Simple summaryHistory teaches us that the act of naming can have various consequences for that which is named. Thus, applying labels as well as both specific and generic names to non-human animals can have consequences for our relationships to them, as various examples show. The issues of whether and how we should name other animals should therefore be given careful consideration.AbstractThe act of naming is among the most basic actions of language. Indeed, it is naming something that enables us to communicate about it in specific terms, whether the object named is human or non-human, animate or inanimate. However, naming is not as uncomplicated as we may usually think and names have consequences for the way we think about animals (human and non-human), peoples, species, places, things etc. Through a blend of history, philosophy and representational theory—and using examples from, among other things, the Bible, Martin Luther, colonialism/imperialism and contemporary ways of keeping and regarding non-human animals—this paper attempts to trace the importance of (both specific and generic) naming to our relationships with the non-human. It explores this topic from the naming of the animals in Genesis to the names given and used by scientists, keepers of companion animals, media etc. in our societies today, and asks the question of what the consequences of naming non-human animals are for us, for the beings named and for the power relations between our species and the non-human species and individuals we name.
Empirical cases from the Danish food market are examined in order to critically discuss the respective modes of communication in light of the premises of socially responsible consumer marketing. This analysis suggests that specific marketing instruments are used to sell animal products by blurring the difference between the paradigms of animal welfare used by producers, and the paradigms of animal welfare implicit in the public understanding of the concept. These instruments rely on the ethical, political and sustainable consumption discourses in order to sell one image of animal welfare in intensive animal production while the production at the same time presupposes a quite different paradigm of animal welfare. Two cases are used to illustrate this: (1) the Danish dairy company Arla Foods' campaign with the tagline 'Closer to nature'; and (2) selected 'quality brands' that present themselves as welfare-oriented alternatives to conventionally produced animal products, but with only marginal improvements. The rhetoric of both cases specifically manifests a deep coherence between nature, farm, animal and end product, and thereby creates associations of production tied to lives living in naturethus attempting to display a green, eco-, climate-, and animal friendly production. The tension between marketing and the idea of ethical consumerism is apparent as the need for independent information to make value-based choices is challenged by the liberal rules of the market and more specifically by the lack of a restrictive food labelling policy. The relationship between the ways in which animal welfare is communicated and emphasized through food marketing, and commonly held perceptions of acceptable standards for animal welfare, is discussed and the need for transparency in the area of animal welfare stressed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.