Episode Notes
In this episode, The Open Sanctuary Project’s Executive DirectorThe individual formally in charge of final decision making at an organization, who sometimes works closely with the organization’s Board of Directors. Sometimes a Founder is an Executive Director, especially early in a nonprofit’s growth stages. Mckenzee and NonprofitA non-governmental organization whose primary purpose is something other than selling goods or services. Specialist Julia discuss the importance of language choices. Language is how we interface with and categorize the world around us. Our choice of language plays a significant role in how we consider others, so your language choices can have a tangible impact on promoting your missionThe stated goals and activities of an organization. An animal sanctuary’s mission is commonly focused on objectives such as animal rescue and public advocacy. and vision! We talk about how we use principles of respect and accessibility to guide our language choices at OSP, and we offer examples and explanations of terms and phrases that you can use at your organization to help flip the script when talking about animals!
—
This Episode’s Referenced Open Sanctuary Project Resources:
- Language Choices At The Open Sanctuary Project | The Open Sanctuary Project
- The Importance Of Language Choices At Your Animal Sanctuary | The Open Sanctuary Project
- Glossary of Common Terms | The Open Sanctuary Project
- Maintaining A Healthy Rooster Flock | The Open Sanctuary Project
- Introduction To Rooster Behavior Part 1: Dismantling Rooster Stigma | The Open Sanctuary Project
Episode Transcript (Auto-GeneratedThe following content was transcribed through an automated process and may contain transcription errors or misspellings.)
Julia Magnus: Welcome to another episode of the Open Sanctuary Podcast. I am Julia Magnus, the nonprofit specialist, and I am here with my friend and executive director Mckenzee Griffler. We have an interesting and hopefully fun subject for you today: the importance of careful language choices. Obviously, as the Open Sanctuary Project is primarily a written resource designed to provide the most compassionate sanctuary animal care resources possible, everyone on staff is a major word nerd. We believe that language is one of the most important tools that we have in our toolkit. Therefore, we find it crucial to be mindful in how we employ and treat language across our platform. So maybe we should start with how we think about language at our home OSP. So Mckenzee, being that you are the person who set the bar here, what are the main things that we think about internally when we craft our resources?
Mckenzee Griffler: When we craft our resources, I like to think that we are always thinking about language and we are always refining our practices and thinking about how we could be doing better because language, much like our resources, is always evolving. The key words that we use to drive our use of language choices at Open Sanctuary are accessibility and respect. These words obviously have a lot of different meanings, but I think that often they can be a very helpful guidepost to values. Very often we are in conversations with one another about, “Oh, I am feeling a little funny about using this word, but is there an alternative that feels good? And if so, how can we communicate it to our audience?” These are conversations that we have every other week, and it makes me so happy as an executive director to have a staff that is so invested in the importance of language and not just using whatever comes to mind. So, when we are thinking about accessibility and respect, accessibility for us means that we believe that our resources should be available to anybody doing the very important and difficult work of compassionate animal care. As such, we work really hard to keep all of our resources’ language simple and accessible. So when we refer to terms that might not be commonly known, we will ensure that there is an explanation available close by, either using a hover zoom, or we will just go into it with a little box. Caring for animals, especially for farmed animalsA species or specific breed of animal that is raised by humans for the use of their bodies or what comes from their bodies., is not always simple, but we do believe that the language of compassionate care should be.
Julia Magnus: I am curious. Do you have another thing you want to say before I interrupt you with a question?
Mckenzee Griffler: I will say that often I think something that we have a hard time with is when we are looking through sources for our information and we find texts that are unnecessarily complicated, that really relish in using big academic words when obviously there is time for precision of language. But there are a lot of times when these concepts can be broken down into more digestible but just as accurate information. That is really important to all of us at Open Sanctuary, and that is part of accessibility.
Julia Magnus: That makes a ton of sense for me. So there is obviously overlap between accessibility and respect, but do you want to discuss a little how the value of respect infuses our language choices?
Mckenzee Griffler: Well, I would really like to think that our language shapes how we see the entire world. So when it comes to using respectful language, this means that we are giving the residents just as much respect as we wish to see at sanctuaries and out in the world, as we see in our resources. We sometimes refer to that as a resident-centered approach to our resources. So when we talk about the ethos of respect, we are referring to treating all animals discussed in the Open Sanctuary Project as individuals deserving the same consideration that we would treat a good friend. While this reframing of language for animals might seem a little trivial to some, we believe that it is really important to always respect those that deserve compassion in whatever areas we can. And language is the way that the Open Sanctuary Project interfaces and categorizes the world around us. Our choice of language plays a large role in how we consider others, how we consider our relation to others. So it might seem a little philosophically dense, but I do believe that it does make a big difference in how our resources are interpreted and understood and how they are put into practice.
