A debate in Poland centers on whether the language used to describe actions against animals obscures the reality of violence and moral implications.
The Core of the Dispute
Animal rights activists argue that the dominant language – administrative, hunting, and industrial – systematically masks violence against animals, making it difficult to recognize as such.
The author challenges the notion that activists are misusing language by applying terms like “execution” or “death penalty” to wild boars, claiming it risks relativizing human tragedies. Instead, they contend that institutions have shaped language to obscure responsibility and neutralize the moral weight of their actions.
Euphemisms and the “Absent Referent”
Examples of euphemisms used when killing animals include “procurement,” “reduction shooting,” “elimination of problem individuals,” “intervention,” “humane killing,” and “putting to sleep.” These terms remove the fact of intentionally taking the life of a sentient being from view.
This mechanism is described by Carol J. Adams in the concept of the “absent referent,” where the animal disappears from language as a subject, replaced by a product, category, or raw material, allowing for both sympathy and participation in their killing.
Reclaiming Language and Challenging Anthropocentrism
Activists’ use of “stronger” words is seen not as abuse, but as an attempt to restore the adequacy of description. The author refutes the comparison to events like the Volhynian Massacre or the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, arguing it discredits attempts to name violence against animals.
The fundamental issue is anthropocentrism – the belief that only human life has full value – which allows the killing of non-human animals to be framed as a technical problem of population management. Wild boars in cities are a consequence of urbanization, habitat destruction, and easy access to waste.
False Symmetry and the Normalization of Violence
The author builds a false symmetry between the “machismo” of hunting proponents and the “linguistic radicalism” of activists, and those who oppose the former. However, there is a clear imbalance between real acts of killing and attempts to accurately describe them.
The conflict is not between extremes, but between the practice of violence and its exposure and protest. The core question is who has the right to define the boundaries of what constitutes violence.
A “Bad Touch” of Social Norms
Dariusz Gzyra’s concept of a “bad touch” of social norms is relevant, where the norm not only permits violence but organizes and smooths it, diminishing our ability to recognize it. The act of naming violence, rather than the violence itself, becomes the transgression.
The social norm acts as a filter of perception and affect, determining who is recognized as a victim, who deserves compassion, and who is excluded. Animals fall into a category of beings with low “potential for lament,” whose deaths do not “count” socially and therefore do not demand adequate language.
