In this essay I will be discussing how the term ‘vermin’ might be accurately or inaccurately applied contemporarily. To do this, I will primarily look at what classifies something as vermin in detail, and how the application of the term has changed over time and culture. Hopefully from here I will be able to give some grounded criteria for vermin which I will use to measure against certain animal examples in order to evaluate whether or not there is such a thing as vermin.

Contemporary views of vermin are often generalised towards animals with the certain non-desirable traits but use of the term is often leniently defined, which explains why it tends to be used interchangeably with the term ‘pest’. In Bellemore’s (2006) Tenants’ Rights Manual, ‘vermin’ refers to creatures like rats, cockroaches and lice whereas ‘pest’ refers to creatures like possum.

In Bellemore’s (2006) Tenants’ Rights Manual, ‘vermin’ refers to creatures like rats, cockroaches and lice whereas ‘pest’ refers to creatures like possum.

The manual doesn’t mention the reason behind these categorisations but as it addresses the 1987 ‘Residential Tenancies Act’ in New South Wales (Australia), it could be inferred that the creatures referred to would more than likely be influenced by the culture. Furthermore, the manual’s discussion on removing vermin uses ‘pest removal’ (presumably) as an encompassing term for both vermin and pest removal because it fails to mention any ‘vermin removal’.

In comparison to this, a pest control company (BUGCO) located in Houston (USA) distinguishes the differences between vermin and pests. BUGCO (2014) uses ‘pest’ to refer to insects that infest homes and businesses like ants, cockroaches and termites, but uses ‘vermin’ to refer to wild mammals that tend to infest. Furthermore, they acknowledge the common implication of vermin being disease-carriers like rats, but the term can extend to larger mammals if they begin to cause problems. Therefore, under closer inspection, it is apparent that there are some similarities and differences in the use of ‘vermin’, for example, the rat is referred to as vermin in both cases, but cockroaches are referred to as both vermin and pest.

I believe the comparison of these two examples support my earlier point of lenient definitions surrounding vermin and demonstrates some grey areas in contemporary use which may allude to cultural factors. I believe this is important before I go into further analytical detail in forming some vermin criteria, which should not be confused for pest criteria. In other words, there is a distinct difference between ‘pest’ and ‘vermin’ although categorisations tend to vary. Notably there are some key underlying implications that these two examples brush over such as health, boundaries and extermination. Historical evaluations of these implications are looked at in greater detail, so I will form some vermin criteria by analysing some of these perspectives.

In Mary Fissel’s (1999) ‘Imagining Vermin in Early Modern England’, she looks at some of the ways in which the term vermin was applied during the late 17th century to early 18th century. Click to enlarge.

In Mary Fissel’s (1999) ‘Imagining Vermin in Early Modern England’, she looks at some of the ways in which the term vermin was applied during the late 17^th century to early 18^th century. Her analyses consist of looking at underlying themes within didactic and fictional books such as Aesop’s Fables and John Harris’s 1688 vermin-killing manuals. It is important to note these books were cheap print which meant they were readily available to an increasingly literate public (as well as being easy on beginner readers) and so would have influenced a wide spectrum of opinions which adds historical and cultural grounding to her analyses. Based on these sources, Fissel (1999) suggests that there are three general characteristics that can be related to vermin. Firstly, vermin were poachers of human food, which was especially troublesome when the effort and energy had already been invested into preparation. Secondly, vermin were clever and used their level of cunning to ‘devour humans’ food’. Finally, vermin were able to understand symbols and language which gave them the means to communicate with each other.

In Fissel’s analyses these characteristics are looked at through separate examples such as rats being poachers of food and the fox as cunning. However, what seems to be the main point of the analyses is that the characteristics focus around the topic of food. Fissel mentions (through the example of birds that can be seen as vermin and dinner in different contexts) that the identity of vermin can be gained and lost but the implication of that, as she suggests, is that part of the vermin definition might lie in the perception of being inedible. I am not entirely convinced by this as there are many things that we consider inedible in Western cultures such as dogs and cats, yet we do not consider them as vermin.

In my opinion, what seems to be more important to the vermin criteria is the depiction of them as competitors for a survival resource on top of the other characteristics of cunning and language. This would seem to make them more threatening to humans as the ability to communicate and plot actions against the survival interests of human society is beyond the capabilities of other animals. For example, when a pet dog manages to take food from the dinner table it would be considered an accident and we might be tolerant and more careful about leaving food out, but if we found a rat raiding the pantry then it would be seen more as a threat and future prevention by extermination is a more typical response than tolerance. Therefore, I believe that the anthropomorphic depictions of vermin having certain higher cognitive abilities, allowing them to ‘threaten’ humans, supports the idea that vermin inherit non-desirable traits based on how humans subjectively perceive them.

