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’m Julia Magnus, the nonprofit specialist. and I’m here with my friend and executive director Mckenzee Griffler. We’ve got 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 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’d like to think that we are always thinking about language and we are always refining our our practices and thinking about how we could be doing better because language, much like our resources, is always evolving. And the key words that we use to drive our use of language choices at Open Sanctuary are accessibility and respect. And 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’re in conversations with one another about like, oh, you know, I’m feeling a little bit funny about using this word, but you know, is there an alternative that feels good? And if so, how can we communicate it to our audience? And these are conversations that we have like 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’re 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. And as such, we work really hard to keep all of our resources languages simple and accessible. So when we refer to terms that might not be commonly known, we’ll ensure that there’s an explanation available close by either using like a hover zoom or we’ll 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: Yeah, I’m curious. Do you have another thing you want to say before I interrupt you with a question?
Mckenzee Griffler: Yeah, I mean, I’ll say that often times 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’s time for precision of language. But there’s a lot of times when these concepts can be broken down into more digestible but just as accurate information. And that’s really important to all of us at Open Sanctuary. And that’s part of accessibility.
Julia Magnus: That makes a ton of sense for me. So there’s obviously overlap between accessibility and respect, but do you want to discuss a little bit how the value of respect infuses our language choices?
Mckenzee Griffler: Well, I’d really like to think that our language kind of 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’re 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’s 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. And 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’re put into practice. this.
Julia Magnus: I 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 like 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’re thinking about this, what are some examples that come to mind? in how we try to flip the scripts 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’ll never refer to an animal or a breed of animal as quote unquote a meat breed, quote unquote. Another easy one is that we don’t use the pronoun it to refer to individuals, just as we wouldn’t 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. And another one that was a more recent one maybe a couple years ago, but it really did, I think, make an impact and I have heard a couple different readers say, you know what, that does actually make a lot of sense is that a resident’s food is just their food, not feed. Because what is the purpose of the 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’re really trying our best to honor these individuals, even if they’re just abstractions in our resources because we know that they represent so many individuals both inside and outside of sanctuary grounds.
Julia Magnus: Yeah, 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’re making decisions about words?
Mckenzee Griffler: Well, I’d like to think that the intersection of accessibility and respect is creating an environment that feels welcoming for anyone who wants to do this information. So 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 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. And if you’re wondering how we kind of 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 bit deeper into it if it’s an interesting subject to you.
Julia Magnus: So, looking outside of OSP now, that’s how we deal with things. And you’ve touched on this, why it’s important in the world generally to use thoughtful and careful language. So in the sanctuary world, what’s at stake? Why is it so particularly important there?
Mckenzee Griffler: Well, unfortunately, especially, you know, this happens with many species of animals, but it’s 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. like a domestic dog or domestic cat also eats food. You don’t say cat feed. You’d say it’s cat food. However, once you’re 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’re eating the same food as a cat, mind you, this food is very commonly referred to as feed both marketing and in general parliament. But there’s no purpose for this change in verbiage other than to separate and otherize a human’s perception of these species. And as their lives are devalued to purely economic consideration, it’s 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 very 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. world that aren’t at your sanctuary.
Julia Magnus: So, you’ve touched on this already. We don’t want to say animal feed. We want to say food. And that makes a ton of sense to me. It’s 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 an it. It’s just unnecessary. There’s there’s no reason for that. And all it does is objectify that being in a way that’s harmful. So, what other specific examples to 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. And 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 like, you know, why bother making this change? But I do posit that it does make a difference to think about these things and the underlying reasons why the language has been what it has been. and 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 up. Instead of your animals, what about your residents or just sanctuary animals? I think that having a sense of ownership of 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 just 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 from farm animalsDomesticated animals that are used by humans either for their body or what comes from their body. Farmed animals have fewer regulations governing their welfare than other species in many countries. to farmed animals because the general way of thinking about that is that a farm animalA domesticated animal that is used by humans either for their body or what comes from their body. Farmed animals have fewer regulations governing their welfare than other species in many countries. 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 just based on the common perception versus reframing that a little bit. 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 don’t see individual fishes as just that individuals it can help separate them in our mind and be like oh this is a collective of fishes who live here as opposed to one swarm of one entity of an unknown quantity and I think one that a lot of sanctuaries would say is pretty makes a lot of sense to switch up is 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 don’t need to continue a hierarchical dominion system with animals hasn’t 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 like the flash or skin of a cow or chicken or a pig rather than breaking them down into a quote unquote 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’d like to talk about, switching up our language from bachelor flocks to rooster flocks.
