BLOG |
In spring 2020 a group of faculty took a mini version of the Animals and Society course. Yes, faculty went back to class. How cool! For one assignment, participants read an article about how language can promote speciesism. They then chose idioms or phrases that involve animals and researched where they came from and discussed if these phrases are harmful to nonhuman animals. They phrases they chose to research are stool pigeon, you can lead a horse to water, it’s raining cats and dogs, kill two birds with one stone, sleep tight, don't let the bed bugs bite, mutton dressed as lamb and hush puppies. Here are their findings! Stool Pigeon Kate Ford The idiom I chose to research is stool pigeon. According to the book, I’ve got Goose Pimples by Marvin Vanoni, stool pigeon was being used as 1840 to mean someone in the pay of the police spying on criminal activities. That is still what it means today, someone who tattles to the police. The history behind this phrase really does have to do with pigeons and stools. Pigeon was a prized delicacy in Britain, however hunting them with guns often damaged the meat. The preferred method of catching them then was with a snare. The hunter would sit on a stool with his snare and a tame pigeon. Often, the pigeon was tied to the stool to prevent it from flying off. Free-living pigeons would be lured into captivity by the “stool pigeon”. (Vanoni 1989) This phrase certainly has a negative connotation, however I’m not sure that it is greatly damaging to pigeons. It goes against most people’s sense of honesty, the stool pigeon of the past and today presenting themselves as something they are not. It also grates against honor, even among thieves. I think simply calling someone an informant is a good way to convey the same meaning without the potential for damage to the pigeon. Vanoni, M. (1989) I’ve got goose pimples: Our great expressions and how they came to be. William Morrow and Company, Inc. You Can Lead a Horse to Water Charlie Krois As a professor, I find myself using the phrase, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink” quite often. Generally, this idiom means you can provide someone (in my case, students) resources and opportunities to help them (study guides, textbooks, practice problems), but you cannot force them to use it. In a broader sense, I use it personally to imply, “I can only do much” or “What more can I do?” This idiom can be traced back to the 12th century, with a phrase in the book Old English Homilies: “Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him-self nule drinken. 1” This can be translated in two ways, either “Who can give water to the horse that will not drink of [their] own accord?” which closely resembles the current idiom, or “Who is he that may water the horse and not drink himself?” which has a slightly different meaning. 1 Referencing the idiom’s appearance in Homilies, some suggest the phrase may be the oldest proverb that originated in English still in use today. 2,3 That is, other, older proverbs are translations from other sources.3 The phrase appears more clearly in the 16th century, written as “A man may well bring a horse to the water, but he can not make hym drynke without he will” in the book A Dialogue Conteinyng The Nomber in effect of all the Prouerbes in the English Tongue.1 Authors in the 18th and 19th century changed the wording such that “twenty” or “a thousand” could not make the horse drink.4 The phrase is believed to have adopted its more modern form after writer Dorothy Parker used a play on it, quipping “You can lead a horticulture [whore to culture], but you can’t make her think.3,5” If one wanted to replace the phrase to remove the animal reference, I would not suggest Dorothy Parker’s version. One possible replacement, from Joanne Stepaniak, is “You can sow fertile seeds, but you can’t make them sprout.” Personally, I find her suggestion a little awkward, and would adjust it to “You can water your seeds, but can’t make them grow.” That said, there might be something lost from removing the horse: agency. The horse can choose to drink or not, a plant has far less choice about whether it grows. In fact, if you are watering your plant and it is not growing, you are probably doing something else wrong; there is more you can do. This begs the question; do we need to remove the horse? Naïvely, one could suppose stumbling upon a thirsty horse and, through knowledge of the terrain, altruistically leading them to a nearby pond. Realistically, we care about the horse in the idiom because imagine owning them and using them for work or transportation. We have made the horse thirsty through work (for us), and we need the horse to drink so we might get back to the task at hand. Animal ownership may be problematic outright to some. To me, the problem lies in how that horse is treated: is it overworked, it is it cared for, does it get food, shelter, and medical attention when needed? If we are good stewards of horse, we care about whether it drinks. 1. https://knowyourphrase.com/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water 2. https://www.theidioms.com/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water-but-you-cant-make-him-drink/ 3. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/you-can-lead-a-horse-to-water.html 4. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/you+can+lead+a+horse+to+water%2C+but+you+can %27t+make+it+drink 5. https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/418100.html It’s Raining Cats and Dogs Jennifer Turner Many cultures and languages use idioms to describe notable weather. “It’s raining cats and dogs” is a phrase many English speakers use to describe unbelievably or unusually heavy rainfall. The first known use of the phrase appears in a 1653 play by Richard Brome in which he states, “It shall rain...dogs and polecats.” Although the first known usage is well-documented, the origin of the idiom is a mystery. One common explanation is that the phrase developed from foreign terms that are similar in sound. Cata doxa and katadoupoi are Greek words that mean “contrary to experience or belief” and “to rain waterfalls,” respectively. Alternatively, “raining cats and dogs” may be a reference to Norse mythology’s god of storms, Odin, who was often depicted with dogs. It could also refer to witches, who were often associated with cats and the ability to create rainfall. Additional explanations include the hypothesis that it is a reference to frogs and fish being sucked up and then deposited by waterspouts (Lloyd, 2019) or that dogs and cats were washed off rooftop perches during heavy rains. Both hypotheses are almost certainly untrue. However, it is possible heavy rains carried debris, including the remains of dead animals, through the streets in early times when sanitation systems were not well- developed. At first glance, “it’s raining cats and dogs” seems harmless to other animals. However, heavy, drenching rainfall is generally viewed as a negative occurrence. Even in areas experiencing droughts, it is preferable to get gradual rains, not a heavy dump of water. Using “it’s raining cats and dogs” to describe negative weather conditions adds a negative connotation to these animals reputations. It could reinforce the idea that they are pests, especially in areas with large free-ranging dog or cat populations, or at the very least it could place them just one step removed from pests. Instead of associating dogs and cats with heavy, drenching rains, “it's raining noodles and sauce!” may be a more appropriate idiom. Spaghetti noodles resemble the worms that emerge during rainfall and sauce is wet. Further, many people can agree there are reasonable amounts of noodles and sauce that can be consumed at one time—and more than this can be very uncomfortable! References Hurst, H. (2020, Feb 11). Is it really raining cats and dogs? The history behind the idioms we use everyday. University Wire. http://ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest- com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/wire-feeds/is-really-raining-cats-dogs-history-behind-idioms/ docview/2353233406/se-2?accountid=12259 Lloyd, C. (2019, Aug 01). Why do we say 'it is raining cats and dogs'? Northern Echo. http://ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/ newspapers/why-do-we-say-is-raining-cats-dogs/docview/2267576817/se-2? accountid=12259 Zoltán, I.G. (2013). “It’s raining cats and dogs” – weather in English idioms. Studia Universitatis Petru Maior – Philologia, 14, 270. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.mnsu.edu/login.aspx? direct=true&db=cms&AN=90240453 Kill Two Birds with One Stone Josh Berkenpas For this assignment, I investigated the idiom “kill two birds with one stone.” I found that one of the earliest recorded uses of the phrase dates to the mid-17th century in England. This source recounts how the idea is also present in Greek mythology and the story of Daedalus and Icarus who kill two birds with one stone to get the necessary feathers to build their legendary wings.1 When people use this phrase typically, they mean to signify the desirability of being able to complete multiple tasks with a single action. As someone who never seems to have enough time to complete all my work, I find the idea of finding ways to achieve my goals more efficiently an attractive prospect. I was recently talking to other faculty in another professional development class about my reluctance to use the phrase since it involves violence toward non-human animals. Another faculty member mentioned that they like to use the phrase “two birds from one egg.” I told them that I would have to adopt this saying as well. I find it interesting to think about how far back these idioms go in the history of human language. Etymology looks at first recorded use in writing, but these terms have obviously been in circulation much longer. Have idioms which involve literal violence toward non-human animals (“there’s more than one way to skin a cat” also comes to mind) contributed to the domination and oppression of non-human animals over time? Moreover, has this type of thinking and speaking contributed to the domination and oppression of human beings over time? As the author of “Liberate Your Language” points out, the answer to both questions is likely “yes.” Herzog also has an interesting discussion of the way that we use euphemisms for meat to distance ourselves from the act or even knowledge about the killing of non-human animals for the purpose of human consumption (2010, 45). In my view, this way of speaking and thinking contributes to a strategy on behalf of industrial agriculture to create this distance and to conceal the inhumane practices to which non- human animals are subject. The use of idioms and other language that normalizes violence toward non-human animals allows most people to view them as simply “animals” which are inferior to human beings and therefore not deserving of dignity and respect. 