One of the characteristics of vermin, poachers of human food.

In Fissel’s analyses there are no mentions of vermin related to disgust or filth which is a noticeable difference compared to other contemporary views. I believe that Angela Cassidy’s (2012) ‘Vermins Victims and Disease’ article on badgers illustrates a key cultural progression that explains this difference. She compares the changing views of badgers in the UK over time with the various depictions surrounding arguments about badger culling and their speculated relation to the spread of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). One side of the argument suggests an association between the spread of bTB and the badger population to support culling whereas the opposing animal welfare groups campaign against this. I will focus on how the underlying themes behind these arguments are affected by the perspectives of each side rather than their empirical validity. Notably, Cassidy cites research (Krebs et al., 1997, Grant 2009) into whether the association is valid, but it appears the evidence is indecisive, which stresses the importance of cultural perspectives.

Cassidy (2012) argues that portrayals of the badger in British media can be separated into two categories of a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ badger. The ‘good’ badger is seen to have (what I would argue to be) desirable traits such as being ‘social’ and ‘family oriented’ and this is supported by the 1973 Badger Act, granting lawful protections to them. On the other hand, the ‘bad’ badger is seen to have non-desirable traits such as being violent, disruptive and overabundant. The flexibility of such depictions varyingly influences the way we see badgers and the qualities associated with them. Prior to the association of bTB with badgers, the ‘good’ badger could be seen as being useful to humans by eating other ‘vermin’ species like rats, whereas the ‘bad’ badgers were themselves considered vermin for destroying crops and eating smaller farm animals.

‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ badger?

The depiction of ‘bad’ badgers as competitors against humans supports the justification towards them being vermin and this is important because associations of badgers with bTB were only applied to the ‘bad’ badger depictions. I would argue the progressive understanding of health risks in modern medical fields acted as a framework for the formation of an association that vermin are spreaders of diseases. This is supported by Fissel’s (1999) analyses because before the discovery of diseases such as bTB, vermin were not associated with disease spreading. However, to clarify my point in relation to Cassidy’s analyses, the ‘bad’ badgers are associated with spreading bTB because they are considered vermin, as opposed to being considered vermin due to their association with spreading bTB. This is important because it highlights that vermin are defined (more so as food competitors) before their association to health risks as opposed to after. Therefore, in contrast to many contemporary assumptions, I would argue that the underlying theme of being a health risk is not a sufficient criterion to be classed as vermin. It is important to note that this is different from being a legitimate health threat which is something I will distinguish when I piece the vermin criteria together.

Moving on to the aforementioned issues of boundaries and extermination, Edmund Russel (1996) addresses the relations between war, humans and insects. He attempts to demonstrate a link between ‘technology, institutions and metaphors’ being a large reason for why, in the modern day, we tend to imply a required removal or extermination of vermin. Furthermore, Russel speaks in terms of pest control against humans and insect ‘pests’ during World War 1 (WW1) and this is important because it is not until World War II (WW2) where mentions of vermin come into discussion. I will look at what prompted the shifting view of humans and insects from pest to vermin and the implication of extermination that followed.

Edmund Russel (1996) addresses the relations between war, humans and insects in his book

Before WW1, the use of chemicals to combat an enemy was typically against insects that were considered pests (in the form of insecticide) because previous non-chemical methods of insect pest control had not been relatively successful. However, with the first use of chemical strikes in WW1 (1914-1918) on human enemies, a metaphor could be drawn that human enemies were (like insect enemies) pests that chemical warfare proved to be effective against. There was a certain military advantage and steadfastness of chemical use in warfare that came with seeing humans like insect pests during WW1. After WW1 (in the U.S, 1919-1939), the image of war against insects saw them as an ‘alien’ threat which justified the means to prevent their invasion. This led to a collaboration between the military’s air force and chemists, resulting in improved chemical warfare against these threats such as aerial crop-dusting. Prior to WW2 (1935-1939), the U.S had marketed its chemical industry towards improving agriculture, whereas Germany had a perspective more towards fear of an enemy and that prepared them for war against humans. The results of this could be seen in how the U.S developed a more effective insecticide (that didn’t devastate crops) such as DDT, whereas Germany developed chemicals that effectively killed humans in small doses (nerve gases). This further enforced the metaphors of humans as insects and therefore pests.