Julia Magnus: Yeah, there are a couple of things particular to roosters. Well, They’re not unique to roosters, but well, rooster flocks. But I think for quite some time, folks who kept groups of roosters called them bachelor flocks, which really just sort of ascribes human relationships, human ways of being onto these birds, which aren’t relevant or pertinent to their lives. We don’t need to define them by terms that aren’t what they’re 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’s noted in our resource on rooster flocks. There’s 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 yeah, that’s that’s a new one and it it definitely makes people think. All of these things when you say them Somebody might be like, “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 bit.
Mckenzee Griffler: Absolutely. And a final one that I’ll talk about is we don’t use the phrase aggressive when describing a resident’s behavior because we don’t believe that that is very valuable. When instead you could simply describe what a resident’s behavior is what they’re doing without ascribing a value to it. Because aggressive has an implication that they are bad, that they are doing something that doesn’t make sense, that’s something that can be written off. But just as every resident is an individual, they also have reasons for doing things. And to simply reduce a resident to aggressive, not only does it unintentionally or intentionally create bias against that resident that if a resident is said to be aggressive, that 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 yeah, those are just a few of our intentional language choices. Again, I know you might be thinking, oh, Okay. Yeah, some of these are a little much, but just give them a try a little bit. I I really do believe in them. And you know, if you’ve been reading our resources, hopefully most of them, you’ve seen them a hundred times by now, and you say, “Oh, yeah, okay. Yeah, 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’re self-defensive. And we spend a lot a lot of time yelling about that in our Rooster stigma resource as well in our Rooster podcasts. And it’s really important to me. So, thank you for bringing that one up. All right. Well, what about a little bit of fun now? All right. Let’s do this. Let’s think about some everyday sayings, right? Because there are tons of idioms in our day-to-day language that may be grounded and exploitative or harmful thinking about animals. But it can be a really fun party trick to flip the script on these. And do you want to get started?
Mckenzee Griffler: Oh, absolutely. Instead of the world is your oyster, what about the world is your oyster mushroom?
Julia Magnus: Yes. This I remember actually I’ve got a little anecdote I have to share because it just popped into my mind, but 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’re like, “This one’s named Hunter.” And we looked at each other and went simultaneously, “Mushroom hunter.” Bird alert. All right. What’s another one? Freeing two birds from one cage. Although, I’ve also heard feeding two bunnies with one carrot. There’s also feed two birds with one scone. There’s a lot of background of that one, but I did hear from um 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 a bird despite the rhyme. That’s 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’s Only a million ways to pet a cat.
Mckenzee Griffler: Oh, I love that one. Depends on the cat. Really? That’s actually true. There may be only one way.
Julia Magnus: Unfortunately, we’re asterisking our own little fun segment already. There’s bigger fish to free. Yeah, that one’s lovely. Yep, I like that one, too. And again, when it comes to options and reframing language, there is more than one way to peel an orange. So, therefore, you don’t have to put all your berries in one basket.
Mckenzee Griffler: Oh my god, I love this. We probably could go on forever, but you might just like to ban us from the internet forever. So, yeah, let’s sign off before we get cancelled. And 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’ve referred to in our show notes below and you can find these at openuary.org. You can search language at open sanctuary.org if you want to look into this a little further and As always, we warmly welcome your feedback. If you found this valuable, fun, please consider leaving us a five-star review. And if you have additional feedback or ideas or subjects that you’d 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. And if you like what we do and you’d like to support our work, we definitely welcome donations. We’re 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.
