"Anthropomorphism" is defined as "the attribution of human characteristics and qualities to non-human beings, objects, natural, or supernatural phenomena." The term frequently comes up when discussing animal rights and whether animals are sentient or have emotions.

What's missing from every dictionary definition of the term that I could find is the implied condition: the traits are exclusively human traits that the non-human entity does not have.

If someone says the animal is breathing, no one will call it anthropomorphism because no one doubts that animals breathe. But if someone says the animal is happy, sad or miserable, they might be accused of anthropomorphism.

Anthropomorphism v. Personification

"Personification" is usually the giving of human-like qualities to an inanimate object, while anthropomorphism usually applies to animals and deities. More importantly, personification is considered a valuable literary device, with positive connotations. Anthropomorphism has negative connotations and is usually used to describe an inaccurate view of the world, prompting PsychCentral.com to ask, "Why Do We Anthropomorphize?" In other words, it's OK for Sylvia Plath to give voice toa mirror and a lake, giving inanimate objects human-like qualities in order to entertain and move her audience, but it's not OK for animal rights activists to say that a dog in a laboratory is suffering for the purpose of changing the way the dog is treated.

Anthropomorphism v. Extrapolation

In science, to extrapolate is "to estimate (the value of a variable) outside the tabulated or observed range." Scientists often examine known data to make hypotheses and conclusions about the unknown, like when they perform experiments on non-human animals and apply that data to humans. Dario Maestripieri of the University of Chicago wrote in his 2005 article, "On the Importance of Comparative Research for the Understanding of Human Behavior and Development: A Reply to Gottlieb & Lickliter (2004)": "Research with animal models of human behavior and development can be a source not only of general principles and testable hypotheses but also of empirical information that may be extrapolated to humans."

In the same paper, Maestripieri goes on to point out the emotional similarities between human and non-human animals:

[H]omologies between some human facial expressions of emotion and those of Old World monkeys and apes can be readily identi?ed. Similarly, the infant attachment system is clearly not a new product of the human brain or the modern human environment but has a history that can be tracked in the evolution of the primate order. (citations omitted)

When a behavioral scientist points out the similarities in cognition, emotions, and behavior between humans and non-human animals for the purpose of justifying vivisection, it's extrapolation. When an animal rights activist does the same for the purpose of criticizing vivisection, it's anthropomorphism. Keep in mind that "extrapolation" has positive connotations and brings with it all the gravitas of science, while the term "anthropomorphism" reeks of mental instability which is possibly the result of a lack of social interaction.

It should be noted that an international panel of neuroscientists signed a declaration in 2012 that non-human animals have consciousness. The declaration's main author, Philip Low, has since gone vegan.

Do Animal Rights Activists Anthropomorphize?

When an animal rights activist says that an elephant suffers and feels pain when hit with a bullhook; or that a mouse suffers from being blinded with hairspray, or that chickens feel pain when their feet develop sores from standing on the wire floor of a battery cage, that is not anthropomorphism.

Since anthropomorphism requires assigning human-like traits to beings who do not have those traits, saying that a non-human animal can suffer or have emotions is not anthropomorphism. Non-human animals may not have the exact same experience as humans, but identical thoughts or feelings are not required for moral consideration. Furthermore, not all humans have emotions in the same way - some are sensitive, insensitive, or overly sensitive - yet all are entitled to the same basic human rights.

Accusations of Anthropomorphism

Animal rights activists are often accused of anthropomorphism when we talk about animals suffering or having emotions, yet as seen above, many scientists say the same things. The difference is that the scientists aren't asking the people to change the way they go about their daily lives - their diets, clothing, or entertainment.

On the other hand, animal activists are seeking justice and social change. Change can be scary and difficult, so people consciously or subconsciously seek ways to resist change. Rejecting the fact that animals suffer and have emotions can make it easier for people to continue exploiting animals without worrying about the ethical implications. One way of rejecting that fact is to call it "anthropomorphism" even though it is the result of direct scientific evidence.

There may be some who truly do not believe that animals are capable of suffering or emotions, as French philosopher/mathematician Rene Descartes claimed he did, but Descartes was himself a vivisector and had reason to deny the obvious. Current scientific information contradicts Descartes' 17th century view.

Have a question or comment? Discuss in the Forum.