In this blog post I will be reviewing Chapter 7 of Greg Garrard’s book Ecocriticism. In this chapter, entitled ‘Animals’ Garrard explores the relationship between humans, animals and the natural world. Three elements of this chapter that I found interesting are presented below.
Firstly, Garrard begins by differentiating the agendas of environmentalism and animal liberation. In this respect both groups would be concerned for animal wellbeing and the natural world. However, whereas animal liberationists ‘draw the line of moral consideration at the boundary of sentience or feeling’ (1), environmentalists place more importance on ‘inanimate things such as rivers and mountains, assuming pain and suffering to be a necessary part of nature’ (2). This therefore can lead to disagreements between the groups. For example, environmentalists may use culling as a method to control species population and maintain biodiversity in areas where certain species are suffering from excessive predation and therefore decreasing in numbers. However, this form of human intervention may not be agreeable to certain animal liberationists. I think this is a useful clarification from Garrard, as it made me consider which side I would take in this form of conflict. Whilst I am against any form of cruelty or distress towards animals, I am also aware that without human intervention, certain species could reach levels of depletion and become extinct, as numbers of predators would exceed the number of prey. As a result of this, both species are likely to suffer and experience pain that would far exceed that of them being humanely culled as part of an environmental programme. However, the question of whether this is our responsibility, or simply part of the natural life cycle that should not be meddled with, is debatable.
Secondly, Garrard also highlights how our view of animals has changed increasingly since industrialisation. Garrard states that for the peasant in the pre-modern era, ‘the fondness and the slaughter are not contradictory’ (3). I interpret this as meaning that due to the connection with the animal and the understanding of where his food comes from, as well as a sense of gratefulness for this food in order for survival, the peasant views slaughter as part of the process and part of his relationship with the animal. However, since industrialisation Garrard highlights how ‘most animals are removed from everyday life, and the meat production process hidden away’ (4). I think this is increasingly true, as the majority of people are unaware of the source of their food, viewing animal products as a detachment from their original form. For example, in a pint of milk, we rarely see the cow. Garrard also believes that in being more detached from animals we often view them in a purely anthropocentric light, turning them into ‘human puppets’ (5). Animals are often now only seen in a domestic context, for example in the home through pets such as cats and dogs, settings such as a zoo, or in the media. This viewpoint can be damaging, because humanising animals can cause us to overlook their specified needs. For example, only this week I discovered that in certain areas of Texas, owning a tiger as a pet was legal. I was appalled by this, because a tiger is a wild animal and I believe should not be confined to a human space. In this respect, the animal is used for human benefit, rather than for its own personal welfare, and humans are attempting to domesticise an animal, purely for the purpose of their own enjoyment. Although humans have domesticised animals previously, historically this was largely as a means of survival, rather than as a source of entertainment.
Thirdly, as well as exploring how we often humanise animals, I liked Garrard’s comparison of how we invert this to describe human behaviour as animalistic. Garrard quotes Steve Baker who describes the ‘rhetoric of animality’ (6) that functions in describing human social and political relations. Baker makes the example of political cartoons which depict politicians as animals as a form of satire. This often generates the intended comedic effect. Similarly, Garrard highlights how animalistic traits are often used in negative descriptions, for example ‘violent or sexually immoral behaviour is routinely condemned as “bestial” or “animal”‘ (7). This implies that animals have a lack of control of their senses, and therefore by likening a human to this behaviour, human beings are degraded to their pre-evolutionary form. However, in the same way, animals can also be used as a positive representation of human beings. For example, the English lion was a source of pride during the war, but also more recently in times such as the football world cup, where the three lions become an emblem for national pride. Garrard describes this as a ‘theriomorphic’ (8) image. Below are some examples of the usage of animals in political cartoons.
Overall, this chapter offers some very interesting insights to the relationship between humans and animals, in a way that I have not previously considered.
References:
(1) Garrard, Greg. ‘Animals’ in Ecocriticism. (Oxon, Routledge: 2004). [eBook available at https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9780203644843%5D p.139
(2) Ibid, p. 140
(3) Garrard, Greg. ‘Animals’ in Ecocriticism. 2nd Edition. (Oxon, Routledge: 2012) p.152
(4) Ibid, p.152
(5) Ibid, p.152
(6) Garrard, Greg. ‘Animals’ in Ecocriticism. (Oxon, Routledge: 2004). [eBook available at https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9780203644843%5D p.140
(7) Ibid, p.141
(8) Ibid, p.141
Image References:
[Header] personal photography
Global Warning 