The comments under the previous entries have been good, but I want to bring the topic out into the light, beyond just a few of us advocating our positions, so I when a new piece occurred to me, I elected to make it a new post.
Most cultures have beast fables, such as Anansi in West Africa and the Caribbean, Chanticleer in medieval France, Panchantantra in Sanskrit, Aesop in Greece. But the design of these stories is not to tell us what animals feel like, but to use animal characteristics to teach us something about humans. Even in the time of Lewis Carrol the White Rabbit and the Cheshire Cat are disguised humans.
Yet in the present day the animals in stories are in movies, and we are increasingly imposing human characteristics back onto them, so that we believe we understand what their lives are like, and are encouraged to sympathise with them via empathy. Fish don't really have family lives and go on adventures, but they have been expanded from one-dimensional lesson examples to beloved friends. Many animals are still just animals in Snow White. All animals in modern Disney films are fully conversational and emotive, even literate.
We think we know what their lives are like, but it is all projection. I suggest that this relates to Grim's worry about empathy leading us astray in dealing with humans. We think we know because we have feelings about the lives of others, based on identification rather than sympathy.
I should mention, not for the first time, that much of this underlies environmentalism, as opposed to conservation.
Wait -- Do you mean that turtles can't really grow up to be trained ninja fighting for justice!?? Now what am I going to do with all these turtles?
ReplyDeleteThis post actually makes more sense to me of how you're using empathy. I've seen this myself and I think it's having an impact on hunting and fishing and, as you say, environmentalism vs conservation.
"we are increasingly imposing human characteristics back onto them"
ReplyDeleteThis comment may make no sense whatsoever... just a warning. Possibly not even on topic. Now that it's July 5th and I've avoided all the local FB and Nextdoor comments about how awful fireworks are for the pampered neighboring furbabies... I'm wondering why no one ever mentions their cat being traumatized by the boom-booms.
Keep in mind that I live near Redstone Arsenal where boom-booms are a fairly regular occurrence. Sometimes it's testing of rocket engines, sometimes it's the FBI experimenting with explosives, and other times... well, they're not telling us everything, are they?
Perhaps canines are more upset because fireworks are unexpected... not like the boom of thunder which they've sensed ahead of time even if it does still upset some of them. Still, why are felines not similarly upset?
I suspect that a large percentage of the canine upset is caused by their "furparents" projecting an emotion onto them. Or I could just be an unfeeling jerk.
I don't think that last one about responses to thunder being a projection is true, but I think something equally weird is happening about dog personalities in general. I say this because we have had many dogs but only one that was thunder-sensitive. However, I swear the behavior of the dogs of furmoms is different. It may be that they choose different breeds and dog types, so I have the arrow of causality reversed. Also, I never see bumper stickers or shirts about furdads.
ReplyDelete