This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Micro-Landscapes of the Anthropocene

Chickens, video games and human-animal relations.

‘aggressive othering’ that results in violence towards animals.
 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. 
Animal Worlds Literature Review

As explored within this e-book, the hierarchal structure created by mankind for the natural world places the human at the top. Within Jason Wyckoff’s article “Hierarchy, Global Justice and Human- Animal relations” the dichotomy between human and animal is one which is powered through the classification of ‘wildness’. Furthermore, Wyckoff (2016, p.250) argues that humans often only engage with animals in highly manipulated conditions such as zoos or museums in which:

“Human uses of animals for food or hunting are often emphasised, along with wild animal aggression”.

Drawing upon this idea of manipulated realties, I wanted to explore the virtual world and animals. Within the virtual world of video games, the animal of the chicken is often a targeted and re-emerging presence. Players are often able to interact with these chickens in various settings, often a violent and aggressive action is offered. In an article by Tyr Fothergill and Catherine Flick, the ethics of human- chicken relationships in video games derive from real world associations. Fothergill and Flick explore the role of the chicken in human history from food source to religious figure (the sacred chicken) and a representation of gender politics. Chickens for the most part have historically been “engaged with ancient divinity… violence. Commodified and women’s work and men’s play” (Fothergill and Flick, 2015 p.100). As the article argues, perception of chickens has been associated with negative cowardly connotations and to a certain extent femininity as opposed to the more fearless masculine connotations associated with roosters (Fothergill and Flick, 2015 p.101). Furthermore, the virtual space offers players the option to violently kill the chicken without the mess of real world implications. This violent killing of a chicken as Fothergill and Flick argue (2015 p.106) is reflection with real world consumption and killing of chickens.

The virtual chicken is one that represents human to animal relationships. The disposable nature of these virtual animals is one that continues to perpetuate the notion of human supremacy over animals. Yet perhaps in a sense this is also farfetched as the virtual world of video games offer players a fantasy and imaginative space to explore beyond their own worlds.

Fothergill, B., & Flick, C. (2016). The ethics of human-chicken relationships in video games. ACM SIGCAS Computers And Society, 45(3), 100-108. doi: 10.1145/2874239.2874254
Wyckoff, J. (2016). Hierarchy, Global Justice, and Human–Animal Relations. Journal Of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 19(3), 236-255. doi: 10.1080/13880292.2016.1204884

Natalie Cheung

This page has tags:

Contents of this tag:

This page is referenced by:

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 tags:

This page is referenced by:

This page references: