What’s in a Name?—Consequences of Naming Non-Human Animals

Abstract

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.

Urban versus rural? The effects of residential status on species identification skills and connection to nature

“…Knowledge on the relationships between people's identifications skills, familiarity and ecological knowledge, which is more complex and nuanced than the previous two, is scarce and should be further developed (Kai et al., 2014). However, naming species is the most basic way of representation, which enables us to communicate and think about species in specific terms (Borkfelt, 2011). Naming species was also shown to be critical for including them in conservation policies (Delić et al., 2017).…”

Valuing animals as they are—Whether they feel it or not

“…Animal Sanctuaries and Animal Shelters do not number, in lieu of naming, the animals they rescue, and if they did, surely visitors would be appalled by this seeming lack of respect for animal individuality and identity. As Sun Borkfelt (, p. 117) points out, when we name an animal, “we not only choose how we want to represent that animal, but also how others are to represent and perceive it: we lay the foundations of representations and perceptions to come.” When we number, instead of name, animals, we express that they “are not like us, are not persons, and do not have the kind of identity, which could warrant a name” (Borkfelt, , p. 123)…”

A Christian Case for Farmed Animal Welfare

“…Adam does, but the story continues by noting that none of these animals makes a suitable helper or partner (Gen 2: [18][19][20], and God creates Eve from Adam's rib. Many scholars have focused on the inadequacy of the animals and birds as helpers and partners, applying to this second story the human dominion over animals of the first creation account (1:26), which is from a different source [12,13]. Some champions of human superiority read Adam's naming of the animals as the origin of language, in which human action designates and classifies animals and the wider physical world [14,15].…”