Is the way we're communicating our issue harming our cause rather than helping it?
How we frame our messages can sometimes hinder our efforts to build support for animal freedom in ways we're not fully aware of...
As successful campaigns and movements have shown over and over again, we need to tailor our communications to audiences in language that resonates with them. No one takes to the streets because of ‘sentience’ or ‘legal breaches’; but they do for ‘freedom’ and ‘love’. We also need to frame our communications in ways that can help people see our issue from new perspectives and in turn build public support.
The power of language is often overlooked. As author and activist bell hooks says: “Our words are not without meaning, they are an action, a resistance”.
What we should be striving for as a movement is vocabulary that is truthful, clear and memorable, and one that is rooted in shared values and our vision of animal freedom. This isn't about political correctness or being ‘the language police’; it's about trying to close the divide between humans and other animals to create a bigger sense of 'us'. Our language needs to encourage others into more positive ways of thinking, not just challenge harmful ideologies.
A language of separation
To legitimise the oppression of anyone, you first have to otherise them to mark them as the ‘outgroup’. We don’t need to list the horrible slurs that have been weaponised against women, people of colour, LGBT+ people and people with disabilities to provoke prejudice, fear and even hatred. Fortunately many social movements have done incredible work to expose these divisive tactics and even reclaim some words on their own terms (e.g. feminist, queer), and in some rare instances, total ownership of them (e.g. the ‘N’ word).
Yet the language used about fellow animals to set them apart as ‘other’ is so normalised in many cultures that it’s often invisible. And as a movement we can unintentionally reinforce the idea that other animals are vastly different from us, using seemingly innocuous language like 'fur' rather than 'hair', 'leather' rather than 'skin', 'meat' rather than 'flesh'. All of which deepens the perceived separation between humans and other animals, as well as reinforcing an 'animals as products' frame.
As communicators we need to work towards closing the divide between humans and our animal cousins (in a way that’s not jarring to audiences), and avoid reinforcing industry framing that maintains that separation and normalises the exploitation of fellow animals. (Check out our Language & Framing Guidelines for suggestions.)
The issue with ‘non-human animals’ and ‘humane’
‘Non-human animals’ is a term widely used by our movement. It’s well intentioned in its effort to communicate that humans are animals too. But rather than create a sense of a ‘bigger us’, it continues to frame fellow animals as different and ‘other’ by emphasising that they are ‘non-human’. This reinforces the idea that humans are the most important metric to be measured against. Imagine women being referred to as ‘non-men’ or gay people as ‘non-straight’… It diminishes and it divides.
Similarly, ‘humane’ is an exclusionary and human-centric term, implying that compassion and kindness are unique to humans, when fellow animals also express these traits.
At Animal Think Tank we think terms like ‘our animal cousins’, ‘fellow animals’ or ‘other animals’ are more inclusive and help communicate a sense of kinship rather than difference. Obviously there is a lot of work to be done to normalise this, especially given the negative connotations associated with many marginalised humans being referred to as ‘animals’ to dehumanise them. But this is the crux of every social justice movement - making those who have been othered as the ‘outgroup’ become accepted as part of an enlarged ‘ingroup’ (while still celebrating our diverse differences).
(Interesting sidenote - we’re starting to see other social justice communicators using terms like ‘the more-than-human world’. While it still centres humans in this framing, it also has an equalising effect by emphasising that nature and other beings are ‘more’ than human, rather than ‘non’ human.)
What’s in a name?
We often normalise the way other animals are used and exploited by reinforcing the idea of them as ‘zoo animals’, ‘companion animals’, ‘farm animals’, ‘race horses’ or ‘lab animals’, as if they’re defined by their supposed ‘purpose’ or ‘role’. Again, when we reinforce these harmful frames, we make it hard for others to connect with fellow animals as the unique individuals they are. And we make it much harder to convince people that fellow animals are even being exploited, when they think a ‘race horse’ is just doing what they’re ‘born’ to do.
Instead, using animal-first and active language like ‘animals confined in zoos’, ‘animals who are farmed’, ‘animals tested on in labs’ or ‘horses forced to race’ can entirely reframe a message and help the audience see the issue in new ways. (See our Language & Framing Guidelines for more suggestions.)
The animal freedom movement often pushes industry narratives
As a movement we can get trapped in industry framing, unintentionally reinforcing harmful ideas about animals as 'products', using terms like 'pork producers', 'livestock', 'beef cows', ‘dairy cows’ or 'broiler chickens' in our messaging. This limits how much people can connect with other animals when we're reinforcing a food/product frame. Because when people see animals as 'food/products' rather than thinking, feeling individuals, this makes the 'use' or ‘consumption’ of them seem normal, natural, necessary and even nice.
Using language like ‘animals who are farmed’ or ‘mother cows’ makes people connect with animals as individuals, and using ‘scare quotes’ around industry terms can highlight there is something problematic about them. (See our Language & Framing Guidelines for more suggestions.)
The backfire effect of using the ‘opposition’s' framing
The idea of nature as a 'resource' is clearly a harmful one. It’s a narrative that goes back centuries and one that fossil fuel, logging and other extractive industries continue to push for their own agenda. Yet lawyers advocating for environmental protections often reinforce this frame, as do many environmental organisations.
Even now it's common to see environmental organisations talking about protecting 'natural resources', rather than activating more helpful framing, such as the planet as our shared home, or humans as part of nature, or even archetypes like 'Mother Nature'. Because when people see the planet as their home, or themselves as an extension of nature, or see nature personified into a mother figure, it becomes much harder to justify 'extracting' from nature. Whereas if you're communicating within the frame of nature as a 'resource', extraction is much harder to argue against as it seems normal, natural and even necessary.