1 https://www.theidioms.com/kill-two-birds-with-one-stone/#:~:text=It%20is%20to%20be%20believed,birds %20and%20make%20the%20wings. Herzog, Hal. 2010. Some We love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat. Sleep Tight, Don’t Let the Bed Bugs Bite Rob Sleezer The idiom “sleep tight, don’t let the bed bugs bite” is a common phrase used when tucking children into bed. The phrase intends to convey a sentiment of sleeping well and safe. People say the phrase when send others off to bed. Although the origin is murky people often say it when wrapping children in their blankets just before turning off the lights. Similar phrases appeared in the 1880s but the first known appearance of exact phrase is in What They Say in New England: A Book of Signs, Sayings, and Superstitions compiled by Clifton Johnson and published in 1897 [1]. In the 1950s DDT dramatically reduced the prevalence of Bed Bugs (Cimex lectularius) and they virtually disappeared from American life [2][3]. As a result generations grew up without exposure to Bed Bugs and many, like myself, believed the saying referenced fictional creatures. However starting in the 1980’s and 90’s Bed Bugs the number of Bed Bug infestations increased substantially [3]. In 2011 they were sufficiently prevalent that most continuing education events for pest management professionals discussed the issue [4]. I suspect that this phrase did very little to damage Bed Bugs themselves. Although Bed Bugs have never been shown to vector any diseases or pathogens they were considered a pest that needed control long before this idiom appeared. From the 1860s and 1870s we have “Good night, sleep tight, wake up bright in the morning light, to do what’s right, with all your might” [5] as a possible replacement term. [1] Caroline Bologna (2018) Here’s Why People Say ‘Don’t Let The Bedbugs Bite’, Huffington Post, Culture & Arts, January 23, 2018. [2] Brooke Borel (2015) Infested How the Bed Bug Infiltrated Our Bedrooms and Took Over the World, University of Chicago Press. [3] Emily Monosson (2015) Unnatural Selection: How we Are Changing Life, Gene by Gene, Island Press, Washington, DC. [4] Pest Management Professional (2011) Legal. (I lost the reference when I let the session time out. If needed I can retrieve it but thought I would move on for the sake of time given the context) [5] Ernest Small (2019) In defence of the world’s most reviled invertebrate ‘bugs’, Biodiversity, 20:4, 168-221, DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2019.1663636 Mutton Dressed as Lamb Emily Boyd Words are powerful, and they impact the ways in which we think about power, domination, and inequality in society. As discussed by vegan blogger Vegina (2012) in a blog post entitled “Liberate your Language,” when we continue to use words and phrases that paint others in harmful or stereotypical ways, we reinscribe or reproduce the inequalities initially inflicted through phrasing. Vegina suggests that several of the ways this inequality is reproduced is through use of pronouns (‘that dog’ instead of Charlie); mass terms (emphasizing animals as things or objects instead of as people or individuals); insults (derogatory or devalued human behaviors likened to the behavior of animals); and inaccurate language (animals are ‘processed’ instead of slaughtered). Another way inequality towards animals is reproduced is through the use of idioms or colloquial phrases that hold moral or practical value—for example, “kill two birds with one stone” is a phrase suggests multitasking is a superior practice, but uses imagery of the death of birds to make the point. In this paper, I examine two popular idioms that relate to animals, the historical uses and base of the phrases, as well as how the sayings reinforce inequality among human animals as well as species. I then turn to a discussion of the term “companion animal” and what it signifies about animal and human relationships. The first idiom I researched was the phrase “mutton dressed as lamb”. I knew that mutton was a slang term for the meat derived from lamb, but I previously thought it was a particular cut or part of the animal, and not simply a phrase that connotated processed lamb meat that was ready for human consumption. According to The Phrase Finder (2021) website, it denotes “a put-down aimed at an ageing woman who is dressed or made up of someone much younger”—in this case, the mutton (aging woman) is presenting herself as something she is not (young, or a ‘lamb’). Right away, I considered the intersectionality of speciesist language —not only are lambs being discussed as objects, but women are also likened to animals in a derogatory way, insinuating that women are ‘tricky’ or trying to deceive potential suitors. Phrase Finder (2021) continues: The 'dressing' of food was previously the term for the preparation of the item for cooking. The implication in 'dressed as lamb' is that the woman had prepared herself for a romantic encounter. 