Written by Frédérique Dignard

for Prof. Gina Granter

A dichotomy is defined as “a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). In other words, a dichotomy separates individuals of different degrees into two groups of different kinds. In many cases, the first step to make such a dichotomy is to use the language in renaming one of the groups. Thereby the distinction is clearer, and the remaining steps to make the dichotomy complete, which are gradual changes in how the new group is treated and understood, occur naturally. In Don LePan’s novel Animals, the dichotomy in humans made by the introduction of the words mongrels and chattels to identify humans with mental and physical disabilities created a considerable distance between the two groups. This distance allowed humans, who considered themselves “normal” according to their own criteria, to treat these other “creatures” that were not human anymore as animals. By following the evolution of their names, from humans to mongrels and chattels, a parallel can be drawn with the degradation of their living conditions and the loss of their rights as humans.

First of all, the words mongrels and chattels were not chosen randomly. Their previous significations, before they were used for humans, contributed to strengthening the distance between the “abnormal” and “normal” humans. The term mongrel comes from the word mongo and the word mongrel, as it was used at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The latter referred at that time “to a dog or other domestic animal that was not purebred, though it could also be used as an adjective to refer to almost any trange or unlikely genetic mixture” (LePan 33-34). As to the term mongo, it was first used in 1870 by James Langford Peake in his work “Inquiry Into the Ethnic Element of Idiocy”. Mongos, or sometimes mongans and mongoids, were considered as a sub-category of humans because “not only did they look different; they typically had far lower levels of intelligence” (LePan 34). Then, the term chattel was used “simply to mean “belongings”, but included within this use people who belonged to other people … even against their will” (LePan 39-40). Those words were chosen because they had the power to change “normal” humans’ perception of humans with disabilities. It gave them a reason to justify how they would treat them eventually.

Mongos, when the name was first introduced, were not receiving adequate care and their lifespan was usually no more than two decades. As the twentieth century progressed, the term mongos and its derivatives were replaced by “people with Peake’s syndrome”. With this new name came a new way of seeing and treating them. They were not considered as sub-human anymore, and a lot of efforts were made to improve their living conditions and to increase their lifespan. However, their difference was still obvious, and in the mid-twenty-first century things started to change. The population started to wonder why so much time and money were allocated for people with Peake’s syndrome when so many “real” humans lived in misery. As soon as this question was raised, “mongrels lost that “sensitive support” that had nurtured the development of their mental abilities in general and their verbal skills in particular. […] The special drugs, the funding for extra educational help, the special facilities for mongrels who could not be cared for by relatives – it all drained away” (LePan 37). Their condition came back to what it was in the nineteenth century, and this change came with a reclassification of “people with Peake’s syndrome” as “mongrels”. Furthermore, people suffering from any form of disability were classified under this same category. The situation then deteriorated quickly. Mongrels were not allowed most of the privileges given to humans, and, just like animals that don’t have owners, mongrels that nobody wanted to take care of were put in foster dormitories. Since “dormitories” was a word too close to humans, it was modified to “repositories”, commonly used for “a place, room, or container where something is deposited or stored.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) The Repositories became rapidly overcrowded, and people started to adopt mongrels as pets. They were now no more than animals, and with this status came the same treatments given to animals right now, such as euthanasia. At the same time, people were looking for a new source of proteins, since the great extinctions deprived them of their original sources of meat. A connection between mongrels and new source of proteins was made, but another distinction had to be made. Chattels was now the right term for mongrels raised for food. It was too horrible for humans to recognize that their lovely pet mongrels were killed and eaten. The distinction went even further:

Of course the product was not called mongrel or mongrel meat. Just as in the old days people had distanced themselves from the animals they were eating by calling a cow beef and a pig pork, so too they found other names for mongrel meat. In North America it became known as yurn, in Britain and in Australia as fland… (LePan 68)

Through all these lies, humans were able to ignore and to live with the awful reality of cannibalism.

In the novel, mongrels are legally considered as animals when, generations earlier, they were humans. Over time, what constitutes a human being can change based on, for example, physiological characteristics. However, when this change is based on nothing valuable as it is in Animals, a barrier has to be built and a solid dichotomy needs to be created between humans and the unlucky group that is not considered as human anymore. The main role of language is to create this distance by changing humans’ perception of the other group and to convince them they are right to treat and understand them differently. Although the novel is a dystopia, it is also an excellent reflection of our actual society and food industry. This future is perfectly plausible, but by removing the barrier created by language and by seeing the reality of factory farms, it can be avoided.

Works Cited

LePan, Don. Animals. Montreal: Véhicule Press, 2009. Print.

Merriam-Webster.com. An Encyclopaedia Britannica Company. Web. 13 Apr. 2014

The Purdue OWL Family of Sites. The Writing Lab and OWL at Purdue and Purdue U, 2008. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.