(Interesting sidenote - many indigenous cultures don’t have a word for ‘nature’, as nature is not seen as a separate entity…)
We can obscure what’s happening to fellow animals
When we reinforce industry euphemisms like 'culling', 'depopulation', ‘population control/management’, 'rearing', 'tail docking', ‘processing’ or 'abattoirs', this sanitises the violence our animal cousins are experiencing, and the violence that industries are committing.
To be the best allies and advocates possible for our animal cousins, we need to say it like it is, because no one else is going to. And we need to say it in a way that isn’t going to alienate or jar with people. (This is when public testing can be really valuable!) Words like ‘killing’, ‘mutilations’, ‘farming’ and ‘slaughterhouses’ expose what is really happening to other animals, and through this lens it makes it much harder for the industry to legitimise what they are doing.
The issue with legal and scientific frames
The US marriage equality movement made the communications pitfall of adopting the same framing lawyers were using to push for marriage equality in court. LGBT groups and organisations spoke about 'gay rights' and the need for 'tax benefits' for gay people wanting to get married, and that to deny them this right was an ‘injustice’. Not surprisingly, these type of communications didn’t sway the American public. It was only through doing public opinion research that groups realised that a lot of Americans didn't understand that gay people wanted to get married for the same reason they did - to express their love, celebrate their commitment to each other, and be recognised as a family unit. And Americans didn’t understand this because those advocating for marriage equality weren’t communicating it! It was only when the movement pivoted away from abstract legal framing and started using more values-based framing - which spoke to freedom, love, family and equality - that the marriage equality movement began to see public support grow. (Within 11 years of reframing their issue, they had won marriage equality in all 50 US states - which shows the power of language and framing…)
As a movement, we too can expose ourselves to similar pitfalls by using legal framings and jargon that doesn't resonate with the public - such as sentience, rights, enforcement, regulations, breaches, non-compliance... In many of the focus groups that Animal Think Tank has run, people ask: 'Why do animals even need rights?' Yet we've found when we talk about animals' desire for freedom, to be with their friends and family, to play and explore, people understand the issue in ways they can personally relate to. This is why, at Animal Think Tank, we frame our movement’s issue as ‘animal freedom’ rather than ‘animal rights’.
Legal and scientific frames are for a particular audience - those working in legal and scientific spheres. And even then we can forget that lawyers, judges, scientists and academics are people with values too, who can be moved in their hearts as much as convinced in their heads.
Reinforcing abolitionist framing over welfare framing
As a movement we've done a great job at exposing how much other animals suffer, and stressing the importance of their welfare. We've done such a great job, in fact, that industries (like farming, zoos and even laboratories) had no choice but to use this framing in their own marketing to avoid public scrutiny and outrage, and to continue to make a profit. Over time they have co-opted this frame and narrative entirely, with the farming industry using misleading, welfarewashing terms like 'free-range', 'Happy Eggs', 'high welfare' and 'Laughing Cow' to push 'products' that involve immense suffering.
The welfare narrative has become so deeply embedded into public consciousness that many people hold the view that as long as animals have 'a good life', it's OK to farm and kill them.
Many abolitionist groups unintentionally reinforce welfarist framing by focusing solely on the suffering of animals, which frames the problem as a welfare issue and doesn't get to the root of the actual problem. Nor does it make the solution of 'abolition’ logical while in a welfare frame. By widening the frame to also focus on the uniqueness of other animals - their personalities, interests and desires - and showing how they can thrive and how they should be living, this can encourage people to question the morality of farming animals in the first place. After all, this is why so many people in Western countries oppose the dog and cat ‘meat trade’ in other countries - because they see dogs and cats as unique individuals and even family members, and therefore the idea of farming them is abhorrent. Showing farmed animal cruelty isn’t enough to convince people - they first need to believe that animals who are farmed matter just as much as dogs and cats.
Animal Think Tank has recently tested an effective framing of ‘a good life’ narrative in a way that increases public support for abolition, showing that you can move people beyond the welfare paradigm through how you frame the issue. And, of course, as communicators we can still push for much-needed welfare improvements for animals trapped in a cruel system while communicating within an abolitionist frame. This ensures that the crux of the problem (that fellow animals matter and shouldn’t be exploited in any way) can still be foregrounded.
Much of our work as allies and advocates is not just to show how our animal cousins are victimised and can suffer, it's also to show how incredible they are and how they can and should be thriving. Likewise, when we show how amazing and unique all animals are, we weaken the perceived hierarchy and categories of animals, eroding supposed differences between 'animal companions' and 'farmed animals'.
Top tips for language and framing:
Use inclusive language:
Communicate a sense of a bigger us with language that speaks to the many similarities we share with our animal cousins.
Use animal-first language:
Help people connect with fellow animals as individuals, rather than frame other animals in terms of their supposed ‘function’ to humans.
Use active language:
Make clear that something is being done to other animals, rather than their situation is natural or normal.
Use values-based language:
Connect with shared values that people can relate to, rather than using abstract legal, scientific or academic jargon that doesn’t resonate.
Be bold in our communications:
We need to say it like it is, be conscious of what helpful frames and narratives we want to reinforce, and what harmful frames and narratives we want to avoid or challenge.
I think this communication framework you have established is a very good idea and it can even develop and take root. It is not easy to overcome communication problems experienced in the academic world. For example, I was warned by my professor not to use the word "personality" when I wanted to talk about the personalities of animals. Also, in none of the zoology courses I took for a year did we talk about animals' "thoughts," "decisions," "strategies," "plans." These words referred to consciousness and we did not even talk about animals' consciousness. It should not be this difficult to talk about animals' consciousness when we call our phones "smart."
Love everything about this! Too often, I feel like activists use language that's aggressively provocative, excluding and othering the very people we're trying to reach.