The Language Of Speciesism
Language is an important mirror of human culture and values, including prejudices like speciesism. By looking at how we use language, the authors of this study believe it’s possible to better understand how speciesism manifests in society.
There are many types of English language text available for research, including websites, books, TV and film screenplays, and conversation transcripts. In this study, the researchers used a machine learning model to compare how language is used across these media to denote humans and different categories of animals: companion animals, “appealing” wild animals (e.g., dolphins), “unappealing” wild animals (e.g., snakes), and animals used for food.
Their model assigned scores to words depending on how often they were used with other words. For example, if the word “human” was used often near the word “precious” (which denotes value) but the word “pig” wasn’t, then the word “human” would be assigned a higher value score. In turn, these scores reveal how “humans” and “pigs” are portrayed in everyday language.
The authors wanted to know how humans and animals are discussed in relation to four different concepts:
- Concern: Indicated through words like “caring,” “sympathizes,” “helps”
- Indifference: Indicated through words like “detach,” “neglectful,” “unconcerned”
- Value: Indicated through words like “precious,” “significant,” “cherish”
- Valueless: Indicated through words like “useless,” “inferior,” “unimportant”
Furthermore, the researchers explored two types of speciesism: anthropocentric speciesism (speciesism that favors humans over other animals) and companion animal speciesism (speciesism that favors companion animals over other non-human animals).
They found that humans were more associated with “value” than all categories of non-human animals. Companion animals and humans showed similar associations with “concern.” The authors claim that the language we use to refer to companion animals reflects our emotional closeness with them. This can be true even when people see companion animals as having less value than humans.
Companion animals and “appealing” wild animals were similarly associated with value, but companion animals were more associated with concern than all other categories of non-human animals. Finally, appealing wild animals were significantly less associated with concern than food animals and significantly more associated with value compared to unappealing wild animals.
Taken comprehensively, the authors argue that both forms of speciesism are present in our everyday language. They point out that their findings are similar to research on other prejudices like racism and sexism.
While it was beyond the scope of this study, other research suggests that speciesism in language may affect our behavior toward other animals. Because of this, animal advocates should point out where our language is most obviously prejudiced toward other animals and suggest ways of shifting our language to be more accommodating, and accepting, of other species.