Micro-Landscapes of the Anthropocene

Animal Worlds: Literature Review

Authors of animal literature often find themselves caught within the paradoxical process of writing about animals as a way to disrupt the binary division of humans and animals while simultaneously being restrained by the language itself, which inherently contains its own human centred lexicon. In Daniel Keyes, ‘Flowers for Algernon’ (as discussed in the close reading chapter) the author displays an awareness of the linguistic restraints of human language by directly experimenting with the written form; depictions of literacy and illiteracy, self-recognition, progress of rationality, and scientific testing are all exposed as methods in which humanity actively places markers of difference and inferiority, on both human and nonhuman beings, as a way of distancing any similarities we share with other species. While human language, both spoken and written, is a mode of communication between the human species, by its very nature, it is also the thing that perpetually isolates us from communing with and understanding animals, therefore when writers attempt to speak or write on behalf of the animal, a series of impossibilities arise.
 
The very nature of this oxymoron is what many have labelled as a sure sign of ‘anthropocentrism’ or ‘human exceptionalism’, the belief that the human species is the most significant entity on earth. Such ideals are instilled within Aristotle’s ‘History of Animals’ which contains his observations and recordings of nature under a lens of human exceptionalism. Firstly, Aristotle generated divisions of the realm of living creatures in plants, animals and human beings by investigating outward differences and features of species. In conclusion of these basic categorisations, Aristotle ultimately debates that animals are ‘below’ humans because only humans can reason and therefore we can use animals without the same consideration we would give to people. Due to their failure to speak, Aristotle classifies the non-human inferior to human. Yet ideas such as these have been met with much criticism in environmental, sociological, scientific and literary communities alike. Indeed, the empirical sciences of Darwinism were paramount in undermining this traditional dichotomy. Those traditional human traits which enabled us to distinguish ourselves from animals, such as our speech, knowledge of death, consciousness, etc, have either been proven to exist in similar forms in animal behaviour or to not exist in a manner that we could traditionally recognise.
 
Mathew Calarco, a key animal philosopher and author writes in his book Zoographies (2008) on the variety of disciplines that intersect within Animal Studies (Biology, Cognitive Sciences, Social Sciences) and proposes that while there is no standard for what defines the field, each individual who pursues this area of research are driven by two central concerns; firstly, an exploration of animality, what it means to an animal and secondly, what are the distinctions of the human / animal divide and how are they defined. The concept of animality has had many theorists question if animals have a "shared essence" yet much like critiques of essentialism in gender studies, most theorists see this idea as an easy way to divide humans from animals. In reality, the extensive array of beings we refer to as 'animal' is in itself a way to reduce those beings under a set of blanket characteristics. Calarco later writes in his book Thinking through Animals: Identity, Difference, Indistinction (2015) that in order to establish justice for animal life we have to create continuity amongst species (both human and non-human beings) to grant animals equal access to the ethical and political community. Calarco believes that the human / animal divide can no longer and should no longer be maintained, that it is our anthropocentrism that has enabled political, legal and moral criterions to govern the continual exclusion of animals; consequently much of our understanding of animals is shaped by the limits of these societal norms.
 
Similarly, Latimer’s article ‘Being Alongside: Rethinking Relations amongst Different Kinds’ (2013) compels readers to challenge the normative divisions between humans and animals. Latimer seeks to redefine what makes us human by exposing the asymmetry between consciousness and physicality. In reference to Donna Haraway whose proposal that there is a need to be ‘with’ rather than ‘alongside’ other species, through the co-construction of human and non-human worlds; Latimer’s essay calls for connection between species, rather than siloed co-existence. In exploring encounters with animals as something that inhabits the life the human, Latimer’s position is evidently critical of the ‘aggressive othering’ that results in violence towards animals. Conversely, Kay Peggs writes in ‘The animal advocacy agenda’ from a sociological perspective and provides insight to how animals are socially implicated in the human world as well as how historically, they have been silenced and oppressed in academia and literature. Peggs questions the sociological field’s tradition of exploring the discontinuity between human and animals, based on social organisation and meaning making. Specifically, she closely analyses Mead’s proposition that animals are not relevant to sociology due to their lack of perception, imagination and language. To oppose this, she instead draws on ideas of the ‘zoological connection’ and how animals play an important social role within human life. Ultimately, the agenda is thus to propose that sociology is an appropriate field to give voice to animals, due to their intertwinement with human life.
 
Considering animals in a sociological frame is also echoed in the words of Strommen, in her article "Animals in Literature and Theology” explores animal studies within a theological conceptual frame, referring to both traditional narratives relating to animals and contemporary examples of animal research that has signalled a shift in perspective on the cognitive capacities of non-human entities. With increasing recognition of the complexities of animal consciousness revealed through ethological sciences, such advances in our understanding of the animal realm has led many to question the animal/ human divide and created an increased sense of urgency in animal rights, especially given the hyper industrialised treatment in which agricultural animals are subjected to for human purposes. In contrast, previous conceptions of animals have represented the animal as an oppressed other. Ideas from biblical creationism have insinuated that humans occupy a higher symbolic plane than animals because they are made in ‘God's image’, and therefore justifying any ill treatment to them.  For Strommen, as well as other aforementioned writers and critics, it is not enough to deem animals as examples of metaphors for the 'other'; we have to recognise animals in our midst as creatures that also share sight and consciousness, and therefore rethink our notions of compassion, ethics and justice in response to animals when we have undeniable proof of their ecological and cognitive significance.
 

