
"I recently came across a discussion on social media about how people refer to pets and what this says about their ability to respect the animal's needs. The discussion shifted to how people define themselves in their relationship with their pets, and it became quite heated. While some saw no problem with using the term pet parent, others considered it problematic for imposing a human framework onto the animal."
"This type of debate is understandable, as it raises legitimate concerns about the well-being of animals and their place in our lives. However, what concerns me in these discussions is when people assume that the terminology speaks for itself. In this sense, they often assume that the language pet guardians use to define themselves has a fixed meaning for everyone."
"A 2025 study examined how pet guardians choose the terms they use to describe their relationships with their pets, with particular interest in understanding the reasons behind these choices. The focus was on exploring the pragmatic decisions behind the language used to name the relationship with a pet, and one of the main findings is that participants acknowledge that no term alone is sufficiently accurate to capture the multiple meanings of the human-animal bond."
Language about pets functions strategically and varies by context, serving pragmatic communicative purposes rather than conveying a fixed meaning about care. Pet guardians intentionally select terms such as pet parent, pet guardian, or owner depending on social, legal, and emotional settings. No single term fully captures the multiple meanings of the human-animal bond. Some uses of familial language reflect affection without implying anthropomorphism or neglect of animal needs. Assessments of guardian respect for animals require examination of lived practices and behaviors rather than reliance on labels. Contextual analysis of terminology reveals adaptive language choices across situations.
Read at Psychology Today
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]