Psychology, Social Development, Social Motivations

We’re getting ready to launch year five of HRC’s Animal Tracker annual survey of the public opinions and behavior of adults in the U.S. This year’s survey, which will field in March, addresses opinions toward various social movements, who people trust to provide information about animal welfare, opinions about the adequacy of animal protection laws, attitudes toward the importance of animal welfare in various situations, and the frequency with which people discuss animal protection issues. We asked the exact same questions in 2008 and 2009 and will be able to analyze changes over time. When the results are available in April, we’ll also refresh the Animal Tracker graphing tool so that the results will be easy to access and interpret.

In a previous blog series, I explored how denial works to allow humans to become willing participants and bystanders in the suffering of animals. Much of the discussion centered on how employees and subordinates learn to acquiesce to requests from superiors and how the average person learns to ignore the violence inherent in everyday and normalized uses of animals (food, clothing, entertainment, etc.). What I did not thoroughly explore was how those with more economic and social privilege in their careers could engage in types of animal exploitation that are atypical on animals who are often beloved in our culture. This is precisely what animal experimenters are engaged in and a question I have, that leaves many animal advocates baffled, is “How do they do it?”

Using honest, direct and accurate language seems simple enough, but when working in the field of animal protection it is anything but. Many of the typical ways of talking about animal issues in the English language are inherently biased against animal interests. Common words and phrases mask animal abuse, reinforce human exceptionalism and dominance, and normalize animal exploitation.