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

“Many of them include what we today know are often grossly exaggerated or even purely fictional accounts of lands, peoples and animals supposedly found on non-European continents (dog-headed cannibals, disproportionately gigantic snakes, elephants, predators and so on) [1,2].”

“Therefore by one single word he was able to compel lions, bears, boars, tigers, and whatever else there is among the most outstanding animals to carry out whatever suited their nature [6].”

“Indeed, Arluke reports that persons working with laboratory experiments on animals “reported that they prefer using a number to a name because it gives them more distance from the animal” [34].”

“The origin of the use of ‘Guinea’ in this context is somewhat disputed [14,15].”

“label of ‘surplus animal’ applied to many other animal cubs born in zoos and later killed when there is no room, or need, for them [30].”

“However, naming species is the most basic way of representation, which enables us to communicate and think about species in specific terms (Borkfelt, 2011).”

“Although subfields in the social sciences and humanities have studied these socially influenced perceptions of animals (e.g., Borkfelt, 2011; Haraway, 2008), the fields of wildlife management and conservation have paid little attention to how animals are socially constructed.”

“Although in scientific research, the naming of ani - mals has been a debated topic, thought to have both benefits and drawbacks (Birke, 2009; Borkfelt, 2011; Wilkinson, 2023), public recognition and naming of individual animals have significant ramifications for conservation and over - all…”

“Borkfelt further remarks that it is indeed naming something that enables us to communicate about it in specific terms, whether the object named is human or nonhuman, animate or inanimate (Borkfelt 2011, 116).”

“According to literature, names of inanimate and animate objects, including individual pets, have their roots in linguistics (Kido 2017, 2018) and psychological discourse or semiosis (Borkfelt 2011; Olaosun & Arua 2012).”

“Readers from a Western, Christian-backed tradition are certainly familiar with the symbolism of naming (non-human) animals (Borkfelt, 2011), given that Adam’s task of naming all living things was both a divine mandate and a symbol of humankind’s dominion over the rest of the world – there is power…”

“113 Thus, by using names when available, and especially without quotation marks around it (e.g., Haloko vs. “ Haloko ” ), we can reorient our relationship to the animals to prioritize treating them with respect.”

“Ideas of naming, categorising and creating hierarchies for animals and habitats from human perspectives have also been critiqued (Borkfelt 2011, DeMello 2012, Irvine 2008).”

“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].”

“The naming of animals (and other organisms, such as plants and fungi) has a longstanding but not uncontested tradition in Western literary and scientific history (Borkfelt, 2011).”

“In their role as primary users, women in rural African societies frequently develop deep emotional bonds with their donkeys, often reflected by the allocation of names with positive connotations (Borkfelt, 2011).”

“…zebra shark, red lion fish, parrotfish, firefly squid, deep-sea dragonfish, hatchetfish, and black seadevil in the Planet Earth Activity Book (Cope, et al., 2021, pp. 43, 49) is problematically “anthropocentric as it names the animal by a human reference to another animal” (Borkfelt, 2011, p. 119).”

“Borkfelt (2011) proposes that labelling non-human animals, with both generic and specific names, can negatively impact our relationships with them and Goatly (2006) suggests the offensiveness of animal metaphors promotes the ideology of human superiority over animals.”

“Naming animals affects how we perceive and treat them, reflecting our cultural attitudes and underscoring our ethical responsibility (Birke 2009; Borkfelt 2011), although the effect of the meaning of the name of an object on people’s emotional or moral attitudes toward it is not always…”

“The act of naming is among the most fundamental functions of language (Borkfelt 2011).”

“This includes how names are used in the context of history, philosophy, and representational theory (Borkfelt, 2011).”