Document type: article published in The Conversation
Author: Marie-Claude Marsolier
Preview: Should we talk about "bien être" (well-being) or "bientraitance" (good treatment) when discussing animal welfare? Although closely related, the two expressions in French are neither equivalent nor neutral.
"Bientraitance" is a recent term, which emerged at the end of the last century and was conceived as the counterpart to its opposite "maltraitance" (Abuse or abuse), itself derived from the verb "maltraiter". "Bientraitance" is generally taken to mean "the fact of treating an individual well, be it a child, or a person who is elderly, dependent or sick; the sum of a set of individual acts of good treatment". It therefore applies first and foremost to humans in vulnerable situations due to their age, state of health or other forms of dependence. For non-human animals, the Commission d'Enrichissement de la Langue Française defines the expression "bientraitance animale" in a comparable way: "All those measures put in place to provide an animal with environmental conditions likely to contribute to its well-being [or welfare] or reduce its discomfort, such as suitable food, housing, transport conditions and care."
Similar words, different perspectives
It's tempting to equate "bientraitance" with "bien-être", when in fact the two terms have opposing perspectives. "Bientraitance" considers the point of view of the individual who "treats", while "bien-être" considers the point of view of the individual who is "treated". "Bientraitance" consists of a set of practices whose aim is to ensure well-being or welfare, but does not refer directly to this state, it would be described in legal terms as of a legal obligation of means rather than of results. The achievement of well-being is a much more demanding objective than compliance with the protocols of good treatment, protocols which are, moreover, defined by those in charge of applying them, who do not directly experience the consequences. The linguistic symmetry between "bientraitance" and "maltraitance" is misleading here: whereas hitting an animal is bound to cause suffering or discomfort, animal "bientraitance", especially if it is defined through negatives (not hitting animals, management techniques designed to ensure freedom from hunger, thirst, injury and disease, etc.), is not sufficient to ensure a state of "bien-être", whether we consider the original meaning of the term ("a general feeling of pleasure and fulfillment brought about by the full satisfaction of bodily and/or mental needs"), or that recently adopted by the ANSES for non-human animals ("a positive mental and physical state linked to the satisfaction of physiological and behavioral needs, and of expectations"). These considerations on the essential differences between "bientraitance" and "bien-être" have prompted people who care about other animals' living conditions to condemn "bientraitance animale" as a reference and promote "bien-être" in its place for its greater attention to the realities of the situation in which animals find themselves.
Problematic aspects of bien-être
That said, the use of "bien-être" animal is not without its own serious issues. Unlike its English counterpart "welfare", bien-être is an intrinsically positive term. Whereas "poor welfare" refers to poor living conditions, "mauvais bien-être" is an oxymoron. "Bien-être animal", used in French regulatory texts to designate the overall living conditions of non-human animals, fails therefore to refer in a coherent and convincing way to what is an often terrible situation, which we should endeavour to make every effort to change. Given the positive connotations of "bien-être", it is hardly surprising that industries which benefit from non-human animals have been quick to appropriate the term. In particular, the livestock industry uses it extensively in its communications, including in the context of slaughter. This is one of the reasons why the term "mal-être animal" ("animal ill-being") has emerged as a general term that applies to the living conditions of non-human animals, the vast majority of which undeniably fall short of well-being. Having refocused our attention on non-human animals by moving from use of the term animal "bientraitance" to animal "bien-être", the time would now appear to have come to face up to the reality of their living conditions by naming these without resorting to pernicious euphemisms.
