Theriocide: Naming the Killing of Animals
When talking about liberation struggles, terminology used to identify the oppression being challenged is of the utmost importance. Yes, all systems of oppression are interconnected, but that does not mean we can use terms relevant to one form of oppression interchangeably with another form of oppression. We must respect the context and character of individual injustices unique to each form of moral wrong or oppression.
Which brings us to an age-old debate in the animal rights movement: what is the most appropriate term to describe the systematic killing of nonhuman animals by human beings? What term encompasses the slaughter of animals by human beings from farms, hunting, fishing, vivisection, fur/leather/silk/wool industries, trafficking, poaching, and even “shelter” systems which euthanize millions of animals annually? Terms such as “genocide” and “holocaust” have been in regular use by animal advocates; both, however, are inadequate for different reasons.
‘Genocide’ is defined as “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” This has been especially relevant in recent months as genocidal warfare has continued to be waged against the peoples of Falastin (Palestine), Sudan, Congo, Tigray, and Myanmar.
But ‘genocide’ does not accurately describe the killing of nonhumans by humans. While it is true that humanity’s slaughter of nonhuman animals is a ceaseless act of violence, it is not done with the intention to exterminate nonhuman animals and to wipe them out of existence. Rather, their exploitation is an unending cycle of breeding and killing; animals are slaughtered on a perpetual timeline, but the slaughtered are replaced with new animals of the same type and species whose flesh and bodily secretions are destined for human consumption. So the term ‘genocide’ in fact misses half the picture in the killing of nonhumans.
‘Holocaust’ is similarly insufficient (and inappropriate) because it refers to a specific genocidal event in history: the killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children by Nazi Germany during World War II. To take this term and apply it to the killing of animals deflects attention from the individuals who were the direct objects of the Nazi’s genocidal campaign: the Jewish people.
Moreover, to simply ‘animalize’ the term (as some have done) and repurpose it as something akin to ‘zoo-locaust’ misses the mark because it uses a human-centric framework to describe the experience of animals slaughtered by humans. If oppressive systems exploiting animals can only be understood by repurposing human-centric systems of oppression, then we are essentially saying that animal suffering is not a unique phenomenon and must be “humanized” to be comprehended and considered. This reinforces the concept of human supremacy - the very ideology we are challenging.
The same can be said for terms such as ‘slave’ or ‘rape’ which are often used by activists to describe the exploitation of animal bodies in labor industries and forced insemination of female cows in the dairy industry.
So where does that leave us?
The term that is arguably the most accurate yet admittedly still imperfect in describing the killing of nonhuman animals by the actions of human beings is “Theriocide”. Derived from the Greek term θηρίον (therio) which refers to an animal other than a human being and the Latin cædere (to cut, strike, kill, or murder), theriocide means literally to kill an animal other than a human.
Theriocide has been in use in academic circles since at least 2007 - which is hardly a long time given the long history of writing and research into the moral question of ‘the animal’. This is reflective of the fact that the English language (and likely many more) has generally conceived of animals as ‘things’ or as ‘property’, which made it unnecessary to specifically name their killing - who, after all, names the killing of a ‘thing’? A thing has neither personhood nor life in any meaningful sense, even if it displays the characteristics one customarily associates with Life: the ability to perceive and interact with one’s environment, to consume nutrients in order to subsist and grow one’s body, to age and to reproduce, and to avoid harm at all costs until at last life leaves the body.
As collective liberation activists, we know that no being – human or otherwise – is a thing or an object or property, no matter what the prevailing political powers, philosophies, and legal systems may have us believe. We know that the life belonging to the one who holds it is beyond our ability to comprehend and to estimate. It is impossible to adequately quantify or qualify, and it is certainly beyond our moral right to take any life that does not belong to us.
Is ‘Theriocide’ the best term to use to describe the killing of nonhuman animals by humans? At present it may be, though we admit that the term is scholarly and relegated to use by academics and researchers. It may never gain mainstream recognition or use, which is fine. But until a better term comes along, it is the preferred term to use in animal rights discussions for it speaks specifically to the unjust taking of nonhuman life by humans.
The killing of animals deserves its own classification. It demands it, in fact. This specificity compels us to view animals as worthy of moral deliberation, and the taking of their lives by human action as the indefensible act that it is.
For more information on the history of the term theriocide, please read this excellent article by Dr. Piers Bierne, PhD of the University of South Maine.
