modern Families?" That survey showed that the vast majority of pet dog owners seem to view their pets as if they were human children and to treat them accordingly.

I am reminded of an incident that occured when I was giving a series of talks in California. It was shortly after the city of San Francisco had made the decision to change the label of "dog owners" to "dog guardians." One of the people attending my talk was quite upset when I referred to a dog's owner as his "master." She complained that I was being "insensitive" and much like the editors of the Journal of Animal Ethics, claimed that I was demeaning and lessening the relationship between the dog and its human caregiver.

I tried to explain to her that I thought the term "master" to describe the human being engaged in a dog training context made sense to me. It is certainly the case that my dogs are my companions and my friends, but for a dog to be trained to be civilized and under control there must be an inequality in the relationship between the dog and his owner. When you tell a dog to "sit" or "come," you expect the dog to execute those commands. It is not a matter of equals discussing alternate courses of action. "Come" means that the dog is supposed to return to you. It is not a request which the dog can choose to evaluate and then decide whether he wants to respond to you or whether instead he wants to do something else that is more interesting. The old-fashioned word "master" seems to work in describing this relationship since there is one individual (the master) who gives the commands and another (the dog) who responds to them. I am sure that other words could also work to describe this relationship, but somehow referring to a dog and his "general," or a dog and his "boss," or a dog and his "king" sound silly and inappropriate. So, until someone gives me a term that works better for this asymmetrical relationship, I will stick with the traditional term "master."

I will also continue to use the word "pet" to describe my dogs. To me it is a term of endearment that I also sometimes use as a nickname for my wife or my grandchildren, who I hold very dear. They certainly don't take offense at it, and they have higher cognitive abilities and understanding than my dogs. To me a pet dog is not a human being in a fur coat, but if it were, it might appreciate my using the same term to describe it as I use to express my affection to some of the human beings that I love.

Stanley Coren is the author of many books including: Born to Bark, The Modern Dog, Why Do Dogs Have Wet Noses? The Pawprints of History, How Dogs Think, How To Speak Dog, Why We Love the Dogs We Do, What Do Dogs Know? The Intelligence of Dogs, Why Does My Dog Act That Way? Understanding Dogs for Dummies, Sleep Thieves, The Left-hander Syndrome

Animal Behavior Essential Reads

Fear Disguised as Friendliness: The Fawn Response in Pets

How Good Is a Dog's Hearing Compared to Humans?

Copyright SC Psychological Enterprises Ltd. May not be reprinted or reposted without permission