2/3 - In the second part of our interview with Marie-Claude Marsolier, the author of the book Le mépris des “bêtes”, un lexique de la ségrégation animale (Contempt for “beasts”, a lexicon of animal segregation) highlights the mechanisms of devaluation of animals and of denial of their sufferings perpetuated by our language.

By Ludmilla Intravaia 

Le Boudoir Numérique: To continue our discussion about the mechanisms of symbolic violence inflicted on animals by language, which began in the first part of our interview (read here), let’s talk about the second mechanism, that of their devaluation. In your book, you mention in particular the role of the French “partitif”, the use of which "probably reflects in the most brutal way the deindividualization, the essential status of exploitable resource, of raw material" of animals. This seems particularly striking to me in the fashion industry, where one speaks, for example, of “du cuir” (leather), “de la fourrure” (fur), “des plumes” (feathers), “de la peau” (skin), in short of materials, all the more noble and valued as they are related to the creation of desirable objects. Does the fact that certain animals are reduced to materials terms help to facilitate the exploitation of which they are the victims?

Marie-Claude Marsolier, author of the book Le mépris des “bêtes” (Contempt for “beasts”): It's obvious. In all the examples you cite, fur, leather, feather, skin, the non-human animal has disappeared. There was never an animal. Just a material that is there, that is beautiful. We do not imagine that we had to kill birds to obtain feathers, for example. Whenever there are boas in music hall shows or plumes on the headdress of Saint-Cyriens, birds have been killed just for that. It is indeed very rare that we pluck living birds. But that is completely evacuated. There are no more animals, just a material like cotton or wood that can be woven or carved. A material which has never been sentient, which has never had anything to do with the sentient world. So, yes, that is very much part of the mechanisms for concealing violence against non-human animals.

You also speak of a third mechanism of our language grouping together “devices which, if they do not directly incite contempt and hatred of non-human animals, nonetheless facilitate the general acceptance of their current condition: the mechanisms of euphemism and denial which minimize the violence of which they are victims”. What about, for example, the term “ferme d’élevage” ("breeding farm") used for the places of exploitation of mink, crocodiles or snakes used for their skin and their fur?

That word élevage is interesting. To raise, to make grow, has something positive. We talk about the education of children but also of élever des nourrissons (raising infants, AN), it is a common French expression. Both this positive aspect of élevage and its application to humans generally refer to beneficent actions of aid, support, care and food. While we now know very well the reality of animal husbandry, in particular industrial farming, which corresponds to the situation of 80% of animals consumed in France. Today not only are non-human animals being killed but their lives, especially in factory farms, are just a nightmare, before death. Previously, in smaller structures, non-human animals were probably less unhappy. Breeding conditions were less violent, more artisanal, less industrial than today. In fact, before, if we put aside the killing of non-human animals, there was a closeness to humans. My grandparents accompanied the cows to the meadows, where they fed, stayed with them, took care of them. The hens could be petted. The pig was treated pretty well. Obviously, it ended badly, but there was a period of time, during which the animals raised could find some comfort in their relationship with humans. Make no mistake, foie gras was invented by the Romans and calves have been separated from dairy cows since a long time. Cruelty does not date from today. But it was less systematic and less known before. People who want to perpetuate breeding in France rely on this positive imagery of bond, of proximity between humans and non-humans, of mutual services which had a part of reality, even if it always ended badly for non-humans anyway. All this plays on this register of traditional farms which no longer exist except in our imagination, in children's books and in propaganda films on the subject.

People who fight animal exploitation denounce “la souffrance animale” (“animal suffering”). Rather, industries that feed on it favor the terms “bien-être animal” (“animal welfare”). What violence, what denial, are they hiding behind the words “bien-être animal”?

It's an incredible phenomenon for me. It's completely comparable to the slogans in the book 1984 by George Orwell: “Freedom is slavery”. It's total confusion, the words don't mean anything anymore. To prevent people from thinking, you have to break the vocabulary. It must be made ambiguous. To think, you need to have clear concepts and words associated with those clear concepts. From the moment that Orwell's Ministry of Peace deals with war, it prevents thinking. This is exactly what is at work with the use of the word bien-être.

