Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Today I want to talk about
the animal nature of man and anthropomorphism
and I want to use literary works to discuss this issue
There are two short stories which I think fit this purpose quite well
The first is Kafka's 'Report to an Academy'
I'll use this to discuss human-like animals
The other piece from the supposed children's fiction author
the author of 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' and
'James and the Giant Peach', Roald Dahl
A short story by him called 'Pig'
The reason I say "supposed' children's fiction author is because
although he writes children's stories
they're a little creepy
and not really that appropriate for children
In his short story 'Pig'
we can discuss animal-like humans
So I'll use these two stories to discuss
anthropomorphism and zoomorphism
but before I start discussing the stories
I'd like first to discuss an animal studies researcher
whose name is Cary Wolfe
He has written a lot about animal studies
he came up with an interesting concept
which he calls a 'species grid'
we normally conceive of animals and humans as a dichotomy
a dichotomy between them
In his view, however,
we can take animality and humanity as the fundamental dichotomy
to make a grid with four sections
the four categories she suggests are
animalized animal
humanized human
humanized animal
and animalized human
so first I'll explain why he divides them into these four categories
and then I'll explain what this has to do with what we'll talk about today
He observed that in a culture
we often use these four categories in the grid
to blur the lines between animals and humans
and adding subcategories
so an 'animalized animal' for example
literally it means an animal that has been made more animal-like
but that's kind of a paradox
It's already an animal, so how can it become animalized?
but 'animalized animals' and 'humanized humans'
are both a form of ideological fiction
they are constructs of an anthropocentric ideology
once these categories have been set up it's much more convenient for us
some animals we come across we label as 'pure animals'
We animalize it so to speak
and we associate it with lower forms of life
this obviously depends on how we define animality
Regardless, once we categorize them as of a class that's purely animal
It becomes more convenient for us to exploit them
like in animal experiments or in blood sports
We don't think that in using this kind of animal we are persecuting it
and Cary Wolfe points out a phenomenon:
"the killing of the them as a non-criminal putting to death"
If you point out that experimenting on an animal for research is wrong
people will think that you're odd
because this "animalized animal" is akin to property, we can use it
So this categorization is useful for us
Some kinds of animals seem to innately fit in to this category
Most people assume that they fit into the category "humanized human"
but he emphasizes that if you are a human that has been "humanized"
It implies that we endow humans with divine or lofty characteristics
and this explains how far our civilization has advanced
and so we call ourselves human
but he points out that this is the same as "animalized animal"
it reveals that we use the underlying opposition of animality and humanity
to impose these different categorizations
but actually humans are animals
humans are a species of animal
So what exactly is a "pure animal"
or a human without an animal nature
these categories don't exist
likewise, the term "humanized human" implies purity and is also a fiction
the next two are "humanized animal" and "animalized human"
a "humanized animal" is what we refer to as a "pet"
the term "animal companions" is more in line with animal rights nowadays
As the term "pet" in Chinese (chongwu) implies that it is material property
So when we call them animal companions
we're more willing to admit that these kind of animals are humanized
and that they have some common characteristics with humans
Clearest in the case of cats and dogs
When people have had experience raising a cat or a dog
they have more contact with them
and a bond will form between the human and the animal
they're more willing to acknowledge
that they do share some characteristics with humans
some dog owners for example report that after their dogs hair is sheared
they seem ashamed, because they are not used to their new look
We're more willing to acknowledge,
perhaps because these animals live in proximity to us
that they feel fear
or that they get lonely
For animals that don't have this close a relationship with us
we're unwilling to acknowledge that they experience these emotions
because as I said, this is troublesome
when we need to use them
so most of the time when it comes to "animalized animals"
We see their responses simply as 'reactions'
and we don't "over-interpret" them
for us they are just like machines, we push a button and they do something
but with "animal companions" we're more willing to acknowledge that,
because they have a bond with us,
so we can understand how they feel
some theorists support this theory
they think that after animals are domesticated
they will become more similar to humans
they will internalize their master's thought processes and emotions
and their emotions and thought processes will be similar to humans
Some people accept this idea
this is the "humanized animal"
which has a rather particular status
Another category is the "animalized human"
Basically
if we think of criminals
or other people that commit "***" or savage acts
we use terms like
'Worse than even a beast' or
to be crueller than a dog or a wolf
Our language is full of terms like this
We define *** or animal like behaviour
as that which is violent, lowly
and that which we don't accept as human
So if some people don't act like a "humanized human"
Then we assume that they are an exception
we'll say "most people aren't like that"
and we think they've become like animals
for us they're "animalized humans"
this category is often reserved for
the alien or the criminal
people we don't want to associate with
we categorize them as "animalized human"
So Cary Wolfe's "Species grid"
illustrates a common occurence in the cultural field
that we force a distinction between humans and animals
when the line dividing the two is ambiguous
but in our culture it seems to work using these four categories
and then put animals on one side and humans on the other
and pets are in a special minor category of their own
as are criminals
in this way a firm boundary lies between animals and humans
What's interesting is that literature often challenges this divide
because literary works like to express
the codependent relationship between light and dark
they're aren't so easily divisible
animals and human characteristics are equally hard to distinguish
Like in Kafka's 'Report to an Academy'
In it he clearly wants to make this line really ambiguous and unclear
In brief, the protagonist of the story is a human-like animal
he's a chimp called Red Peter
and the 'report to an academy' is his explanation of how he went
from being a chimp to being a human
Why did he become human?
