The animal and me
“I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we've got to do it right.
We've got to give those animals a decent life and we've got to give them a painless
death. We owe the animal respect.” - Temple Grandin
(http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/419241-i-think-using-animals-for-food-is-anethical-thing)
In his essay ‘Why look at animals’, John Berger contemplates on the relation
between man and animals and describes it through the use of language. He comes to
the conclusion that whereas a human can confirm another human’s existence
positively or negatively, not necessarily even by using language, but already through
the mere existence of language, an animal cannot (p. 5, Berger, 1977). Berger then
continues by quoting Rousseau in whose opinion figurative language was the first to
be born, proper meanings were however last found (p. 7, Berger, 1977).
In my opinion Berger is misguided in his ideas about human on human interaction as
well as about human animal interaction in the sense that he bases his assumptions
on the ways of interaction that are known to humans and judges these interactions
only and purely from the human perspective.
The mistake, in my opinion, starts with Rousseau’s assumption that human language
is a true form of communication. The underlying idea herein is that basically, if
humans say that a tree is a tree, it is automatically so. But spoken language in its
nature is never stable; never 100 percent accurate and never 100 percent
understandable even between two humans. The vast and constantly interchanging
differences between attached meanings to words that happen even between two
humans, more so, even within one human being, make language a restricted form of
information gathering and interaction.
Therefor to say that a human can only be confirmed positively or negatively by other
humans and never so by animals is presumptuous and hints at an inferiority complex
that goes to the very depth of human nature.
Do I not already confirm my own existence to myself by even being looked at,
smelled, etc. by an animal and realizing that another being is acknowledging my
presence and existence? So what if it does not care that I exist or how I feel, caring is
not the same as acknowledging. An initial ambivalence within a being is only a
representation of the present moment and does not have to continue to exist but
can change into something else.
In my opinion, among others, it is this false idea of interaction, also Descartes’s claim
without proof, of animals having no souls, as well as the assumption that humans
are the height of intelligence on this planet (and some even say in the universe)
which leads to the disrespectful behavior towards nature, our selves and each other
that at times takes place.
It is the rather our own feelings of inadequacy in the face of a lions strength, a dogs
speed, a bird’s wings or a natural disaster, that lead us to crave for the confirmation
by nature and to our envy of it.
We also fool ourselves through assumptions, as for instance the assumption of our
uniqueness. It is not my opinion that humans are not unique. As natural sciences
teach us not one leave on a tree is like another and so we are not either. In my view,
it is through the realization of your own uniqueness and the respect for the
uniqueness of another, that we can somewhat calm down the doubts we have
through our lives and learn how to interact with our environment in a more
respectful manner as well as develop better ways to communicate with animals and
nature in general.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.”
― Winston S. Churchill (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/respect).