Originally published on Medium.com 19 May 2020

I’ve always considered myself as an animal lover. Growing up, I loved animals. I would always watch animal documentaries as a kid (even now as well) and be completely enamored by the beauty, ferocity and intelligence of animals. I had the privilege of being around animals from a young age, especially in my Croatian home. My grandmother had a dog whom we cherished immensely, and who taught me so much about being close to animals. As a kid, I didn’t understand why my dog couldn’t speak to me, but I always hoped that he understood what I was saying to him. I loved talking to him and even though I wouldn’t get much of a response, I enjoyed his company tremendously.

His silence was baffling in a way. Whenever the room was lit up with conversations, my dog would just lay down somewhere and observe my family. I remember how he would put his head on the floor and his face would be completely squished (he was a Pekingese) and it looked adorable. But I always wondered whether there was something behind those watchful eyes. What was Mrvica (my dog’s name which means crumbs in Croatian) thinking about? Was he thinking at all? Or was he just there, soaked in the moment, enjoying the ultimate bliss of being a pet?

I never could tell what was going through his mind, but I knew that he loved me and my family. Whenever we would come back home from somewhere, he would rush to greet us with much enthusiasm. His tail would continuously wag, and he would try to jump on us if he was extra excited. I never questioned Mrvica’s loyalty as a dog, and I never doubted his love for us. I knew that even though our worlds were completely different, in some way or another, we were in this together. Whatever that may be, whether it’s life, our relationship, or just the fact of our existence, we had a connection.

I always thought that I was an animal lover until I turned vegan. I became vegan because I felt like it wasn’t my right to harm other animals. I knew that buying steak or eggs meant that an animal would suffer and ultimately die for my cravings. So at one point, I decided that I didn’t want to contribute towards any animal suffering. My underlying love for animals proved to be right when I decided to switch to veganism. Before that, I thought I loved animals. The reason I use the past tense of think and not to be, was because I only loved certain animals. Most of us love certain animals but dislike others. There are some people who love dogs but heavily dislike cats. Others love snakes and some hate spiders. These are things that we all learn about ourselves as we come in contact with animals. But, what about the food that we eat? The clothes that we wear? They’re made out of animals, aren’t they? What about these animals? Do we also love them? I always thought that if a person is an animal lover then they love animals, because that’s what that implies. But it turns out that there are many animal lovers who love certain kinds of animals, usually furry ones with sleek tails or pointy ears, but not particularly the ones on their plates. I did write an article about this exact topic some time ago, but I think I’ve redefined my own understanding about being an animal lover.

I said that we should reconstruct the phrase animal lover into a more appropriate one that best fits the description of our consumer choices. Simply put, I said that loving animals and not being vegan don’t coincide with each other. Now, I can confidently say that there is another way of looking at this. I don’t have a problem with the phrase animal lover because I just think that the whole thing should be removed completely. I don’t think it’s a bad phrase, even though it encapsulates every single animal on the planet into one generic category. I think that the phrase itself is just an affliction of the human existence. In some way, being an animal lover is reminiscent of the humanist movement. Humanism values human autonomy and existence as something profound. Although it has a lot of meanings and many philosophies revolved around it, humanists believe that the experiences of people are all equally valuable and that all humans should receive love. However, it’s ironic for us to value everyone. There are people in our lives whom we dislike, just as much as there are people in our lives whom we like. In a sensible environment, we choose to be around people that we get along with and avoid people that we can’t stand.

This idea of loving humans as they are is an interesting concept at best. In his book, La Nausée (The Nausea), Jean Paul Sartre immerses the reader into his philosophical thoughts on existentialism through the eyes of his expended protagonist Antoine Roquentin. Roquentin, who was an adventurer in his past life, currently lives in a city without any purpose. He has spent three years writing a book about a guy in the 18th century and he’s getting really bored of it. In this city, there’s a man who’s aptly referred to as the autodidact. In the book, the autodidact and Roquentin go out for dinner and end up talking about humanism. The autodidact tells Roquentin about different humanist thinkers and how they bring wisdom to the realm of humanity, to which Roquentin bombastically declares in his mind that he is ‘not a humanist’. Roquentin finds the whole concept of loving humans egregious because it’s untrue. We can’t possibly love all humans, because in his view:

La misanthropie aussi tient sa place dans ce concert : elle n’est qu’une dissonance nécessaire à l’harmonie du tout. Le misanthrope est homme : il faut donc bien que l’humaniste soit misanthrope en quelque mesure. (misanthropy also has its place in this concert: it is simply a discord necessary to the harmony of the whole. The misanthrope is a man: it is therefore inevitable that the humanist should be misanthropic to a certain degree).

If this seemed like a lot of jargon, you’re probably right. To sum it up nicely, Sartre believes that in order for us to love men, we must also hate them. Whether that love is manifested intuitively or just occurs after a period of dislike, to love something is to be able to hate something else — and this can be reflected onto animals too.

Without getting this whole article too wrapped up in Sartre’s philosophical ideas, I do want to tie this somewhat interesting perspective into our love for animals. The humanist in Sartre’s mind is someone who has an outlandish love for humans albeit their impositions and differences. If we say that we’re animal lovers, aren’t we taking on this same air of certainty? We can’t possibly love all animals can we now? So why do we refer to ourselves as animal lovers? If Mrvica was able to speak to me, would I love him as much as I used to? How much would our relationship have changed if he was able to speak back to me? I know this sounds a bit bizarre, but we view animals as flawless in some way. Because they are free from words, they can’t be wrong. Animals do act based on intelligence and instinct, but we don’t emphasize their wrongdoings as much as we abate humans for them. So, is it our own lack of understanding about ourselves that we boldly have created a phrase which isn’t true? Or are we trying to impose a humanist ideology onto animals as well? Nobody is an animal lover in the entirety of the word. We are dog lovers or cat lovers, but even these phrases are limited to the breeds which we like. At the end of the day, animal lover is a phrase which I think should be used carefully. Even though it seems innocent to refer to oneself as an ‘animal lover’, one ought to remember that in the truest sense of the phrase, we aren’t animal lovers.

So, what’s the fix then? Should we completely scratch a whole phrase off the dictionary and move on with our lives? Whether I like it or not, people will continue to use the phrase anyways. In most cases, people who eat steaks and play fetch with their dogs will continue to claim their love for animals to everyone. They will say how much they feel a connection with animals, and how deeply they understand them — whilst chewing on chicken nuggets for added dramatism. I think that whichever way we look at it, we can at least say that we appreciate animals for who they are. We can admire them from a distance, or up close, and cherish their existence in our lives and our planet as a whole. This seems to be a more genuine and thoughtful way of expressing our ‘love’ towards animals, without having to dump every single animal on the planet in one category.

Many animals are currently endangered in the wild, some are facing extinction and others are being born into an industry that is entirely based on their slaughter. If we are sensible enough to love our Earthling companions, we would be sensible enough to cherish their wellbeing and existence on this Earth too. Our consumer choices matter in the grand scheme of things. Whether that is buying cheap steak, a leather jacket or going to the zoo, the money that we endlessly spend on animal-based products and services ultimately play a role in their subjugation as well. If we truly were animal lovers, our actions would mirror our viewpoints too.

Stay empathetic, stay conscious and remain peaceful.