It's because he was caught by humans
After he was captured he's put on a ship
Then he was put in a small cage with no means of escape
At that point he thinks that even if
he were able to bite through the cage
and escapes he would face the ocean
And would have no way of escaping
So he's always searching for a way out
so he decides that the only way is to become a human
He thinks if humans don't have to be in cages then he'll become human
So he tours giving talks about how he became human
Telling people everywhere his story
how he became human
In this story
what's interesting is that the line between animals and humans is very ambiguous
It's not just that this animal wants to become human
the human he wants to become isn't a refined human
Because the humans he mimics are the sailors
and when Kafka describes the sailors
he describes them as vulgar, stupid and lowly
Words we use to describe the slow wits of animals
It's the sailors we see like that
but that's the object of his mimicry
He thinks if he becomes human he can get out of the cage
the chimp repeatedly emphasizes
that he didn't become human out of interest
He doesn't think that becoming human is good
he maintains a satirical tone throughout
he became human just to find a way out
not because humans are better or worth the change
It's also interesting to look at what 'becoming human' entails
His definition of becoming human is
learning to spit, smoking pipes and rubbing your belly after drinking
because that's what he sees the sailors doing
So when we look at what is seen as a 'humanized human'
we think of humans as having lofty and refined characteristics
but from the chimp's view you only need to mimic these three things to become human
Of course you can deny that the chimp really became human
it doesn't understand human civilization
but this is the fun ambiguity about Kafka's work
He makes you reconsider is humans are really all that great
If they are then why does this chimp see people like this
With little effort he successfully imitates human qualities
When he finally suceeds at drinking alcohol
as at first he was very resistant to it
When he finally succeeds at it and is a little drunk
He says something in a human voice
he says the word 'Hello'
and the sailors excitedly proclaim, he'a a human now
This harks back to philosophy, that language is often used to differentiate humans and animals
Because animals lack language we think that there is no need to talk of their rights or welfare
Because you can't communicate with them, they lack language
so talking about trying to get rights for another species seems absurd
but in fact in Kafka's story the author seems to deliberately play with this idea
so if only things with language count he posits a talking chimp and we can think of it as human
so if we take the entire story as the evolution of chimp to man
then it's a very absurd evolutionary story
A chimp gets drunk, says hello and that makes him human
this story doesn't just cast doubt upon human exceptionalism
but is also throws into doubt the meaning of 'evolution'
because this story of evolution is full of images of regression
Bodily regression
he mentions that his teeth aren't as sharp as before he became human
and that his sense of smell isn't as good as before
this reflects that when humans talk about progress and civilization
we're really repressing the physical nature of our bodies
the sensual nature of the body
The idea of mind-body dualism since Descartes
gives us the impression that
that materiality is inferior
we pursue rather the intellectual and the spiritual
so the corporeal and the material are seen as inferior
so animality and corporality are both seen as the lower end of a binary
and they're are both then repressed
There's another bit in the story
which talks about how although he has become human and goes on a lecture tour
there's a news report that ridicules him
saying that the chimp hasn't completely evolved into a human yet
because although he can speak and gives lectures
he still has a habit of taking off his trousers in front of people
to show them his gunshot wound
The chimp objects to this, saying
that they discriminate against him
but this also reflects civilization's repression of the body and sexuality
pulling your trousers down in front of other people means you have no sense of shame
this is the idea in traditional philosophy and commonly held that
only humans have a sense of shame
which allows us to categorize
We suppose that animals have no sense of shame
only humans do
Derrida has interesting ideas on the subject
he's dealt with shame a lot in his work
He decontructs it
we thought of man's sense of shame as integral to his greatness
but Derrida says it's only man who need be ashamed
who should feel ashamed
because if shame has to do with nakedness
If the impulse to cover nakedness
and wearing clothes come from a sense of shame
clothes and civilization's "coverings"
are all creations of man
only man needs to respect these coverings
so only with man is there nakedness
so only man need feel ashamed when he is naked
There's no such thing as a naked animal
it sounds silly when you talk of nakedness in animals
If they don't have nakedness they don't need a sense of shame
he deconstructs this binary relationship
and says rather that only man needs to feel ashamed
and not that because animals don't feel ashamed that they're inferior
This story can be related to this line of thought
because he links the ideas of animality and shame
in the idea that the chimp knows no shame
and we are puzzled as to whether its evolution or regression
and as to what makes a human?