It was not until WW2 (1940-1945) that, at least in Russel’s (1996) article, the view of humans as vermin is mentioned. Both the Nazis and some Americans were guilty of spreading such a rhetoric. The Nazis viewed Jews as vermin and claimed they carried bacilli worse than the Black Death, which was a very serious claim because the Black Death was loosely estimated to have wiped out one third of the European population, 1346-1350 (McNeill, 1998). In a similar fashion, American propagandists and soldiers more often referred to Japanese soldiers and civilians as vermin, than they did to Germans because of their ‘brutal and irrational’ approach to war (Russel, 1996). Therefore, I would argue that the shifting view of ‘humans as pests’ to ‘humans as vermin’ is not simply by being an enemy but is due to the idea of the ‘vermin’ overstepping (or at least attempting to) a subjective boundary and trespassing into another’s territory, both figuratively and literally.

The Nazis unwarrantedly viewed Jews as vermin

This idea of invasion is coupled with a supposed threat (which is inherently non-desirable), whether valid or not, thus making them ‘vermin’. This means the threat did not have to be anything specific or consistent and it could be a biological or moral boundary breach. With the Nazis it was a Jewish threat of disease (among other reasons) and with the Americans it was the Japanese’s immoral approach to war. I believe this perspective might explain the implication of exterminating vermin. The most desirable way to deal with a threat is by preventing it before anything else and it is also desirable to prevent any future threats. However, I would argue that (similar to the issue of health risk) the implication to exterminate is defined after being considered ‘vermin’ as opposed to before and thus it is not a sufficient criterion for vermin classification.

On the other hand, we retrospectively know the Jews did not threaten everybody because they carried a deadly disease but the subjective boundaries that were set upon them by the Nazis forced a ‘vermin’ lens over them for simply being Jewish. This created an environment of hostility towards the Jews already living in Germany and in terms of the argument, the Jews began trespassing into boundaries set up by the Nazis. In a different but relevant manner, the Japanese didn’t trespass the U.S borders in the same way the Jews did but instead they breached a moral boundary in war with their approaches.

Atomic cloud from the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima which caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese civilians (including children).

This prompted the Japanese to be seen as vermin even though firstly, the American moral boundaries consented to them dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima killing tens of thousands of Japanese civilians (including children) (Axelrod, 2008) and secondly, mosquitoes supposedly killed eight times more soldiers with malaria than the Japanese (Russel 1996). These examples suggest that being classified as vermin is not contingent only on the impact that has been done or what they threaten to do. It is instead inclusive of how the perceived ‘vermin’ threatens the perceiver by invading an exclusive subjective boundary.

In establishing criteria of vermin, I would argue that for the term ‘vermin’ to be applicable, all parts of the criteria must be relevant to the target. One part of the criteria, on its own, is not sufficient to apply the term ‘vermin’ to the target.

Firstly, vermin must provide, directly or indirectly, significant threat to human survival where death or significant harm is likely. To be vermin is more than merely being a nuisance to the perceiver. For example, in terms of competition for food, the vermin might cause starvation or detrimental disease by eating crops or contaminating them. This would count as a significant health threat as opposed to a health risk based off indecisive evidence.

Secondly, vermin must provide this direct or indirect significant threat through an invasion of the exclusive physical or mental boundaries the perceiver forms. That is, vermin undesirably trespass into the perceiver’s territory whilst providing an actual threat, not just a suspected one. I believe that is what separates this criterion from the Nazi and American perspectives towards the Jews and Japanese respectively.

Although I mentioned that the implication of extermination was not a sufficient criterion for vermin classification, I still must clarify that it is important. I would argue that the implication to exterminate inherently follows vermin classification. It seems logical that if something threatening undesirably trespasses into one’s boundaries, then one would want to act to remove the undesired trespasser.

In England there has been a historical association of the (red) fox as vermin, Image credit: pitchcare.com

In measuring up some animals against these criteria then, I will look at animals that have commonly been called vermin. In England there has been a historical association of the (red) fox as vermin, shown in Fissel’s (1999) examination of Reynard the Fox during the late 16^th to early 17^th century. The fox does not prey on humans, but they do indirectly compete for food by stealing domestic animals like chickens and geese (Wallen, 2006). This suggests that foxes tend to undesirably trespass into human territories, but this perspective only shows the fox being a nuisance and nothing much more. However, there is an argument that foxes pose a significant health threat to humans as they are carriers of rabies and this should not be overlooked (Wallen, 2006). Furthermore, an example of how undesirable trespassing is required for vermin classification can be seen through the introduction of foxes in Australia, 1845. Initially the fox was seen as a target, hunted for sport, thus not undesirably trespassing but by 1893, bounties were placed on them to control the population as they had contributed to the extinction of many native Australian species (Grambo, 1996). This suggested a shifted view to the fox being too invasive (in such numbers), threatening and undesirable enough to become vermin and therefore warranted further culling policies.

