Anthropomorphism and Animal Violence Human

Anthropomorphism and Animal Violence

Human beings and animals exist in a state of uncomfortable cohabitation. We have historically been outliers to an ecological system that depends on a great many hierarchical rules. In our independence from this ecology, we have not only placed ourselves at the top of the food chain through any number of technological artifices, but we have also channeled our understanding of animals through our needs and our experiences.

The work by Stephen Jay Gould (1982) demonstrates man's need to contextualize all things according to his own experiences, offering an illustration in the way that we characterize the behaviors of animals. While a certain degree of scientific understanding tells us that the impulses and motives for animals are inherently driven by survival, as opposed to desire, there is a tendency to perceive acts of violence or destruction in nature as indicative of evil or ill-will. According to Gould, this is a characteristic attributed for example to the parasitic tormet imposed by the family of flies and wasps called inchneumon.

Gould likens this to drawing and quartering in human terms, telling that

"as the king's executioner drew out and burned his client's entrails, so does the inchneumon larvae eat fat bodies and digestive organs first, keeping the caterpillar alive by preserving intact the essential heart and central nervous system. Finally, the larvae completes its work and kills its victim, leaving behind the caterpillar's empty shell. Is it any wonder that ichneumons, not snakes or lions, stood as the paramount challenge to God's benevolence during the heyday of natural theology?" (Gould, p. 2)

Prominent Incidences:

In one sense, this perception does appear to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the objectivity of nature. However, some recent incidences in the headlines illustrate are tendency to employ this anthropomorphism in our characterizations.

When famous Las Vegas performer Roy Horn of Siegfried and Roy was mauled during a performance by one of their trademark white tigers, such characterization underscored this human tendency. According to Sigfriend, speaking on behalf of his critically injured partner, "every living thing goes crazy. Every species,'" (Marquez, p. 1)

The attribution of insanity is at once a decidedly human way of perceiving the species in question and, additionally, suggests that the tiger had no rational motive for the mauling, which is something that we simply can't assume to know.

The Timothy Treadwell story is another illustration of how the natural and instinctual behaviors of predatory animals are often described in terms that human beings can ethically or philosophically comprehend. Treadwell was a radical zoologist who desired to live among the bears and, in doing so, exposed himself to the dangers inherent in such proximity. When he and his girlfriend were mauled to death by a brown bear in their campsite, there was little surprise. According to one colleague, "You probably know that I've done three full-length films with him,' Bennett said. 'There's no question he had a remarkable repertoire with bears and had a remarkable ability for them to tolerate him ... (but) just so people don't get the wrong idea, Tim definitely knew there were bears out there that were bad medicine.'" (Manning, p. 1)

The phrase 'bad medicine' here implies a certain moral proposition in the bear's behavior, attributing a distinctly human way of perceiving the act of killing to its actions. However, as the article shows, this anthropomorphic phrasing may be misplaced, particularly given Treadwell's dangerous intrusion into the territory of his study subjects. This denotes that it may not be entirely rational to project the notion of 'murder' to the killing but that human beings will tend to do so. The notion of a 'bad' bear indicates that there is some moral action which has occurred, a perception which is a departure from the decidedly objective selectivity of nature.

That line between nature's objectivity and the emotional qualities that drive human moral behavior becomes even more difficult to draw as the core traits of certain animals come more to resemble human beings. This is quite well illustrated in the disturbing case of Andrew Oberle, the chimp sanctuary employee who was mauled to a devastating extent by two male chimpanzees. Here, the animals can actually be evaluated according to their emotional disposition, but one must be careful not to conflate this with an act of 'evil' or 'cruelty.' According to the report, "[the chimps] have no anger,' Cussons told Good Morning America. 'This is why we come to the conclusion, as far as our expertise goes, that it was a territorial defense. They directed the violence towards Andrew whom they feel was infringing on their territory.'" (Daily Mail Reporter, p. 1) This denotes that under the circumstances, the animals were acting in accordance with the rules of their society. As these differ so considerably from those of humanity, we can see the danger in anthropomorphizing the implications of violence.