Arran Stibbe of Chikushi Jogakuen University, Japan, recently reviewed Joan DunayerÂ’s book, Animal Equality for Discourse and Society. DunayerÂ’s book, you may remember, is probably most famous for being panned by Peter Singer as being too extreme in equating the interests of human beings and animals.
Frankly, IÂ’ve had little interest in reading DunayerÂ’s book, but this paragraph in StibbeÂ’s review changed my mind,
Dunayer’s book does more than just point out how dominant discourse contributes to the oppression and exploitation of animals; it also contributes to the formation of counter discourse by providing a 23-page section of style guidelines for countering speciesism. These guidelines, modelled on nonsexist language guidelines, consist of terms and structures to use and avoid. Thus, syntax “that makes nonhuman animals the grammatical subject” should be used, and syntax that “buries nonhuman animals inside a list [or] dependent clause” avoided. Likewise, beast, aquarium, and dairy farmer should be avoided and replaced with nonhuman animal, aquaprison, and cow enslaver, respectively.
Of course, even Stibbe notices some problems with this proposed regimen. The review continues,
Providing alternative language is not an easy task, however. For example, the term (aqua) prison might suggest a crime and a fixed sentence. But can any word sum up the plight of ocean-roaming mammals who have committed no crime but are incarcerated until their death in a small pool for the entertainment of other animals? Similar questions can, and will, be raised about some of the other alternative wordings, but this kind of debate will be useful in stimulating critical consideration of the discourse of oppression.
On that last part, I couldnÂ’t agree more.
Source:
Review of Animal Equality. Arran Stibbe, Discourse and Society, v.14, no.2 (2003): 224-226.