Animals qua sentient beings vs. animals qua
resources
A critical reading of the mentions of animals in
Norwegian political party programs
Abstract
Morten Tønnessen
Associate Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Stavanger
Chair of Minding Animals Norway
Inspired by
Stibbe 2012, this paper presents the main findings of a simple linguistic study
of the programs for the parliamentary term 2013-2017 of Norway’s nine biggest
political parties. The corpus consists of 12 programs, since three of the parties
operate with two programs, one focused on principles and the other on more
practical questions. The study is divided into two parts, a word/morpheme frequency
study, involving 23 entries with altogether 28 search terms (including “dyr”
[animal], “dyreetikk” [animal ethics], “dyrevelferd” [animal welfare], “fisk”
[fish], “fugl” [bird]), “rovdyr” [predator(s)] and a number of common animals)
and a morpheme occurrence study. The latter results in complete overviews over
the vocabulary applied in these political programs containing the morphemes
“dyr” [animal], “rein” [reindeer] and “fisk” [fish].
The findings of
the second part of the analysis show that the three mentioned morphemes are
often included in wordings that imply a systematic omission of basic aspects of
animal life and behaviour. In particular, the morphemes “fisk” [fish] and “rein”
[reindeer] are predominantly, in fact almost exclusively, to be found in
conceptual structures that constitute an objectification of animals, usually by
reducing them to economic resources. This observation is consistent with one of
the findings of the first part of the study, namely that “fisk” [fish], which
is economically important in Norway, is mentioned some 300 times altogether in
the corpus, whereas “fugl” [bird] is mentioned only 3 times. Even when applied
as a word, “fisk” [fish] rarely refers to fish as living, sentient beings, but most
often rather to fish products and governmental management of fisheries.
There are a few
instances of statements connecting animal welfare and the like to the fishy vocabulary,
but there is otherwise little correlation between the positive statements about
animal ethics etc. on the one hand and the use of language whenever animals are
mentioned elsewhere in the party programs on the other. The analysis thus shows
that the choices of words that have been made in formulating the parties' policies
for this parliamentary term in sum reveal a deep-seated anthropocentrism which
stands in direct contrast to the good intentions, officially shared by several
of the analyzed parties, of getting animal ethics higher up on the political
agenda.
Reference
Stibbe,
Arran. 2012. Animals Erased: Discourse,
Ecology, and Reconnection with the Natural World. Middletown, Connecticut:
Wesleyan University Press.
* This presentation is supported by the
research project "Animals in Changing Environments: Cultural Mediation and
Semiotic Analysis" (EEA Norway Grants EMP 151, 2013-2016).