What do you mean by that?

Bien-être means two things in French. In the current sense of the term, it means comfort, the fact of feeling at ease, of not suffering. In French, it is a meaning that always resurfaces in the foreground, because bien-être is made up of this fundamental term, bien (good, AN) that is not ambiguous. Whatever thing is associated with bien, the a priori will be positive. That is the definition found in classic dictionaries. But another meaning has been added by the World Organization for Animal Health, a technical definition of welfare has been coined which refers to the condition in which farm animals are in, whether that condition is positive or negative. It's like saying that love is having good feelings for someone, wanting to help him or her. But we would add a sense according to which love would also mean having any type of interaction with someone. Like being at war with someone, for example. But war is not a positive interaction. Just as bien-être in slaughterhouses is not a positive state. Talking about animal welfare in slaughterhouses or breeding farms is, for me, an Orwellian sleight of hand.

Another French word that tends to be used instead of  "bien-être" is "bientraitance" (“well-treatment”). What do you think about that?

Bientraitance is less hypocritical in a way. By using bien-être, we say: animals feel good. In many cases, typically at the slaughterhouse, where it is very clear that they are not feeling well at all, bien-être is replaced by bientraitance, which amounts to saying: “We did things according to the law”. The animals were treated well, in the sense of correctly, legally. That means that a slaughter without stunning, for example, can be considered as bientraitance, if the knife used was very sharp or if the person who carried out this act had an appropriate certificate to do so. Because, at a certain point, we end up seeing that the notion of bien-être in slaughterhouses means nothing. Talking about bientraitance is a way of avoiding ridicule and contradictions that become unbearable. One does not know what happens to non-human animals but they have been treated according to the law.

While in your book, you clearly show that the law, the legal framework for animals, only confirms their exploitation ...

It's the way it is. There are laws which can be vile. At one time, homosexuality was a crime in France. It was written in the law. Again, it is always ambiguous. Normally the law is what protects people from violence and sometimes the law is what perpetuates violence. Indeed, with the other animals, we are exactly in this case, of the law that condones and organizes their oppression.

Another French term that we hear a lot, especially in the fashion industry: “la transparence sur l’approvisionnement” ("transparency on supply"). Another way to evade the issue of animal exploitation?

Transparence, a priori, is positive, it means that one has nothing to hide. But nothing to hide from what one wants to say. Transparence means indicating that the cow consumed is of French or German origin. Or that it comes from much further away. This is a very partial transparency. It's so partial that it becomes absurd in a way. When one talks about the transparence sur l’approvisionnement, one wants to know the origin of a product, for example the country from which the materials are coming but one does not specifically want to know, neither about the individuals whose flesh or skin has been torn off, nor how they were treated. But it still allows us to say that we are transparent. As for approvisionnement, this refers to the purely material notion of supply, that is to say "material for". And again, sentient beings are totally absent from this discourse. This term transparence is very in vogue for the moment, because everyone wants to be reassured: what really happened? The brands offer to tell you everything about what happened. It's from France, that's all you need to know. But just because it's done in a specific country doesn't mean it's cruelty free or done legitimately. It is simply the manipulation of advertisers to impart positive aspects to a product, to adorn it with ideas of pomp, luxury or something well done. But these are only impressions.

I red an article last March about a crocodile farm of a large luxury group in Australia, an official of which was saying that he was doing “everything to put in place the best possible practices”. These "best possible practices" are reminiscent of the use of the term “bonnes pratiques” ("good practices"), don't they?

The trick, in fact, is to talk about bonnes pratiques. Because bon (good, AN), in French, is a very positive term. The technical meaning of bonnes pratiques is what is permitted by law. While the current meaning which is referred to spontaneously, due to the positive meaning of the word bon, includes a technical aspect and an ethical aspect. With bonnes pratiques, people who want to buy a crocodile leather bag think that it is necessarily good, that not only was the operation technically well done, that it will give a beautiful product but, in addition, that the animals were treated well. It is on this ambiguity that people who do marketing play.

* 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 last part of Marie-Claude Marsolier's interview on Le Boudoir Numérique : "Let's invent new words to designate plant-based materials in fashion".

* 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"