Tags: BUAV, CFIT, Animal Welfare
So: the BUAV has changed its name to Cruelty Free International. Probably the acronym, or perhaps even the full name - British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection - is unfamiliar to you, which will undoubtedly have a bearing upon the organisation’s action, but it also has something to do with our contemporary need (I hesitate to use the term compulsion) for economy: streamlined, ‘slimmed-down’ or, dare I say it?, cost-effective. The full name tells us what it stands for: using the forever evolving (although probably by now rather out of date) jargon of the marketing industry, it’s not slick, or snappy, but it tells me, anyway, what I need to know. Unfortunately, as far as CFI (if I might be so bold), or CFIT, to acronymise (acronymiate?) its full name, Cruelty Free International Trust (wonderful things, Trusts) is concerned, I’m only one person with a specific knowledge base, and I have to assume that the new CFI has taken the view that a knowledge of the meaning & significance of the word vivisection, to take one aspect of the change (although, arguably the ‘meat’, if that is not a metaphor in poor taste?) in isolation, is possessed by a diminishing proportion of the British (or world: see below) people.
The informatory email that I, as a BUAV-as-was supporter, have received, throws some light on this. “Many people struggled to understand what ‘BUAV’ stands for or what ‘British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection’ means.” The first part I can almost accept, although I would question the use of ‘struggled’: surely, one either is familiar with an acronym, or one isn’t, and struggling in some mental miasma is unlikely to be successful, I would aver. I am rather less charitably disposed toward the latter part of the sentence: are we to assume that the concept of vivisection is unfamiliar to sufficient numbers of people to render it redundant? I find it hard (although, in fairness, not impossible) to believe that a dispassionate observer, on seeing this unfamiliar acronym or name, would immediately avert the gaze in hope of finding something more comfortably familiar: our interaction with the world inevitably relies to a significant degree upon context, so, unless one is totally disinterested in animals and their welfare (which is, of course, possible), surely the context of images of (invariably fluffy and appealing) animals to support the text would encourage the archetypal dispassionate observer to linger for at least a few moments and, in the process thereby, very quickly acquaint him- or herself with this troublesome knowledge?
The email continues: “We were also frequently misquoted and incorrectly referenced by a range of key audiences, from the media to the public. Sadly this confusion proved a major barrier to securing support.” This gets to the heart of the problem: we don’t just need your support, we need your money too, and confusion isn’t conducive to contribution. Whilst acknowledging the necessity for organisations like this to be financially solvent in this money-driven world, it nevertheless doesn’t prevent me from wholeheartedly abhorring it. Neither am I convinced that unfamiliarity with the name, or the concept of vivisection, would be the primary reason for misquotation or incorrect referencing, despite accepting that the latter have undoubtedly occurred: I hesitate to specify, but I can think of plenty of plausible reasons. I will not dilate here on the history or possibly unfortunate associations of the terms ‘British’, ‘Union’, or ‘British Union’, but I suspect that these will also have been not insignificant considerations.
The BUAV (I can’t relinquish the previous name so quickly) wants to be a global ‘player’: “Cruelty Free International is clearer, simpler and more positive. It also reflects the work we do all over the world. After all, animal research is not just a British problem - it’s global. And we have been working internationally for years.” This is all well & good (apart from the ‘simpler’ part, and I’m unconvinced about ‘more positive’) but, surely, if the organisation has been “working internationally for years”, then why should removing the British connection (or others, as suggested above) make it any more successful? Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not a ‘Little Englander’, and I am, by no means, a nationalist (quite the reverse), but I worry that a perfectly explanatory name (in my humble opinion) has been sacrificed on the altar of people’s apparently diminishing mental acuity: I will, rely upon it, return to the subject of the inexorable (and lamentable) diminution of the common lexicon, but I regret the gradual disappearance of a perfectly serviceable and easily found word. All that said, I remain a supporter of this eminently worthy organisation, despite the gripe!