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.




Popular Previous Posts

The Ethics of Eating Meat - Animals and Society Class Discussion

Q: After reviewing the course materials for Weeks 6 and 7, discuss the concepts of moral equality and moral recognition. How do they impact the treatment of animals and people? What are the ethics of keeping animals in captivity and killing animals? How do animals become meat? How does the consumption of meat establish borders between classes, races and genders? What are some of the ethical questions surrounding the consumption of animals?  Photo by Christopher Carson on Unsplash A: Moral equality is the principle that all people have equal human rights – or that at least is the way it should be; the ideal. Moral recognition is the acknowledgement that there are differences between various groups of people (different genders, races, beliefs, behaviors, levels of intelligence, etc.), but the ideal of equality should still be applied; the differences should not merit different treatment.  However, this idealized equality – which we still struggle to apply to all people – is most defin

I'm Posting on YouTube Now

I have been thinking about getting back on YouTube for a while now (a friend and I used to have a fledgling lifestyle channel together), but with a more writing/reading-related focus.  Since I am still between homes (sold old place and new one is still not fixed up en ough to move into) I haven't felt able to start back up on YouTube. I figured no one wants to see me and five small noisy dogs cramped into a tiny bedroom (with all but current schoolbooks still in boxes). Not quite the background I would like to present. But then I thought, I could always try recording and posting my real time random word poem writing sessions. They're short, and hopefully/possibly interesting. Now I admit this first video needs to be improved upon greatly when it comes to camerawork. But it's a first attempt, so cut me some slack. I'll work out the kinks as I go.  

Book Review - Three Tides - Part 4

Pineda’s ‘gathering’ chapters are all about the epic destruction of Katrina. I come away from this reading feeling some sense of relief that many people are decent human beings who will help others in times of need, including Pineda herself. Pineda talks a lot about the strong sense of community in New Orleans before the hurricane and that during the hurricane the effected people were repeatedly “helping one another, sharing what they had.”  But the sense of relief at the humanity between individual people, gave way very quickly to disgust at the negligence of the organizations meant to help. Starting with the callous government officials who actually seem to have viewed Katrina as an opportunity to ‘clean up’ the “public housing” of New Orleans in favor of “urban renewal.” Rep. Richard Baker actually said as much, adding, “We couldn’t do it, but God did.” Apparently, they blew up the levees intentionally to sacrifice the poorer parts of town, in order to save the richer areas and tour