'Mutton dressed as lamb' was originally a disparaging description of a woman aiming to deceive men into believing she was younger than she really was - it being an economic necessity for a woman to marry while still of childbearing age. Its current usage, while still disparaging, is of a woman who is apparently deluded and thinks herself attractive in clothes usually worn by much those much younger - the motivation having changed from notions of marriageability to those of self-esteem. This “new” version is supposedly more politically correct because it paints women as ‘merely’ lacking self-confidence instead of marred in inequalities like marriageability and childbearing potential which had previously compelled her to ‘disguise’ herself. I see many forms of inequality reproduced here: gender inequality—in terms of women’s need to be ‘marriageable’ or attractive; us versus them mentality—in terms of women and animals being grouped together against ‘regular’ humans (men); insults that link perceived negative human behaviors with that of animals—in terms of women’s seduction being linked to animal dressing or ‘false advertising’ and inaccurate language—lambs are animals and not objects, and ‘mutton’ is not ‘dressed as’ a lamb or anything else when slaughtered. I think this phrase is harmful to both non-human and human animals, and especially women. Hush Puppies Emily Boyd Another phrase I was interested in was the origin of the term “hush puppies” for small bite sized pieces of cornbread that are deep-fried (and incredibly delicious!). I had read somewhere that this term was created because of usage of the food item—specifically, that enslaved people in the American South would throw these chunks of cornbread to dogs who might alert plantation owners of ‘nefarious’ behaviors like attempting to flee their captors—so they were called ‘hush puppies’ to keep dogs quiet. I myself ‘cleaned up’ some of the language used here already—‘enslaved people’ instead of Slaves (one’s political status or freedom is not the same as an identity category); viewing enslaved people as running as a negative thing has also been called into question in my sentences above. The website Phrase Finder (2021) suggests two different origins of the phrase: If Confederate soldiers detected Yankee soldiers approaching, they would quiet their barking dogs by throwing them the fried cornmeal balls. In the southern USA, salamanders were called "water dogs" or "water puppies". These were eaten as part of poor people's diet - deep-fried with cornmeal. They were given the name hush puppies as eating such humble food wasn't something people wanted to discuss. In the first suggested history, language usage also has important effects. The claim that “soldiers” threw the hush puppies depicts people who are serving their country; they are patriots, loyalists. The southern soldiers in this scenario would ‘treat’ their dogs to hush puppies in order to remain concealed or hidden—a version of events that is incredibly whitewashed from the lore I previously had heard. Enslaved people are entirely removed from this narrative, and hushing dogs by giving them treats in service of hiding one’s location paints Confederates as ‘smart’ or ‘tactical’ instead of as captors fighting a war to continue to allow human beings to own other humans. The second suggestion of the origin of the phrase suggests that “hush puppies” were a slang term for salamanders that had been deep-fried. This denotes speciesism, of course, as humans are depicted as eating non-human animals. It also denotes the tough times that would cause someone to eat a salamander as something not related to ethnicity or power relations at all—they are eaten by “poor people”—not enslaved people, with no mention of their race or ethnic background. Another item mentioned was the use of the term “hush puppies” to refer to a brand of clothing. Supposedly, a salesman who appreciated the food and drew associations to tired feet being called ‘barking dogs’ decided that ‘hush puppy’ would be a good brand name for footwear. By Dr. G (Carol Glasser)
The Spring 2017 cohort of Animals and Society students have a diverse range of experiences with nonhuman animals and come from a variety of majors. We found early on that we all think and speak differently about nonhuman animals, so one of our first tasks as a class was to agree on how we would speak about nonhuman animals in our writing on this website. To prepare for making these decisions I assigned excerpts from Fear of the Animal Planet and Liberate your Language. We spent the week reading, thinking and engaging in dialogue about agency of other animals and the representation of nonhuman animals. Here are the rules that the class mutually agreed upon. |
ABOUT
This is a website about nonhuman animals, written by human animals taking a Society and Animals class at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|