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?

A top google image result for "humans" from Scientific American

The divide between humans and all other animals is reinforced by perceptions of innate differences in ability, intellect and worth, as well as the supposed impossibility of interspecies communication. In this blog, I will refer to this divide as the animal:human binary. Although it proves problematic under close scrutiny, this binary informs and justifies much of human belief and behavior towards other animals.

In fact, the animal:human binary is implicated in the the last definition of "animal" provided above: "a person whose behavior is regarded as devoid of human attributes or civilizing influences". For a human to be called an animal is generally degrading - it implies that he or she is being barbaric, violent, thoughtless, primitive, disgusting, uncivilized, irrational, instinctual, stupid, lecherous, destructive, and/or aggressive. Essentially, it implies you have regressed from a superior human state to a base level, unfiltered by cultural restrictions. It also suggests that humans have an inherently dualistic nature - we can act like animals, or we can control our animal urges with human reason and culture. This in turn suggests that we see ourselves expressions of the human:animal binary.

But if humans are actually biological animals, how can humans not "act like animals"? On the other hand, can a person's actions really ever be "devoid of human attributes or civilizing influences"? If not, why do we blame misbehavior on an innate, uncontrollable animal nature? What does this allow us to do to other humans? How does this effect our perceptions of other animals?

Check out this BBC documentary series from 1994, which studies humans from a zoological perspective (warning: there is some nudity): The Human Animal