3/3 - Third and last part of our interview with Marie-Claude Marsolier, in which the author of the book Le mépris des “bêtes”, un lexique de la ségrégation animale (Contempt for “beasts”, a lexicon of animal segregation) explains how a use of our vocabulary more respectful of animals would help fight the linguistic mechanisms which devalue them and deny the sufferings inflicted on them.

By Ludmilla Intravaia

Le Boudoir Numérique: To end our discussion on the devices of symbolic violence inflicted on animals by language, started in our first two interviews (read here and read there), let's now tackle the subject of new materials, made from grape, pineapple or apple wastes or by biofabrication to replace, in fashion, animal-based materials, such as leather. These innovative materials are often called "alter-leathers", due to the fact that they are alternatives to leather obtained from the exploitation of certain animals. Do you think that the use of the term alter-leather or “vegan leather”, commonly used by the general public, makes sense or would it be more relevant to get rid of all names referring to the original animal-based products? 

Marie-Claude Marsolier, author of the book Le mépris des “bêtes” (Contempt for “beasts”): The same questions exist for food products of vegetal origin that want to mimic those of animal origin, steaks, hams, sausages, milk, etc. There are two opposing arguments: on the one hand, if we use the terms used for animal-based products for plant-based products, we facilitate the transition from animal to plant consumption. For example, if we are talking about a soybean steak, people will say to themselves that it is rich in protein like a meat steak. Because, usually, people dislike new things. Therefore, creating a positive equivalence between products of plant and animal origins has a reassuring dimension. On the other hand, it is as if we cannot break away from the animal products model. As if we were still dependent on it. What is nutritious is the meat steak and not a soy steak. What is beautiful is leather and not the alternative materials. It is as if plant-based leather is just an ersatz, a substitute for the original animal product which remains the benchmark. Like skai which would be a replacement for leather, less beautiful and less expensive. Especially since our language is marked by a global devaluation of plants, these materials of the poor, necessarily of inferior quality.

You said, during a presentation conference of your book, on March 22 (more info below in this article): “I am not enthusiastic about the idea of ​​using the term leather, because this word denotes a cruel reality. It would be nice to get rid of leather, as we could get rid of steak. To say to ourselves: let’s accept the fact that we do things differently, because we have stopped exploiting non-human animals (...) We do not remain attached to leather, as if it were the ultimate reference (...) At some point, the memory of these products will be erased and that will be so much the better”…

Yes, because the day the situation turns around, we will find meat steak disgusting. It would be better to stand out, now, from these references related to the exploitation of non-human animals and dare to make an imagination effort to invent new words to designate plant-based materials in fashion, without systematically referring to leather. To be creative in finding other terms seems to me a more advantageous strategy in the long term.

In your book, you invite readers “to more rational and critical uses of our language which will make it at the very least more respectful towards non-humans, and ideally even philothère” (read the first part of the interview, here, to know more about the French word “misothère”, opposite of philothère). What can we do, concretely, to speak in a more “philotherian” way?

In a very simple way, we must stop using the expressions une vache à lait (a cash cow, AN), une vie de chien (a dog’s life, AN), des chats à fouetter (fish to fry, AN), une mémoire de poisson rouge (goldfish memory, AN), tête de linotte (birdhead, AN), etc. You have to try, which is not that easy in fact, because habits quickly take over. So you have to exercise some discipline at the start. It is a good thing to speak of animals, using only the scientific sense of the term, that is to say including humans, to break down the barrier separating humans on one side and non-human animals on the other. Using non-human animals is also important because it reminds us, every time, that humans are animals. We are all animals. Do not hesitate to talk about des vaches enceintes (pregnant cows, AN), le visage (the face, AN) of a dog, a fox or a mouse because it is perfectly legitimate, from a lexical point of view. Le visage is what is seen and that sees, what has eyes. Le visage is part of a vocabulary classically associated with individuals that we love, honor and respect. La gueule (the mouth, AN) is not. Talking about la jambe (the leg, AN) of a horse is also legitimate, because the leg of a horse and our legs are what are called homologous elements, that is to say similar, from an embryological and structural point of view. The use of visage or jambe is completely justified for many non-human animals. This helps to highlight how close we are to non-humans in order to break this barrier which is the number one obstacle to our empathy towards them.

We can also use the word “person” to refer to non-human animals…

Absolutely, that is to say that they too are people. There are two important meanings for the term person. In the legal sense, using person would allow non-human animals to be released from the status of goods, of objects. We don't know exactly what we would do with this notion of a non-human person, from a legal point of view, but at least they would no longer be objects. And then, there is the concept of person in the common sense which corresponds to the notion of sentients individuals with a character, a personality, who differ from one another by their behaviors, by their curiosity, by their intelligence, by their sensitivity, by their tendencies, homo- or heterosexual, etc. The day all animals are people, again, maybe not jellyfish and sponges, but the day all vertebrates are people, there will be much fewer in slaughterhouses.

We want non-human animals to be considered as people so that they get a legal status that protects them, right?

The ultimate goal of changing our vocabulary is to change our representation of other animals, to consider them as individuals, cousins. Around my house there is a clan of crows. There are a lot of interactions between them, power relations, they chase each other, one of them is always perched on the highest lamppost. The day humans look at these crows, like you look at a bunch of kids, it will seem impossible to shoot them or throw stones at them. And the law will follow automatically. Often, the law just endorses facts. As a simple citizen, we do not have direct access to the drafting of laws but if we start with changing our outlook, we will also change our society and consequently its laws.

Are you positive about our ability to change mentalities? 

Absolutely. Consider the word féminicide (femicide, AN). It didn't take long for it to enter the dictionary. And now, there are also the French terms sentient, sentience. We are the ones who make the dictionaries, which reflect the evolution of our language. When dogs, cows and non-human animals will be referred to everywhere as people, this new meaning will be added to the list of all meanings of the word person. It is we who make our language, for better or for worse. 

* Read the first part of Marie-Claude Marsolier's interview on Le Boudoir Numérique : "Our language reflects and perpetuates the oppression of non-human animals".

* Read the second part of Marie-Claude Marsolier's interview on Le Boudoir Numérique : "Talking about animal welfare in breeding farms is an Orwellian sleight of hand".

* Le Boudoir Numérique met Marie-Claude Marsolier at a conference organized on March 22, 2021 by the animal protection association Paris Animaux Zoopolis (PAZ) Watch the video recording of the event here. PAZ website is there.

* The book Le mépris des “bêtes”, un lexique de la ségrégation animale (Contempt for “beasts”, a lexicon of animal segregation) by Marie-Claude Marsolier was published on September 9, 2020 at Presses Universitaires de France (PUF).

* You don’t want to miss any fashion tech and beauty tech news ? It’s easy, subscribe to Le Boudoir Numérique newsletter !

* Continue reading with these Boudoir Numérique articles:

- PETA - "Fashion must switch to alternative materials that are cruelty-free and safer for us"

- PETA - "Technology can help end the exploitation of animals for fashion"

- "Disrupt leather industry with a respectful and innovative alternative"