What's in a Name?

“Anthrozoology” and “animal studies” are both terms given to the broad field of human and other-than-human animal relationships. They are seemingly interchangeable, but each presents its own problems, linguistically speaking.


Hurn* (2010) contends that anthrozoology is a misnomer because of the emphasis placed on “zoology” as the suffix and “anthro” as the modifier. She claims that “…Many anthrozoologists from the social sciences have no more than a passing knowledge of the ecology, behaviour, physiology and so on of the non-human animals who populate their studies” (p. 27). Hurn goes on to propose that anthrozoology would be an appropriate term for studies that emphasize the human aspect and downplay the animal side, in effect “objectification” (p. 27) of the animals, as she suggests is the case in traditional zoology. “Animal studies,” Hurn argues, places animals above humans, painting them as “autonomous actors in their own right” (p. 27) that until recently have been largely ignored in academia. She believes that “human-animal studies” is a more appropriate term for the field that studies both humans and animals equally.


Others contend that the term “human-animal studies,” by placing humans before animals, unduly emphasizes the human aspects of the field. “Animal studies” may be more neutral (though still somewhat ambiguous) and includes humans by definition.


Personally, aside from anthrozoology – a term with which most people are not familiar – I believe that “human-animal studies” is the best compromise. Though I disagree with some of her points, I believe that Hurn is correct when she states that “The hyphen in ‘human-animal studies’ places all of the research subjects on a level playing field, recognizing the interconnectedness between humans and our fellow living beings” (p. 27).


Inevitably, when I tell somebody that I’m studying anthrozoology, they get a confused look on their face. I then tell them that it’s also known as human-animal studies, which tends to clear things up. Most still want at least a little more explanation, but I can see the light bulb go off over their heads when I change the terminology. Though it is technically correct that “animal studies” includes humans and therefore may be less biased against non-human animals, I believe that most people don’t think in terms of humans being animals, even if they know it to be scientifically true. Is this an unfair prejudice? Perhaps. But I fear that “animal studies” pushes people more toward thinking about more biological (zoology, ethology) or industrial (animal science) fields. While these are a large part of studying anthrozoology, they ignore the human side of the equation. If scholars of the discipline use the term “animal studies,” there is a large risk of misunderstanding; do we just deal with having to explain ourselves as we try to confront pre-conceived notions of human superiority? Does using the term, then, place a barrier between its academic researchers and the general public? If so, is that okay?


*Hurn, S. (2010). What's in a name? Anthropology Today, 26(3), 27-28.