Another animal well-known for being regarded as vermin is the rat. The rat is infamously connected to the spread of the Black Death 1346-1350 and other epidemics such as the Justinian plague 542-543 (McNeill, 1998). This gives much historical grounding in viewing the rat as a serious health threat. Furthermore, rats have historically trespassed into human boundaries whilst carrying these diseases and are very hard (practically impossible) to exterminate because of their size and rate of reproduction. An example of this can be seen in how the black ship rat acted as a catalyst for the Black Death to spread across Europe via trading ship routes.

The rat is well-known for being regarded as vermin.

Surprisingly in contrast to contemporary views of rats as vermin, McNeill (1998) cites in Hull (1963) that humans share more diseases with most domestic animals than rats which might indicate that they are not as serious a health threat as they might be considered. However, this does not seem too strong of an argument because firstly, the number of diseases does not represent the lethality of any one of them and secondly, rats are known for their habitual proximity to the undesirable wastes of human society. On the other hand, an example that supports the idea that vermin are defined by invasion of boundaries can be seen in the 18^th century British rat fancy (Burt, 2006). In forming a boundary that included the desirability of rats within itself, the rat was not seen as vermin but rather as a prized possession, comparable to the more popular dog fancies.

It is important to note that some of these traits of vermin are not inherently negative as some may be inclined to believe. For example, hunters benefit from the bounties placed on foxes, creating a positive value, albeit from the fox’s death. Situationally, to the hunter that benefits, the fox might still be a health threat but is not undesirably trespassing, in fact it would be desirable and so the fox, to the hunter, would not be considered vermin.

In conclusion, to answer the question of whether there is any such thing as vermin, I first attempted to clear up some confusion in contemporary use of the term. I have tried to show that the use of ‘vermin’ has changed over the course of history and is influenced by the cultural background of its users. Evidence from different times and places indicated that there are variable implications attached to the term but there are also consistent underlying themes which were important in the development of a vermin criteria. I have shown why some underlying themes are sufficient criteria and why some are not. I have argued that these underlying themes are, in essence, subjective traits attributed by humans. In one sense, some ‘vermin’ are inherent by their nature (like survival habits that conflict with human interests) but in a more encompassing sense, they only become ‘vermin’ under subjective circumstances where the human attributers see them fit. To clarify, this means ‘vermin’ is often a term which humans ascribe to a target group that have one or more non-desirable traits. Since the criteria for vermin can only be applied from a human perspective, I would therefore argue that there is such a thing as ‘vermin’ only in a subjective sense but not an objective one.

Bibliography

• Axelrod, A. (2008) The real history of world war II: A new look at the past. New York: Sterling Publishing.
• Bellemore, P. (2006) Tenants’ Rights Manual: A Practical Guide to Renting in NSW, 3rd edition. Sydney: The Federation Press.
• BUGCO (2014) Pests vs. vermin – what is the difference?. Available online: https://www.bugco.org/pests-vs-vermin-what-is-the-difference [Accessed 12/2/2017].
• Burt, J. (2006) Rat. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
• Cassidy, A. (2012) ‘Vermin, victims and disease: UK framings of badgers in and beyond the bovine TB controversy’. Sociologia Ruralis, 52 (2), 192–214.
• Fissell, M. (1999) ‘Imagining Vermin in early modern England’. History Workshop Journal, 47 (Spring), 1–29.
• Grambo, R.L. (1995) The world of the fox. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books for Children.
• Grant, W. (2009) ‘Intractable policy failure: the case of bovine TB and badgers’. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 11 (4), 557–573./li>
• Hull, T. G. (1963) Diseases transmitted from animals to man, 5th edition. Springfield: University of Chicago Press.
• Krebs, J.R. & Independent Scientific Review Group. (1997) Bovine tuberculosis in cattle and badgers: report to the Rt. Hon Dr. Jack Cunningham MP. London: MAFF Publications.
• McNeill, W.H.H. (1998) Plagues and peoples. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.
• Russell, E.P. (1996) ‘“Speaking of annihilation”: Mobilizing for war against human and insect enemies, 1914-1945’. The Journal of American History, 82 (4), 1505-1529.
• Wallen, M. (2006) Fox. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

For more interesting information:

• Compassionate action and touching
• Animals Help Us to be Better Humans….
• 66 Million!
• Animal Rights Campaign Over Killing Chickens During Jewish Ritual
• Why don’t you love me anymore?
• Feeling Guilty?
• Good News for Animal Lovers!
• Amazing Things You Didn’t Know About Them
• This is something painful to know

Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:

If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team