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

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…

Consolidation

I'm something of a compartmentalizer.

I had a personal blog and a writing blog. I had a website to advertise my freelance writing and other marketable skills, and a separate site to talk about my fiction writing saga. I have a personal twitter and a writing twitter. I didn't want to "bother" people from one area of my life with stuff from another. Didn't want to bore personal friends with talk of writing, or posted poetry. Didn't want to offend fellow word-lovers with my politics, or bore them with monotonous check-ins to the same handful of places (I'd be depressingly easy to stalk if anyone were so inclined, lol).

But I'm done with that.

Maybe it's the New Year, or my new word. Maybe it's just my age showing - I am in my fuck-it-forties, after all. Maybe it was an article I read which said that having a website under a cutesy online pseudonym (like my qwertyKayt) is best if your 'brand' is talking about writing, while having a site …

New blog content coming ... really ;-)

Ok, since I've been kind of neglecting my blog lately (Bad blogger!), I've decided to try something new here. Last semester I included book reviews and commentary for what I was reading in some of my classes. Since I'm taking a film class this semester, I've decided to share the commentary I'm writing for that class on here as well. Why not? They're all stories I'm experiencing in some fashion. They're all reactions and thoughts I'm having as a result. Who says I can review or comment on a book, but not a film? Not me ;-)