The human:animal binary discussed in "Who is an animal?" provides humans with an arbitrary tool for evaluating the relative worth of different beings by categorizing them. In that post, I discuss how humans are privileged and animals degraded at the level of language, although our (biological and social) similarities with many animals are greater than our differences. This distinction between human and animal allows humans to objectify and dominate not only other species, but also other humans who have been labelled animals.
I feel like I should clear up the concept of the human:animal binary, and develop it a bit further. Binaries are opposing ideals that we use to classify specific traits and actions. When I say we categorize beings with binaries, I don't mean that we always designate individuals as belonging entirely within one ideal or the other (i.e. a mailman is totally human, a dog is completely inhuman). Humans regularly recognize overlap and ambiguity; but our complex evaluations of individuals and phenomena arise out of the classification of specific attributes and behaviors within dualistic frameworks. Based on a synthesis of an individual's ideal traits, we place them on a spectrum, or hierarchy of relative worth.
That was a lot of big (and poorly structured) words - let me explain with an example. When we observe a cat, we take in a lot of information. The cat is covered with fur, has retractable claws, slitted eyes and pointy teeth, and might enjoy destroying furniture and torturing mice before eating them. These traits we might classify as animal, because they seem markedly different from the ideal human body and behavior. At the same time, the cat has two forward looking eyes, two ears, a nose and a mouth on a round head, and might love to be touched, might look in a human's eyes with interest and investment, might sleep in a bed or mother her babies with care and tenderness. These attributes can be labelled human.
We can then synthesize the species' essential character by weighing it's relative human and animal attributes, and then place it on a spectrum from human to animal, where human is desirable and animal is abject. We might decide that the cat species is worth protecting with animal cruelty laws, and should be fed and pet rather than eaten. Meanwhile, it's fine to slaughter pigs, and great apes might be people.
But we also evaluate the individual within it's species. On a spectrum of cats, there is the ideal cat (who is most social and beautiful) and the least valued cat (a stray, who lives outside and hunts for food). So, using the same system of evaluation that determined the cat species can be "pets" and referred to by gender ("she" rather than "it"), we might also decide an individual cat should be euthanized because it lacks the human attributes (relative to other cats) that make it desirable.
Humans apply this logic of categorization and relative worth to any and all species, including humans.
 |
| Where do you fit on the spectrum? |
The problem with this method of evaluating species and individuals is that the ideals of human and animal are arbitrary, reductive and self-serving. When we classify certain attributes as human or animal, and say the human is valuable and the animal is not, we inevitably categorize the attributes that are the most expressive of dominant cultural norms as the most human, the most worthy. Thus, we associate power and homogeneity with merit, and difference with inferiority. We then go out and create the world to fit our ideals, which further reinforces our perception of their naturalness.
In my next post, I'll discuss how the human:animal binary intersects with other binaries that are collectively used to classify all life forms into hierarchies of relative worth.
Until then, chew on this question: what about humans make our lives inherently more worthwhile than any other being?
(Does this post make sense? Please ask me to clarify any concepts you are not following)
(Does this post make sense? Please ask me to clarify any concepts you are not following)
I definitely understand what you mean by the human:animal binary better after reading this post.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that you might find interesting to consider is the fact that each animal has a similar outlook on the rest of the animal kingdom. I mean that you could argue that each animal in fact has its own binary.
Every species is inclined to more closely associate with others from their species. In the animal kingdom, there is far more competition and rivalry between species than there is empathy. So then it is no surprise that humans exhibit a similar world view. We define our world in terms of our own existence and appearance, just as a Gorilla or a Tiger would do the same thing. Everything relates back to the preservation and perpetuation of the species.
Thus I believe that the human:animal binary is not unique to humans, but rather can be applied to any distinct species.
Thus, (stick with me here) I think that the act of identifying the human:animal binary and attempting to overcome it by developing logical arguments supporting empathy for all creatures (most of which we biologically have no inclination to care about) can serve as a defining characteristic of humans. Therefore, by bringing up the point that humans and animals are the same and all living things must be respected, you have in fact highlighted an attribute which separates humans from animals. More generally, humans have the ability to apply complex logical reasoning to override ingrained biological tendencies.
Ben, I think you make some interesting points that offer me some good opportunities for further clarification of my position on the human species and binaries in general. From what I can tell, humans seem like a very distinct species. We are highly adaptable, reproductively successful, extremely socially organized, and technologically advanced transformers of our environment. We have dominated our ecological niche, which by now has become the entire world. However, I don’t think all of these characteristics I’ve listed are necessarily unique to humans – rather, they are more pronounced in our species and obvious to us than is so in other species.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure if other species understand the world with fundamentally parallel perspectives to humans. The privileging of the individual’s species and competition (with competitors) do seem to be “natural” phenomena, important features of evolution. But I think there are significant problems with thinking about competition as the defining feature of the “natural world”, and using this naturalness as a justification for exploiting everything else in the world. This is social Darwinism, which has historically justified genocide, forced sterilizations, racism, colonialism, war and a bunch of other stuff we can probably agree is bad. The reason these awful things happen is that our concept of what is natural is socially constructed and generally serves the interests of those who define the term (I’ll talk about this more in my next blog post).
Privileging competition as natural diminishes the necessity of sharing spaces and the interconnected nature of ecosystems, and positions eating other life forms as a necessarily competitive, and not mutually beneficial, activity. Here’s what I mean – fungus and earthworms will eat your body when you die, and produce out of you the minerals/nutrients the soil needs to produce the plants which you and the animals you might eat will eat. It’s the circle of life idea. So, in a very real sense, we depend on other organisms way more than we compete with them. Saying competition is natural furthermore justifies the mass extinction event that is going on right now as a normal or good process.
Regardless of whether other animals are capable of such “higher thought”, humans do seem capable of both objectifying analysis of reality and making subjective value decisions – we use these faculties every day in order to figure out what to do with our time and energy. But if we’re going to intelligently look after the best interests of the human species, we can’t use these apparently exceptional attributes as a justification for disregarding the importance of supporting biodiversity (and competition – see Blake’s post under the “Who is an animal” discussion), avoiding the dangers of monoculture, and protecting our ecosystem by not killing off life in the ocean and poisoning the atmosphere. All of these issues connect biological, environmental and social needs of humans, and they are all intricately related to our treatment of animals, especially in the global economy.
When I say humans are animals and that socially constructed binaries and hierarchies are false, I don’t mean that there are no real differences between different species. I think there is incredible diversity in the world, and I think that the human species, along with human consciousness and experience, are really amazing emergent phenomena in the universe. However, I think that neither apparent human exceptionalism nor behavioral similarities between all species can be used as a justification for violence and environmental destruction.
Thanks for posting again. Responding to your points has really helped me focus and present a clearer case than I can when I’m just making general arguments.
Having tried over many years to rid myself the habit of reducing reality into artificial dichotomies, it has taken some regressive effort for me to understand this 'binary' construct.
ReplyDeleteNow I see it is a digital [or French] term for how our poor brains make simple models out of the dynamic complexity of the wide wide world. These tiny facsimiles limit our perception but they also help us function.
Our brains are structured to sort and classify. Too much detail, too many stimuli and 'we can't see the forest for the trees.'
Sadly however, our brains can be very very mistaken....