Language is powerful, and words can be used by humans to define and control nonhuman populations. One example is the use of the word “feral.” The term can have many different connotations, but in most cases, it takes on a negative valence. For example, humans may use it to differentiate companion animals from free-roaming animals of the same species, especially when the free-roaming animals are deemed a nuisance.
The purpose of this paper was to explore the ways in which humans wield the word “feral” against animals, thus justifying their treatment of different animal groups. In doing so, the authors shed light on the problematic nature of power words in general, especially as they apply to animals.
Describing animals as “feral” has significant implications when focusing on wild animal conservation. For example, in Australia, wild animal management policies allowed for the demonization and mass killing of feral cats with the goal of preserving native prey species. Alternatively, the authors note that within Indigenous Australian philosophies, the term “feral” is considered more neutral. According to such philosophies, feral species are viewed as an accepted part of the overall ecosystem.
“Feral” is generally used to describe an animal who exists within an ecosystem where they are viewed as out-of-place. As a result, feral animals are often perceived more negatively than their non-feral counterparts. For example, vocalizations generated from “feral” animals are often viewed as irritating noise. Sometimes humans describe any undesirable animal sounds as feral, even if they aren’t being produced by so-called feral animals (e.g., companion dogs barking). The authors point out that when humans migrate to a new area, they may label unwanted animal noises as feral even when the animals were there first.
The historical relevance of nonhuman animals can also factor into perceptions and tolerance. Historically, horses have been viewed as important to humans, and as such, people have typically accepted them regardless of their status (e.g., wild, feral, domesticated). However, the authors give one example where humans encroached on wild mustang habitats in Albuquerque and labeled the once-wild horses “feral” to justify eradicating them from the land. In that case, a U.S. judge proclaimed that the horses weren’t protected, feral, or stray — while the government wouldn’t mandate mass killings, it became viewed as acceptable for locals to kill them.
The authors go on to argue that the way in which members of a species were obtained (wild-caught or captive-born) has implications for whether the species is considered feral. Specifically, wild-caught animals can technically never be given this classification. They give the example of Burmese pythons and Nile crocodiles roaming freely in Florida — although these animals were once kept as “exotic pets,” reptiles typically aren’t viewed as domesticated species (even when born in captivity). As a result, they’re typically labeled as “non-native” rather than feral. Meanwhile, once-captive rhesus macaques are often described as “free-roaming” in Florida, as these animals tend to elicit more positive reactions from the public.
Tolerance for nonhuman animals is important because it can influence the laws and social norms we establish to control animal lives. The power that humans assert through the use of language can have very real effects for the animals being labeled. Animal advocates should make people aware that power words are arbitrary, used when a species violates what we as humans define as acceptable for them. Instead, it’s important to look beyond labels and consider all animals as individuals worthy of our concern.
The post Using “Power Words” To Control Animals appeared first on Faunalytics.
The purpose of this paper was to explore the ways in which humans wield the word “feral” against animals, thus justifying their treatment of different animal groups. In doing so, the authors shed light on the problematic nature of power words in general, especially as they apply to animals.
Describing animals as “feral” has significant implications when focusing on wild animal conservation. For example, in Australia, wild animal management policies allowed for the demonization and mass killing of feral cats with the goal of preserving native prey species. Alternatively, the authors note that within Indigenous Australian philosophies, the term “feral” is considered more neutral. According to such philosophies, feral species are viewed as an accepted part of the overall ecosystem.
“Feral” is generally used to describe an animal who exists within an ecosystem where they are viewed as out-of-place. As a result, feral animals are often perceived more negatively than their non-feral counterparts. For example, vocalizations generated from “feral” animals are often viewed as irritating noise. Sometimes humans describe any undesirable animal sounds as feral, even if they aren’t being produced by so-called feral animals (e.g., companion dogs barking). The authors point out that when humans migrate to a new area, they may label unwanted animal noises as feral even when the animals were there first.
The historical relevance of nonhuman animals can also factor into perceptions and tolerance. Historically, horses have been viewed as important to humans, and as such, people have typically accepted them regardless of their status (e.g., wild, feral, domesticated). However, the authors give one example where humans encroached on wild mustang habitats in Albuquerque and labeled the once-wild horses “feral” to justify eradicating them from the land. In that case, a U.S. judge proclaimed that the horses weren’t protected, feral, or stray — while the government wouldn’t mandate mass killings, it became viewed as acceptable for locals to kill them.
The authors go on to argue that the way in which members of a species were obtained (wild-caught or captive-born) has implications for whether the species is considered feral. Specifically, wild-caught animals can technically never be given this classification. They give the example of Burmese pythons and Nile crocodiles roaming freely in Florida — although these animals were once kept as “exotic pets,” reptiles typically aren’t viewed as domesticated species (even when born in captivity). As a result, they’re typically labeled as “non-native” rather than feral. Meanwhile, once-captive rhesus macaques are often described as “free-roaming” in Florida, as these animals tend to elicit more positive reactions from the public.
Tolerance for nonhuman animals is important because it can influence the laws and social norms we establish to control animal lives. The power that humans assert through the use of language can have very real effects for the animals being labeled. Animal advocates should make people aware that power words are arbitrary, used when a species violates what we as humans define as acceptable for them. Instead, it’s important to look beyond labels and consider all animals as individuals worthy of our concern.
The post Using “Power Words” To Control Animals appeared first on Faunalytics.