What's in a Name?

It is understandably difficult for anyone to unlearn a concept that society has found acceptable for thousands of years. Being raised up into an state of higher consciousness isn't exactly a speedy affair, nor is it without growing pains. It seems all that much slower when we look at the injustices created by ourselves to justify our own selfishness. Many of us want things to change, but where do we start? We've created this attitude that somehow, because we ~can~ abuse those weaker than we are, we should make it a practice. The only requirement is that one may "wish" to do so. This attitude, hence the accompanying behavior, is condoned by our society and reinforced by ourselves and our neighbors every single day of our lives, and we are now lost in a sea of "reasons" for the things we do. It appears that we may need to change our perspective. This, as with everything else, begins with the individual.

Language is a tool devised to accomplish communication. Communication is how we paint a picture in the minds of the persons we are communicating with. It builds a perception and this perception is passed from one to another through language. If we are to dismember our (mis)conception of animals and how we see them, we must begin to see them as valid life forms. We must find a way to see them differently.

For centuries we've thought of animals as possessions, destined to "belong" to us, to be bought and sold at the sole discretion of the "owner". Slaves, without rights of their own. Viewing non-human life with the same respect as we do ourselves will prove to be quite a challenge, but we must begin at some point if we are to evolve. How can this be achieved? Well, if we are to change the way in which we see them, then it seems logical to begin with the way in which we refer to them. It begins with the dismembering of the language.

Language is a tool we use to reinforce the idea that we are separate from animals - it helps to keep the distance between us intact. It also helps to keep us calloused to their suffering. For example, 4-H animals aren't killed, they're "harvested." This term is a careful way of assuring youngsters that this behavior is acceptable. The word itself sounds harmless, almost benevolent, certainly a far cry from the violent truth of it.

The word "pet", to my mind, is as objectionable as the word "babe" or "doll" or "boy toy." The word "pet" conjures up an image of those whose function it is to amuse their “betters” - much like the role of the court jester - a most undignified position. The word itself robs any creature of their rightful dignity. Perhaps it's not so much what we do to them, but how we see them. If your husband/wife or significant other introduced you to anyone as their "pet", you'd most likely feel offended - as if your existence as a valuable and contributing living being had suddenly become null and void. If we could see our way clear to begin to refer to animals who share our lives with the respect we offer each other by calling them "companions" instead of "pets" we may find ourselves on the threshold of closing the gap between us and it may also serve to remind us that our origins are the same.

Generally, when we make reference to animals we invariably use the term "it." "It" is a genderless pronoun. We make statements like; "it's coat is pretty, or what does it eat?" To make such reference to another human (other than an infant) would be considered something of an insult. In this inanimate reference, we are effectively separating ourselves from animals and labeling them as less valuable, not worthy of a more respectful pronoun.

The mark of our superiority, if indeed we have any claim to such, doesn't lie in our ability to dominate a race of beings who are incapable of defending themselves, it lies in our ability to exercise compassion and kindness and in our willingness to extend our circle of compassion beyond the barrier of our own species.