Julia Magnus: I totally agree with you. I remember the first time I encountered the Open Sanctuary Project, reading resources and just being shocked because I was looking for information about chickens and either finding vet texts that were difficult to comprehend, or finding resources, backyard chickenThe raising of chickens primarily for the consumption of their eggs and/or flesh, typically in a non-agricultural environment. blogs, that just made me squirm with discomfort at the way that they referred to these beings. So, when you are thinking about this, what are some examples that come to mind in how we try to flip the script in how animals are discussed?
Mckenzee Griffler: Well, I think an easy one is that we work very hard not to refer to animals by the ways that they are used or exploited by humans. So, we will never refer to an animal or a breed of animal as a “meat breed.” Another easy one is that we do not use the pronoun “it” to refer to individuals, just as we would not with humans, at least not without their permission or desire for it. We believe that it really does make a difference to refer to animals as “he,” “she,” or “they.” Another one that was more recent, maybe a couple of years ago, but it really did, I think, make an impact and I have heard a couple different readers say, “That actually makes a lot of sense,” is that a resident’s food is just their food, not “feed.” Because what is the purpose of “feed” other than to otherize? So, we can go into a few more of our decisions down the line, but I think you can start to see where we are really trying our best to honor these individuals, even if they are just abstractions in our resources, because we know that they represent so many individuals both inside and outside of sanctuary grounds.
Julia Magnus: Yes, it was so refreshing to me to see this approach when I first came across OSP and also another thing which was the way that accessibility and respect intersect in language choices here. So how does that interplay work out for us when we are making decisions about words?
Mckenzee Griffler: Well, I like to think that the intersection of accessibility and respect is creating an environment that feels welcoming for anyone who wants to use this information. Just as we would never want to use language that might unintentionally otherize or weaponize people’s beliefs either consciously or unconsciously against animals, we believe that is also true for the human animals, both reading our resources, those at sanctuaries, or just out in the world. So for us, I think the intersection of accessibility and respect means that we will, to our best ability, never publish content that is intentionally discriminatory about a human, be it their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, health, disability, age, economic status, family status, religion, political views, or place of residence. If you are wondering how we got here with all of this stuff with language use at OSP, we actually have a resource that just lives in our “About” page, which is all about our language policy, so you can get a little deeper into it if it is an interesting subject to you.
Julia Magnus: So, looking outside of OSP now, that is how we deal with things. And you have touched on this, why it is important in the world generally to use thoughtful and careful language. So in the sanctuary world, what is at stake? Why is it so particularly important there?
Mckenzee Griffler: Well, unfortunately, especially, this happens with many species of animals, but it is very prevalent with farmed animalA species or specific breed of animal that is raised by humans for the use of their bodies or what comes from their bodies. species that the language surrounding animal agricultureThe human production and use of animals in order to produce animal products, typically for profit. and animal exploitationExploitation is characterized by the abuse of a position of physical, psychological, emotional, social, or economic vulnerability to obtain agreement from someone (e.g., humans and nonhuman animals) or something (e.g, land and water) that is unable to reasonably refuse an offer or demand. It is also characterized by excessive self gain at the expense of something or someone else’s labor, well-being, and/or existence. has been deliberately constructed in a way that separates species that are farmed from other domesticatedAdapted over time (as by selective breeding) from a wild or natural state to life in close association with and to the benefit of humans species. So, as I was saying earlier, a human eats food, and a typical companion animalAn animal who spends regular time with humans in their home and life. Typically cats and dogs are considered companion animals, though many species of animals could also be companion animals., a domestic dog or domestic cat, also eats food. You do not say “cat feed”; you would say it is “cat food.” However, once you are feeding that same food to a cowWhile "cow" can be defined to refer exclusively to female cattle, at The Open Sanctuary Project we refer to domesticated cattle of all ages and sexes as "cows." or a chicken or a pig—not that they are eating the same food as a cat, mind you—this food is very commonly referred to as “feed,” both in marketing and in general parlance. But there is no purpose for this change in verbiage other than to separate and otherize a human’s perception of these species. As their lives are devalued to purely economic consideration, it has been generally accepted by most that they do not deserve the same language of humans and the very small window of species that many humans envelop in their circle of compassion. So, language has been found to alter our perceptions of the world, both in terms of how we construct our value systems and how we conceptualize solutions to challenges that we face as a society. At a farmed animal sanctuaryAn animal sanctuary that primarily cares for rescued animals that were farmed by humans., in particular, this provides a relatively simple but powerful opportunity, educationally and both in practice, to help reframe the way that people consider your residents and the billions of farmed animals around the world that are not at your sanctuary.