It's through this animal which is both humanlike and non humanlike
we can think about this kind of thing
In the story he also points out
When he became more and more humanlike his teacher went mad
Humans can't stand this sort of uncanny double
because they resemble you, they copy you but they're still a little disimilar
They will shake the stability of your position
your position of security
So his teacher feels his secure position is threatened in the story
and he goes mad
the story then continues with
him still being very keen to learn
so he hired 5 teachers in 5 consecutive classrooms
and he would jump from one classroom to the next
and through this intensive study program
he attains the average education of a European man
So people have commented that this story doesn't just mock humans
but also explores the problems of civilization and education
like what is our education?
Has our education just become a hodge-podge
with students running from one classroom to another
not even aware of what they are learning about
so that even a chimp can hire teachers, jump between classrooms
and attain a human level education
It's a very satirical look at human civilization
Although other critics approach this story differently
they see it as questioning whether jews should integrate into European society
or if they should criticize it
so they see this story as showing the dilemma facing jews
but today I'm taking it as a discussion of animality and humanity
so I won't discuss this interpretation today
We can use Kafka's story to re-evaluate the way we...
The line is hard to draw
the line distinguishing animals and humans
but because animality makes us feel insecure
for the reasons we just talked about
but we feel the need to draw the line
so we use the fact that they can't talk, communicate or reason
or like the French psychoanalyst Lacan asserted
drew this line on the basis of the idea that
that animals only have symbols not language
So he assrts that although animals can mimic and pretend
but it's only one level of pretence
only man can pretend on top of pretence
Like you tell the truth to convince someone that you're lying
so only man can have several levels of pretence
Different philosophers draw the line differently
to distinguish animals from man
The harder you try to draw the line the more you realize how unresolved this problem is
So it's difficult to assess where the difference really lies
Heidegger said that animals have some more advanced skills than humans
Like physically dogs can climb stairs faster
but, he says, dogs don't know stairs are stairs
they don't have the ability to understand through language
these earnest attempts that have gone before
really just tell us unstable and difficult to draw this line is
We've always strived to draw a line with animals on one side and humans on the other
or even in four categories as we discussed before
but Kafka's story blurs the line
we can see man in the chimp in the story
Any person in his position would try and find a way to survive, a way out
Humans aren't particularly superior in this aspect
The chimp particularly refers to humans using the word 'freedom'
which he thinks is a human illusion
He thinks he only needs 'a way out'
What is freedom to him?
He compares all the lofty ideals of humanity
to stunts by a trapeze artists
It's a temporary liberation from the physical boundaries of the body
but that's not real freedom
In the story lots of the traditional values of 'humanized humans'
are turned on their heads
That's the first story
The second story is an animal-like human
this story is simpler
it's not as complex as Kafka's story
It's about a very naive boy
the reason that he is so naive is that
he is raised by a vegetarian aunt after his parents' death
The aunt home-schools him, not letting him go to school
so he has no social skills
and learns from his aunt
He learns how to cook
because his aunt says it will be difficult to be a vegetarian
so you need to learn how to cook yourself
He's really interested in the art of cooking
so he researches recipes
but after his aunt dies
he has to sort out her will
so he has to go to the big city
and comes into contact with other people
because he had never met other people before
so he gets cheated continually
so the lawyer cheats him out of his inheritance
so he's left with only a little money
then he goes to order a meal at a restaurant
of course, he wants to eat vegetarian food
but the waiter says we've only got pork left
He doesn't even know that pork is pig meat
because he's never had it before
so he agrees to eat it given that's all they have
after he tastes it he thinks its delicious
He's so surprised that he asks to see the chef
and asks him what it is and how to make it
When they tell him it's from a pig, he's really shocked
and is puzzled why his aunt told him that he couldn't eat it
and that it's wrong
so they tell him that his aunt must have been bad at cooking it
so he thinks it must be this
so he decides to find out how to make this delicious dish
so they introduce him to an abatoir
telling him that he can go see, as they don't deal with it themselves
so he goes to the abattoir
the abattoir looks as if it's open for visits
but the people who visit are slaughtered with the pigs
so the twist at the end of the story
catches you offguard
the reader is as shocked as the protagonist
at first he's just watching the pigs go by on the hooks
and how they're blood is released
but suddenly his foot is hooked and he's hung upside down
you think 'what went wrong?'
