An author recently inquired about the reasoning behind an adjustment I made to her essay, and I was happy to oblige. Originally, the phrase alluded to something that was effective “in both canines and human beings.”
“…in both canines and people,” I altered the wording to read. Even though I explained to her that “Dogs are humans, too!” I don’t blame her for being perplexed.
Every day, the language changes to reflect the knowledge and ethical standards of the day, and we’ve done things at WDJ that she was ignorant of – and some of my writers have done things that I’m still not sure I’m ready to do myself.
It’s possible that my adjustment was not required since most dictionaries define “people” as “humans,” rather than “human beings.” In the case of history, even dictionaries must be taken with a grain of salt!
There was one description that I thought was ridiculous: “People are human beings who are distinct from animals or other entities.” (First and foremost, people are animals.) Was the dictionary implying that there were “other entities” in the world?”
The distinction between “personhood” and “people” is difficult for me, and I agree with current behavior scientists and ethicists who believe that we should broaden our concept of “personhood” to include our animal friends.
“You cannot live your life with a dog, as I had done in Bournemouth, or a cat, and not understand quite well that animals have personalities, brains, and emotions,” says renowned primatologist Jane Goodall.
In the early years of her career, scientists were forbidden to attribute any sort of emotions or intentions to the non-human animals they were observing; this was known as “anthropomorphism” and was deprecated as indicating a lack of objectivity.
Goodall thought this restriction was ridiculous, and she continued to work in this field despite the prohibition.
We no longer accept the notion that our canine and feline pets should be referred to in the same manner as inanimate things (“it”). The fact that we have always used gendered pronouns for dogs in the magazine (he, she, and if we don’t know the gender, they) is one of the reasons for this practice.
Dogs are capable of expressing a variety of emotions including love, jealously and fury; fear and worry; grief; joy; mischievousness; and a variety more emotions.
So, if we accept that all dogs (and other animals) have a “personality,” which is defined as a distinct collection of behavioral features as well as expressions, responses, and feelings, why can’t they be considered “people?”