Julia Magnus: So, you have touched on this already. We do not want to say “animal feed”; we want to say “food.” That makes a ton of sense to me. It is definitely for me a major petAn animal who spends regular time with humans in their home and life for companionship or human pleasure. Typically a small subset of animal species are considered to be pets by the general public. peeve at this point when anyone refers to an animal as “it.” It is just unnecessary. There is no reason for that, and all it does is objectify that being in a way that is harmful. So, what other specific examples in the sanctuary world do you think might be helpful to offer in terms of helping folks start reframing how people see animals?
Mckenzee Griffler: Absolutely. I do want to underscore that sometimes when we use new language choices that are intentional, sometimes it can feel a little strange or even silly, or, “Why bother making this change?” But I do posit that it makes a difference to think about these things and the underlying reasons why the language has been what it has been and why it could be something new. A few examples of things that we do in terms of our language use, or would also offer to the sanctuary community to consider changing: instead of “your animals,” what about “your residents” or simply “sanctuary animals”? I think that having a sense of ownership, as if these are property that belong to us, is not something that most sanctuaries would be super happy with. So changing a sense of ownership to “these are their own individuals that happen to live with us” does make a difference. A common one that you might see, especially in the farmed animal sanctuary movement, is referring to “farm animals” as “farmed animals,” because the general way of thinking about that is that a “farm animal” is not a state of existence; farming is something that is done to these species, and generally these are all domesticated species. So I think it can be helpful to reframe that, especially for an audience who might just see their value based on the common perception versus reframing that a little. We use “domesticated” instead of “domestic” for the same reason: that domestication is a process that happens to these species, and domestication is a process that was done to benefit humans. One that is a relatively recent one, but came to our attention from a number of lovely sanctuary colleagues, was changing the plural of fish to “fishesWhile "fish" is often used to refer to multiple fishes, we use "fishes" to underscore that each fish should be considered as an individual with their own needs, preferences, and abilities, rather than as a monolith consisting of thousands of different species.,” because it helps to identify that while very often in the world we do not see individual fishes as just that—individuals—it can help separate them in our minds and make us think, “Oh, this is a collective of fishes who live here,” as opposed to one swarm, one entity of an unknown quantity. I think one that a lot of sanctuaries would say makes a lot of sense to switch is that we would never call somebody who is a guardian or a caregiverSomeone who provides daily care, specifically for animal residents at an animal sanctuary, shelter, or rescue. of animals their “owner” or their “master,” because we do not need to continue a hierarchical dominion system with animals; it has not really gotten us very far as human species. And then a couple other easy ones: rather than “dairy cowsWhile "cows" can be defined to refer exclusively to female cattle, at The Open Sanctuary Project we refer to domesticated cattle of all ages and sexes as "cows.",” “cows used for their milk”; “cows exploited for their milk.” Rather than “meat” or “flesh,” we could say the flesh or skin of a cow, chicken, or pig, rather than breaking them down into a “product” for humans. And two that were very interesting to us that we really have worked to adjust in our language based on feedback: one was changing—and maybe this is one you would like to talk about—switching up our language from “bachelor flocks” to “rooster flocks.”
Julia Magnus: Yes, there are a couple of things particular to roosters. They are not unique to roosters, but rooster flocks. I think for quite some time, folks who kept groups of roosters called them bachelor flocks, which really just ascribes human relationships, human ways of being onto these birds, which are not relevant or pertinent to their lives. We do not need to define them by terms that are not what they are about, that are more about humans. Rooster flocks have their own unique sets of behaviors. This particular one was pointed out to us by Triangle Chicken Advocates, and we were really grateful for that. It is noted in our resource on rooster flocks. There is a text box in there if you want to check that out for more of the reasoning and also to learn more about rooster flocks, which I highly encourage you to do. But yes, that is a new one, and it definitely makes people think. All of these things, when you say them, somebody might say, “What did you just say?” But when you explain it, it really does start to open up new pathways in the brain and make people expand their views a little.
