Google Zoo

An interesting way to look at how humans understand animals is to look at how we visually represent the word. Here are some of the top results from a google image search for animal and animals. 

Do you see any ways that the human:animal binary is perpetuated in these images? Why are certain animal species over represented? Which humans are considered animal? Think about the effect of grouping diverse beings and representing them as exotic or dangerous. What else do you see here?

Who is an animal?

As this blog will mainly work with written language, I think it’s appropriate to begin by discussing the common definitions of some key words. From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

As we can see above, the word ‘animal’ has a few contradictory meanings. Which definition is implied is largely determined by the context it’s used in. In a scientific context, animals are defined by their biological traits. Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic organisms. As apes, as primates, as mammals, and as vertebrates, humans are obviously biological animals.

However, in common usage, when we say “animals”, we almost always use the word in the sense of the second or third definition provided above. Animals include all biological animals (or, more exclusively, all mammals), except humans. When we say “animals”, then, we group every other species of life into a single category (animal), and exclude and distinguish our species into an entirely separate category. Humans are not animals. In fact, humans are defined by their opposition to animals:

Though this definition appropriately recognizes that humans are biological animals, it is fascinating that it defines humans not by biological or behavioral similarities within the species, but by perceived fundamental differences that "distinguish" humans from all "other animals". Let me put this another way: we know that not all humans have the "superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance" the definition requires because, from babies to comatose people, humans exhibit a diverse range of intellectual, communicative and physical abilities. In fact, it is this diversity of human traits and behavior that makes it so difficult to come up with an internal definition of "human being". So instead of coping with difference, the definition above invokes an ideal of the normal human, whose essential features can be defined only when contrasted against an opposite - "animals".

Both definitions then - human and animal - reduce complex and diverse beings into simplistic, alienating categories. There are significant problems with this. Is a human no longer a "human being" when she/he is mentally, vocally, or physically disabled? Who decides what is "superior", "articulate" and "upright" enough to be human? If other animal species are actually capable of thought, language, tool use, and culture, what does it really mean to be human?

Furthermore, why do we feel compelled to emphasize our perceived differences from other animals? Why is it so important to distinguish ourselves as a separate category? What does this allow us to do to other animals?

Manifesto

I have named this blog Thinking Animals because it encapsulates our activity here – thinking about animals, thinking about thinking about animals, and thinking as (human) animals. On an unimaginably massive scale, humans use animals everyday – as commodities, laborers, test subjects, food, companions, clothing, spectacles and symbols – in the intimate and industrial economic, scientific, and social processes that create and define modern human life. However, within the (sub)urban environments most Americans live, the omnipresence of animals is regularly hidden and disavowed. Indeed, the human species’ own biological status is frequently ignored, or even disputed. My goal is to subvert this trend by promoting awareness of and critical reflection on common human belief systems and practices regarding other animals.

Photos by Tim Flach

My approach will be twofold – exposition and dialogue. By presenting media and information that engages with the various subjects of animal studies along with critical analysis and open-ended questions, I hope to engage my friends and family (and anyone else who cares to join) in a constructive discussion aimed at undermining systematized violence and indifference. I want to expose the invisible contradictions that seem to characterize the ideological underpinnings of most human-animal interactions. I plan to execute this as impartially as possible – this blog is not about guilting or insulting or condemning anyone, and nor is it meant as propaganda or congratulations for animal rights activists. Rather, I want this blog to become a space for observation, reflection, exploration and open-minded sharing of ideas from different points of view.

As I’ll be taking a critical perspective on some highly divisive, emotional and personal issues, I expect there will be a whole spectrum of diverse responses. If you disagree with me, or partially agree, or feel unaffected or passionate or uncertain or confused or anything at all, please leave comments or respond to other posters. I’ll entertain hecklers and philosophers alike (not that the two are mutually exclusive) – any response at any level with any intention can provide fascinating insight and depth to the conversation. I emphasize the importance of dialogue because I don’t want this to be a passive learning experience, where I deposit my knowledge into the receptive minds of unknown, invisible readers. I am not so authoritative, and you are not so ignorant; by engaging in dialogues, by externalizing our opinions, by arguing and agreeing and recognizing ambiguity, we will produce our own knowledge about humans and other animals through a process of mutual discovery.

The Cook, by Giuseppe Arcimboldo

At its root, this blog is about more than just animal studies. Indeed, when we study animal-human interactions, I’ve found that we learn far more about ourselves than other species. My fundamental goal, then, is to effect positive change in the world for all living beings by attempting to realize the core human values of communication, cooperation, education, altruism, empathy, and love. These ideals probably look cheesy on a screen, but when meaningfully applied to your life, they become profoundly radical actions. I will readily admit that I am not very good at any of them; I am only beginning to discover, value, and try to live them. It is an extremely difficult project. Each ideal requires critical, open-minded observation, self-reflection, and dialogue. For each, there is no endpoint, when we will suddenly arrive at completion, at perfect knowledge or communication or love – these are continuous processes – indeed, they are the major enterprise of much of our lives as thinking animals. Now let’s get to work.