Skip to main content

Animals and Society Class - Discussion 1

Because I'm having to spend so much of my time, at the moment, reading and writing for school and the blog is suffering slightly as a result, I'm going to post what I'm writing for school as a way to keep the blog active. I still intend to post other content as often as possible, but since I have to devote some time to this anyway, why not share? I would love to get feedback/comments on these posts if they provoke any thoughts/feelings for you.

 


Q: How are animals socially constructed?

A: Both human and non-human animals are just socially constructed concepts, created by human cultures making up narratives which suit themselves. While the different cultures of the world (and throughout history) may have different definitions of which animals are food, which animals provide companionship, or which animals are worthless / dangerous / vermin, the definitions are all just agreed upon by the group. The entire structure is completely arbitrary and created by the cultures themselves. There is, for example, no logical reason why in one culture (Judeo-Christian) snakes are seen as signs of evil while in another (Mesoamerican) feathered serpents are the representation of a prominent god. Just as there is no logical reason why in one culture it is considered normal to eat pigs but not dogs, while in another dogs are fair game for the table.

Q: What are the primary categories of animals?

A: Where individual animals fall in terms of what their perceived purposes and uses are (food, experimentation, pets, entertainment, etc.) seems to vary widely from human culture to human culture. But the commonality of the belief in human exceptionalism seems to be more universal, and something I think is attributable to what the book calls “othering” – defined as “the assignment of different characteristics to different groups” which is then used to “justify the domination” of other living beings (human or otherwise) “based on their supposed essential natures.” (pg 25).

Q: How are animals defined?

A: I just finished a summer course a couple weeks ago about witchcraft and heresy in Medieval Europe, and I cannot help but see tremendous parallels between the “othering” done by that culture and what this book is talking about in relation to humans and animals. Medieval Europeans committed genocide, crushed other civilizations, and commodified human beings based on the perceived ‘otherness’ of their fellow human beings who simply happened to be of other religions, colors, or genders than those with power. The artificial construct of what animals are, their perceived value, and their accepted places in various cultures, seems to be very much based on the same narrow and egotistical viewpoint, that ‘I’, whoever I am, I am somehow the pinnacle of something and everything/everyone else is here to serve my purposes somehow. Whether it is food, companionship, labor, or increased scientific knowledge, we seem to be defining animals based solely on our perceptions of what they can provide us.

 

 

Comments

Popular Previous Posts

I Made the Mistake of Reading the Comments

I live in southern Arizona. There was a shooting here this morning by Border Patrol. Local. Immediate.  I clicked on a news article trying to understand what happened — and then I made the mistake of reading the comments. It didn’t take long before reality dissolved completely. People were saying ICE makes them feel safer. Not cautiously. Not with qualifiers. With chest-out confidence. From there, the conversation slid — predictably, inevitably — into a Fox News–approved rerun of the Alex Pretti shooting. Not because it was relevant. Not because it clarified anything about what happened here. But because it’s now a talisman. A loyalty test. A script. One guy even posted the photo of Pretti being disarmed and claimed the agent walking away with the gun was actually Pretti approaching ICE with his weapon drawn. That’s not an interpretation. That’s a complete inversion of what’s visible to the human eye. This is how it works now: One angle. One story. Nothing else allowed. How can you...

My Word of the Year for 2026: FlowWard

Every December, I start thinking about the year ahead - not in terms of rigid goals or impossible resolutions, but in terms of how I want the year to feel . For 2026, my word of the year is FlowWard . OK, I know it's not a real word - but I wanted something that embodies both going with the flow but still going forward.  Not forward in the hustle-y, grind-yourself-into-dust sense. And not flow as in drifting aimlessly and hoping things work out. FlowWard is about moving ahead gently, deliberately, and sustainably; making progress without forcing it. Why “FlowWard”? For a long time, productivity felt like pressure to me. Do more. Be faster. Push harder. Keep up. Somewhere along the way, that mindset stopped working. It led to burnout, stalled projects, and the constant feeling that I was behind—even when I was doing a lot.  And that's all before crashing into heap physically and literally getting behind. FlowWard is my rejection of my previous approach. It’s the idea...

Just for the hell of it ...

I asked ChatGPT:  I don’t know a lot about his health, but I know: he’s 80, been overweight by probably 60lbs for probably 25 years, isn’t sleeping properly at night but falls asleep in the middle of the day frequently, eats mainly fast food - burgers fried chicken etc - and has always eaten this way, considers golf enough exercise (uses a golf cart), has swollen ankles, terrible bruises on the back of his hands (like from infusions or blood draws), slurs his words, uses wrong words that sound alike, sometimes just makes sounds as if he gave up on trying to say a word. He has had repeated MoCas (more than one per year) and brags about having “aced” them but I’ve never seen the results myself. He also had 2 MRIs 6months apart, but he won’t tell me what they were of/for. He does not smoke or drink. I think that’s pretty much all I know. What do you think is happening?   This was the response:  I’m going to answer this carefully, because what you’re describing is not subtle...