Mckenzee Griffler: Absolutely. A final one that I will talk about is we do not use the phrase “aggressive” when describing a resident’s behavior, because we do not believe that is very valuable. Instead, you could simply describe what a resident’s behavior is, what they are doing, without ascribing a value to it. Because “aggressive” has an implication that they are bad, that they are doing something that does not make sense, that is something that can be written off. But just as every resident is an individual, they also have reasons for doing things. To simply reduce a resident to “aggressive,” not only does it unintentionally or intentionally create bias against that resident—if a resident is said to be “aggressive,” it might change the way that caregivers interact with them; it might change the way that visitors interact with them—and it might have absolutely nothing to do with the reason behind why they were displaying a behavior. So yes, those are just a few of our intentional language choices. Again, I know you might be thinking, “Okay. Yes, some of these are a little much,” but just give them a try. I really do believe in them. If you have been reading our resources, hopefully most of them you have seen a hundred times by now, and you say, “Yes, I can see why that might make sense.”
Julia Magnus: They certainly make sense to me. And particularly the removal of the term “aggressive,” because again, in the rooster context, it literally makes no sense. Roosters are prey animals fundamentally; they cannot be aggressive. They are self-defensive. We spend a lot of time yelling about that in our Rooster Stigma resource as well as in our Rooster podcasts, and it is really important to me. So, thank you for bringing that one up. All right. Well, what about a little bit of fun now?
Mckenzee Griffler: All right. Let us do this. Let us think about some everyday sayings, right? Because there are tons of idioms in our day-to-day language that may be grounded in exploitative or harmful thinking about animals. But it can be a really fun party trick to flip the script on these. Do you want to get started?
Julia Magnus: Oh, absolutely. Instead of “the world is your oyster,” what about “the world is your oyster mushroom”?
Mckenzee Griffler: Yes. I remember; I have a little anecdote I have to share because it just popped into my mind. It was during a bust. There were some folks helping us and naming the roosters as we went, and I was working with a friend of mine, Kelsey, who was videotaping this, and they said, “This one is named Hunter.” And we looked at each other and went simultaneously, “Mushroom hunter.” Bird alert! All right. What is another one?
Julia Magnus: Freeing two birds from one cage. Although, I have also heard “feeding two bunnies with one carrot.” There is also “feed two birds with one scone.” There is a lot of background to that one, but I did hear from a famous veganAn individual that seeks to eliminate the exploitation of and cruelty to nonhuman animals as much as possible, including the abstention from elements of animal exploitation in non-food instances when possible and practicable as well. The term vegan can also be used as an adjective to describe a product, organization, or way of living that seeks to eliminate the exploitation of and cruelty to nonhuman animals as much as possible (e.g., vegan cheese, vegan restaurant, etc.). drag queen that you should not feed bread products to birds, despite the rhyme. That is one of my favorite stories. So, you can choose a number of options with that, and you can consider whether your choice is promoting the harmful feeding of bread to birds.
Mckenzee Griffler: Mhm. But you can easily bring home the tofu.
Julia Magnus: Oh, yes, I like that. All right. Well, I mean, obviously when it comes to remaking idioms, there is only a million ways to pet a cat.
Mckenzee Griffler: Oh, I love that one. Depends on the cat, really. That is actually true. There may be only one way.
Julia Magnus: Unfortunately, we are asterisking our own little fun segment already. There are bigger fish to free.
Mckenzee Griffler: Yes, that one is lovely. Yes, I like that one too.
Julia Magnus: And again, when it comes to options and reframing language, there is more than one way to peel an orange. So, therefore, you do not have to put all your berries in one basket.
Mckenzee Griffler: Oh my god, I love this.
Julia Magnus: We probably could go on forever, but you might ban us from the internet forever. So, yes, let us sign off before we get canceled. We do hope that our discussion of language choices has been useful and even a little bit of fun for you. We do again have a list of resources that we have referred to in our show notes below, and you can find these at opensanctuary.org. You can search language at opensanctuary.org if you want to look into this a little further. As always, we warmly welcome your feedback. If you found this valuable, fun, please consider leaving us a five-star review. If you have additional feedback or ideas or subjects that you would like us to cover in the podcast on site, feel free to reach out to us on the site. We do have a “contact us” page. If you like what we do and you would like to support our work, we definitely welcome donations. We are a 501c3 organization, so your donations will be tax-deductible and help us sustain our mission of providing freely accessible resources so that every sanctuary is a success story. Thank you so much for listening, for your support, and we look forward to talking to you next time. Word up.
