Conference Paper for ‘The Human Animal:
Beauty and the Beast’
By Wafa Taoube, Lucas Heights Community School
By Iskra Spencer, Georges River College, Oatley
This is not a ‘fluffy’ presentation from animal lovers; in fact, one of us does not
particularly like animals at all. This is a presentation about the politics of animal
and human relationships, and the ‘doublethink’ we engage in so we can continue
to have our ‘pets’ and eat ‘them’ too. In addition, this forum will consider how
literature uses the ‘animal’ to comment on human traits and flaws.
Australian philosopher, Peter Singer (‘Animal Liberation’, 1975), seems to argue
that our treatment of animals speaks to the core values that define us; however,
deliberate ignorance, and a willingness to overlook the interests of the most
vulnerable, reveals more about the human desire for expansion…at whatever
cost. Our values are becoming increasingly self-serving, materialistic and
destructive.
‘…these practices exist only because we do not take seriously the interests of other
animals- practices like hunting, whether for sport or fur; capturing wild animals
(often after shooting their mothers) and imprisoning them in small cages for
humans to stare at; tormenting animals to make them learn tricks for circuses and
tormenting them to make them entertain the audiences at rodeos; slaughtering
whales with explosive harpoons, under the guise of scientific research; drowning
over 100,000 dolphins annually in nets set by tuna fishing boats; shooting three
million kangaroos every year in the Australian outback to turn them into skins and
pet food; and generally ignoring the interests of wild animals as we extend our
empire of concrete and pollution over the surface of the globe.’ (Singer, 1975)
Our interest in attitudes to animals was further piqued when ‘Four Corners’
reported on the treatment of livestock at Indonesian abattoirs and the public
responded with outrage. A similar degree of response did not follow when a
report on refugees aired soon after. When Sea Shepherd conservationists work
hard to keep our condemnation compass firmly directed on Japan and their
whaling, and fail to focus on other countries who ignore whaling quotas, or fail to
focus on the excessive consumption of meat in a Western livestock factory, we
cannot help but wonder about the ways in which our attitudes to animals is
selective and…hypocritical. Our tendency to barrack for one animal and ignore
others represents our dichotomous, often ‘unfair’ attitudes towards animals.
Jacques Derrida claims that one of the most violent acts we can make towards
animals is considering them as animals rather than looking at their essential
differences.
Animals have featured in literature from the very ‘beginning’. We see animal
archetypes in religion, fables and even in cave paintings. Humans have
consistently used animals as mirrors; certain animals are reflective of the traits
we wish to aspire to or wish to avoid. Animals also serve as metaphors as in the
case of George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’ where the destruction of an
elephant satirically comments on the fragility of British imperialism and the
tendency for white man to exploit for self-interest. Franz Kafka’s ‘A Report to an
Academy’ also considers humanity’s exploitation of the other as he uses a
‘civilised’ ape to satirically comment on the wonders of being a man.
Furthermore, through his animal narrator, Kafka explores the difficulty
outsiders- often considered as inferior- face assimilating into the mainstream
culture. Both writers position the reader to adopt an empathic view of animals
and a condemnatory view of humanity as they reflect on the irony of what being
human actually entails. A comparative study with ‘The Rise of the Planet of the
Apes’ serves to enhance the human tendency to want to control the wild but at a
personal and political cost. Similarly, the post-colonialist text, ‘Spirit: Stallion of
the Cimarron’ uses the metaphor of a stallion- wild, rebellious and free- to
comment on the abusive practices of the West with regards to American Indians.
Animals and marginalized communities are paralleled to augment mainstream
attitudes to the colonized.
As modern environmental consciousness deepens to encompass a more accepted
view of the need to conserve, animals in literature continue to serve as
metaphors for our potential to create as well as our potential to destroy. Our
attraction to the wild/animal world may be part biological or perhaps a
romanticist response to an increasingly mechanized, alienated world. Tim
Winton’s novella ‘Blueback’ and Sonya Hartnett’s ‘ The Midnight Zoo’ centralize
the notion that humanity is destructive but it has the potential to rectify that flaw
if it changes the paradigm of modernity; technology and materialism are not
necessarily progressive values if they lead us into a progress trap where we
actually start to threaten the livelihood and longevity of communities. Winton
argues that our tendency to suppress our ‘animal instinct’, in favour of the
trappings of civilization, means that we ignore part of our identity and suppress
our understanding of nature and our place within it.
These are some of the main areas this presentation will explore; other texts,
including picture books and poems, are also addressed in this investigation. A
draft study guide for ‘Blueback’ and ‘Midnight Zoo’ will also be provided in order
to get teachers started on exploring the richness that these texts offer the junior
or senior student.