Deep Ecology and Colonialism in "The Elephants on Neptune"
This paper examines Mike Resnick's short story "The Elephants on Neptune" through the lens of deep ecology principles as articulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions. The analysis explores how Resnick anthropomorphizes elephants to construct an allegory of colonialism and the cycle of oppression between dominant and marginalized peoples. Drawing comparisons to Leopoldo Lugones's "Yzur," the paper argues that literary representations of animals tend to reduce them to human metaphors rather than honoring their intrinsic worth. The paper concludes that while Resnick's story is a powerful critique of human prejudice and violence, it ultimately reveals more about human social dynamics than about genuine human-animal relationships or ecological ethics.
- Introduction: Anthropomorphism and Deep Ecology: Introduces deep ecology and the problem of anthropomorphism
- The Elephants' Idyll and Human Encroachment: Idealized elephants disturbed by arriving humans
- Dialogue, Colonialism, and Role Reversal: Species debate worth; elephants evolve into humans
- Neptune as Metaphor for Colonized Worlds: Neptune symbolizes colonized Earth and industrialization
- Animals as Metaphor Versus Ecological Reality: Resnick and Lugones reduce animals to human allegories
- Conclusion: Deep Ecology and the Limits of Allegory: Deep ecology demands respect beyond human metaphor
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its literary analysis in a specific theoretical framework — the Deep Ecology platform — giving its readings principled authority rather than relying solely on opinion.
- It moves fluidly between close reading (quoting directly from Resnick's text) and broader cultural argument (colonialism, industrialization, environmental exploitation), demonstrating how allegory operates at multiple levels.
- The comparative reference to Lugones's "Yzur" strengthens the central claim by showing that the tendency to reduce animals to human metaphors is a recurring literary pattern, not unique to one author.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates allegorical reading: it unpacks a science fiction narrative layer by layer, first engaging with its surface (human-animal conflict), then revealing its deeper ideological content (colonialism and the cycle of oppression). This technique is paired with theoretical anchoring — each interpretive claim is connected back to the Deep Ecology platform, modeling how literary criticism can be integrated with ethical frameworks.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by introducing deep ecology principles and the problem of anthropomorphism, then moves through a plot-driven analysis of Resnick's story — covering the elephants' initial idyll, the dialogue with humans, and the role-reversal climax. It then widens its lens to draw historical and geopolitical parallels, compares Resnick's approach to Lugones, and closes by reasserting the deep ecology critique. Each section builds logically on the last, moving from text to theory to broader cultural implication.
Introduction: Anthropomorphism and Deep Ecology
One of the difficulties inherent in writing about animals is that a writer is always forced to use anthropomorphic language to convey the animal's thought processes and relationship with the human world. There is a tendency to anthropomorphize animals — to see them as lesser-developed humans, or to idealize them as somehow more pure than humans and more removed from the petty cares of human life. However, according to the principles of the Deep Ecology movement, seeing animals in human terms is not the answer. Rather, seeing human life in its appropriate context — in relation to the other species of the world — is what is required for the planet to prosper. One of the principles of the Deep Ecology movement, as articulated in its platform, is that "the well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: inherent worth; intrinsic value; inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes" (Naess & Sessions 2010).
The Elephants' Idyll and Human Encroachment
The idealization of animals can be seen in the opening of Mike Resnick's short story "The Elephants on Neptune." "They were a remarkable race, the elephants on Neptune. They lived out their lives in peace and tranquility; they never argued among themselves, the old were always gentle with the young. When one was born, the entire herd gathered to celebrate. When one died, the entire herd mourned its passing. There were no animosities, no petty jealousies, no unresolved quarrels." Resnick's story does reflect some of the knowledge that humans possess about elephants as a species — namely that elephants tend to live in herds, are intelligent, and show great affection for one another. These elephants, however, are highly idealized versions of the real thing, and reflect the ideals that humans hold for themselves more than those that elephants would have for their own species.
As the elephants become more like humans over the course of the story, they become more corrupt, and ultimately the narrative is revealed to be less about elephants and more about the colonization of so-called primitive peoples.
At the beginning of the story, the elephants' idyll on the remote planet of Neptune is disturbed by the encroachment of the human species, as the elephants note the "ominous-looking weapons" carried by the men. The men speak of the "deep bond between men and elephants," but the elephants point out how their species was used to forcibly destroy others in war, and how they were either hunted to near extinction for their ivory tusks or put on display in spectacles such as circuses. The humans are obviously disingenuous in their intentions, given their show of violent weaponry.
Dialogue, Colonialism, and Role Reversal
The two species engage in dialogue, during which the elephants recount the great crimes inflicted against their people, while the humans cite their accomplishments as proof of inherent greatness. "We're a race that can boast of magnificent accomplishments: the internal combustion engine, splitting the atom, reaching the planets, curing cancer… what have you got to equal that?" demands one of the human leaders.
In response, the elephants say, "We live our lives free of sin… We respect each other's beliefs, we don't harm our environment, and we have never made war on other elephants." Some of the men — particularly the Jewish man, a member of a persecuted race — sympathize with the elephants' worldview, although others do not. "You'd put that up against the heart transplant, the silicon chip, and the three-dimensional television screen?" asks the leader, with just a touch of condescension. While the elephants, because of their ability to communicate telepathically, largely speak as a collective unit, the men do not — each man expresses different feelings and emotions to the elephants.
The twist of Resnick's story occurs when the elephants spontaneously evolve into humans and the humans, under the strange influence of the planet, evolve into elephants. At the end of the story, there is a complete role reversal: the elephants take on human characteristics (such as violent impulses and meat-eating) and eventually shoot the humans in revenge for the crimes perpetrated against their species. Gradually it becomes clear that the story is not about the relationship between humans and elephants, but about the relationship between humans and marginalized, colonized people across the globe.
Conclusion: Deep Ecology and the Limits of Allegory
The tendency to see "the other" as inferior is manifest in prejudice against native peoples as well as animals. Resnick's allegorical story shows how human violence and prejudice form an endless cycle. The relationship between humans and animals is made even more complex by the deeper barriers to understanding and sympathy between the two species. Deep ecology principles would urge us not to see animals as metaphors for oppressed humanity, but to appreciate the greatness of the non-human world in all its complexity — to treat it with respect and to take from it only what is necessary to survive. "Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs" is another core principle of the movement (Naess & Sessions 2010).
References
Lugones, Leopoldo. (2007). Yzur. ERBZine. 1869. Retrieved December 13, 2010 at http://www.erbzine.com/mag18/yzur.htm
Naess, Arne & George Sessions. (2010). Deep Ecology Platform. Foundation for Deep Ecology. Retrieved December 13, 2010 at
Resnick, Mike. (2001). The Elephants on Neptune. Asimov's Science Fiction. Retrieved December 13, 2010 at
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.