Thehabitsofthoughtthatleadustodisregardtheinterestsof
animals can be challenged, as they are challenged in the
following pages. This challenge has to be expressed in a
language, which in this case happens to be English. The
English language, like other
languages,reflectstheprejudicesofitsusers.Soauthorswho
wishtochallengetheseprejudicesareinawell-knowntypeof
bind: either they use language that reinforces the very
prejudices they wish to challenge, or else they fail to
communicatewiththeiraudience.Thisbookhasalreadybeen
forcedalongtheformerofthesepaths.Wecommonlyusethe
word“animal”tomean“animalsotherthanhumanbeings.”
Thisusage setshumansapartfromotheranimals,implying
that we are not ourselves animals—an implication that
everyonewhohashadelementarylessonsinbiologyknows
to be false.
Inthepopularmindtheterm“animal”lumpstogetherbeings
asdifferentasoystersandchimpanzees,whileplacingagulf
betweenchimpanzeesandhumans,althoughourrelationship
to thoseapes ismuchcloserthantheoyster’s. Sincethere
existsnoothershorttermforthenonhumananimals,Ihave,
inthetitleofthisbookandelsewhereinthesepages,hadto
use“animal”asifitdidnotincludethehumananimal.Thisis
aregrettablelapsefromthestandardsofrevolutionarypurity
but it seems necessary for effective communication.
Occasionally,however,toremindyouthatthisisamatterof
convenienceonly,Ishalluselonger,moreaccuratemodesof
referring to what was once called“the brute creation.” In
othercases,too,Ihavetriedtoavoidlanguagewhichtendsto
degrade animals or disguise the nature of the food we eat.