but the story makes it known that it's no mistake
because whenever his throat is slit to release his blood
when's he's being slaughtered
Before he loses consciousness
he sees that the dead pig in front of him has a pair of white gloves on
It's the girl who was queuing in front of him for a visit
So this little detail tells us it was no accident
That this abattoir pretends to allow visitors, but then slaughters them like pigs
and that's where the story ends
so it's not really appropriate for children
Although he's a children's writer
His books are full of darkness and malice
which make it difficult to understand what the story is trying to say
Some critics have said
The title suggests that
on the surface the story is about a pig
but who is the pig?
the protagonist, Lexington is brought up like a pig
if our traditional definition of pigs is
They eat a lot and don't do much, they're stupid
and that in this innocent state they're slaughtered for reasons they don't understand
which is similar to the protagonist
He's really easy to cheat out of money
he can't tell when people are lying, he has no defences
so why does he meet this fate?
Because he likes eating
He thinks the pork is really tasty
He follows his taste buds
So we think of pigs as stupid and gluttonous
so the protagonist is a pig-like human
so his fate inevitably becomes that of a pig
So he naively enters the abattoir in his innocence
this is one interpretation, in which
the pig in the story is this pig-like human
but this interpretation is still troubling
Why does he write about this pig-like human?
and many people find this story repugnant
because it touches on cannibalism
Although it's black humour
it's still playing with the idea of cannibalism
but some other critics defend the story
saying that on the surface it seems meaninglessly dark
but in fact the story asks a very radical question
What are humans?
What makes humans human?
How do we define the essence of human existence?
Why do we think that the slaughter of pigs is fine
but humans being slaughtered is so horrifying
Maybe you think it's because humans are different
When we come across these questions we often respond this way
This is a tautology, humans are different because they're humans
Logic fails us so we say it's because humans are human
but the story points out
that being human doesn't stop him from the fate of being slaughtered
so you need to think more deeply about
why we rationalize the concept of human superiority
How do we justify this superiority?
So can the pig-like or animal-like human in the story
be mistreated this way?
If we think of 'humanized humans' as having certain skills
then do these animal-like humans not count as humans?
This creepy story forces us to ask these questions
So if we take the question of language
then what about an infant who can't yet speak?
Does it have rights? How should we treat it?
What about people with aphasia?
if we think that language is really so important
And if intelligence is the key factor then what about dementia?
So once people become more like animals
when they lose these "superior" abilities
they become the 'other'
So this story
uses the idea of so casually slaughtering a person
to get us to question the essence of human existence
So the value of this kind of literature
makes us see the line that we took for granted
and realize that the boundary is blurred
You'll question
when we talk about humans and animals
the validity of these two categories
If we want to establish the differences between humans and animals
we should rephrase it as 'human animals' and 'non-human animals'
Because saying animals and humans assumes that humans aren't animals
but humans are clearly a kind of animal
so we should ask the differences between human animals and non-human animals
and we should ask
when we are considering these differences
what our own motives are
Why do we always feel the need to draw a line between animals and humans
Are we doing it to establish a solid boundary?
to exclude animals from
this human superiority
or are we trying to establish the links between them
and rethinking how far our ethical responsibilities extend
what animals or 'others' should it apply to?
The different reasons for where we draw the line
will affect the way we treat and judge different animals
Observing this animal-human binary through literature
or their similarities
is more interesting than through disney cartoons
Because in cartoons the differences are unclear
But it's unclear in a different way
The lack of clarity we were talking about before
questioned whether humans really are superior to animals
and where the similarities and differences lie
but cartoons like disney
use animals to define human social values
so you get the impression that
the animals in disney cartoons are just humans with animal masks
In the oft critized 'The Lion King'
The lion pride in 'The Lion King' represent the aristocracy
so it's been noted that
they speak British English
this represents traditional blue blooded values
the villains, hyenas
are latinos
the accents are different
So some people think
that this uses animals to
define a set of social values
but there's no examination of the relation between animals and humans
or if we look at the popular Madagascar film
no matter how hungry the lion is he never eats his friend the zebra
This imposes human moral values on animals
animals don't have this sense of morality
but to attract audiences we anthropomorphize them
and endow them with moral character
but anthropomorphizing animals in this way
isn't useful when we're considering animals rights or their status
because we're endowing them with human values
so we'll often see in news reports
that when animals do something in keeping with their nature
like if they attack when provoked
then we'll say "the dog was out of control"
or that a cow has bitten the hand that has fed it all these years
we take values that we think of as human
that animals lack and categorize it as an animalized animal
Observing the relationship between animals and humans
in different media
will offer very different results
Subtitles by Conor Stuart