References:

Aristotle. History of Animals, Book 1,Translated by Richard Cresswell, St Johns College, Oxford, 1887, pp. 1-23. Web.
 
Calarco, Matthew. The Question of the Animal: On Philosophy and Animal Studies (Introduction). Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York, Columbia UP. 2008. Print.
 
Calarco, Matthew. Thinking through animals: Identity, Difference, Indistinction. Stanford University Press. Vol. 11. No. 2. 2015. Print.
 
Latimer, Joanna. ‘Being Alongside: Rethinking Relations amongst Different Kinds’. Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 30, no. 7, 2013, pp. 77-104. Web.
 
Peggs, Kay. ‘The ‘animal-advocacy agenda’: exploring sociology for non-human animals’. The Sociological Review, vol. 61, 2013, pp. 591-606. Web.
 
Strommen, Hannah M. "Animals in Literature and Theology (Special Section" Literature & Theology. An International Journal of Religion, Theory and Culture 31.4. (2017) 383 - 471. Web.
 

This page has paths:

Contents of this path:

This page has replies:

  1. "Huskies and Hunters: Living and Dying in Arctic Greenland"

    A few words on an article by Rick De Vos
     

    Our Romantic cloud now takes us to a place even more remote than before. Greenland. Living in cities we seem to utterly ‘romanticise’ these faraway relationships between ‘man’ and the animal — a true and ancient companionship perceived emancipated from modern power dynamics. We presuppose that the animal here is ‘free,’ unconditioned, unlike the domestic animal. No matter how much one loves their pet, there is always a voice somewhere which wonders whether you have oppressed it, taken it out of its natural landscape and made it a slave to satisfy your own hedonistic novelties. Even those who rescue pets seem to be met with the question, at least once by their own consciousness — ‘why live with a difficult animal?’ Anna Heyward personal article, 'Bad Dog' provides one answer to that:

    Even as a parasitic presence, the dog creates things that are hard to measure from an evolutionary point of view—love and delight. A helpful way to think of it is that to love another animal so different and useless is to remind ourselves of how strange, complex, and irresponsible our behavior as humans can be. (Bad Dog)

    But there is no escaping a confrontation with our fallibilities, and destruction in particular towards more-than-human species. Hence we tend to look to the past, to ancient civilisations, to in order to find solace, and the possibility of a ‘symbiotic relationship’ that promises cohabitation and an understanding between two species. Traces of this untainted relationship are sought after in remote communities such as in Greenland. Furthermore, the proliferation of the incredibly beautiful photographs by nature photographers really augments that Romantic cloud.

    The resilience of the animal depicted is awe-inspiring. It creates a similar perception about the human-dog relationship as the Romantic poet had with the pastoral landscape.

    Pastoral Literature:

    n.

    — a class of literature that presents the society of shepherds as free from the complexity and corruption of city life. Many of the idylls written in its name are far remote from the realities of any life, rustic or urban.

    (Britannica)

    However, Rick De Vos’ article, 'Huskies and Hunters: Living and Dying in Arctic Greenland,' reveals a startling reality about the true conditions of working dogs in these 'idyllic' geographical areas. The article provides an in-depth summary of the complex relationships between Greenland huskies and people from hunters to ordinary school children. De Vos outlines:

    […] Greenland huskies are confined spatially, temporally and physically, and their perspectives, welfare and ultimately their deaths are concealed and forgotten. The chapter is instigated by a particular instance of Death I encounter in Qaanaaq and found hard to understand and discuss. (277)

    As the author states, this article is hard to read for an animal lover. But it is even harder to read for someone who once naively believed the pastoral image of a pure relationship between human beings and animals, but in particular, our most paradoxical relationship — with our beloved dogs.

    On a concluding note, the following was perhaps the most eye-opening passage from the article. It truly captures the sensation of being stuck entrapped by conditions that have been created by the other for the animal - in this instance, the other is us. 

    Greenland huskies possess a liminal status, afforded neither the status of hunters nor the attention and respect given to hunted wildlife. They are neither celebrated nor mourned. They facilitate dogsledding and hunting, and as working animals are viewed as property and transportation, despite having helped to shape the social environment in which they live and die and despite being active participants in human life. Their space is restricted by the sea ice and changing climate, the geographical limits of settlements, designated dog areas, and by physical tethers and harnesses. Their time is restricted by the seasons and the opportunities for hunting, and by their perceived ability to work effectively, and their future generations are restricted by selective and ill-informed breeding control. (289)


    ~ Vedika Rampal

    _________________________________

    Cited Texts:

    De Vos, Rick. "Huskies and Hunters: Living and Dying in Arctic Greenland." In Animal Death, edited by Johnston Jay and Probyn-Rapsey Fiona, 277-92. Australia: Sydney University Press, 2013. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gxxpvf.22

    Heyward, Anna. “Bad Dog.” The New Yorker. 2021. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/bad-dog

     

This page references: