INTERRELATINGWITHANIMALS:NONHUMANSELVESINTHELITERARYIMAGINATION

BY

JOANNEMIEREK

THESIS

SubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofMasterofScienceinLibraryandInformationScience

intheGraduateCollegeoftheUniversityofIllinoisatUrbana‐Champaign,2010

Urbana,Illinois

Adviser: AssistantProfessorKateWilliams

ii

ABSTRACT

Children’sliteratureisfullofanimalcharacterswidelyunderstoodtobesymbolic

humans.Theyarebelievedtoprovidethereaderwithacombinationofdelightandthe

neutralityandemotionaldistanceconsiderednecessaryfornavigatingvariousstagesof

maturationorcomplexandchargedsocialissues.Inthispaper,Iaskwhetheranimal

charactersmaysometimesbeunderstoodasanimalselves,andnotassymbolic

humans.Interestintheselfhoodofnon‐humananimalshasbeengaininggroundin

academicdebatesinthefieldsofanimalandcognitivescience,philosophyofmind,and

anthropology,resultingintheoreticalworkthatpaintsanintriguingpictureofwhat

animalselvesmightconsistofandhowwemayalreadyknowthoseselves.Asthe

foundationforthisstudyofcontemporarychildren’sbookswithanimalcharacters,

selectedcurrenttheoryisreviewed,beginningwithanintroductionofbasicconcepts

andincludingLeslieIrvine’sCoreSelfelementsandNuritBird‐David’sRelational

Epistemology.Currentthinkingonthefunctionandroleofanimalsinchildren’s

literatureisbrieflydiscussed.Thestudyitselfisdesignedtodistinguishpatternsin

animalcharacterizationinordertobuildonJohnAndrewFisher’sframeworkforthe

disambiguationofanthropomorphism,atermreferringtothecommonpractice,often

consideredacategoricalfallacy,ofattributing‘human‐like’characteristics(including

selfhood)tonon‐humans.Fisherrecognizestwobroadtypesofanthropomorphic

attributionthathecallsInterpretiveandImaginative,thelatterfoundinworksofthe

imagination.Thepresentstudyconsistedofasurveyandanalysisof46contemporary

iii

children’sbookswithdomesticanimalcharacters,developedusingcriteriafromthe

theoreticalconceptspresentedonanimalselfhood.Significantdifferenceswerefound

inthosecharactersportrayedasclothedand/orbipedalandthosepresentedmore

naturalistically,intheactivitiesengagedin,andinthecharacters’voices,suggestingat

leasttwobroadapproachesbyauthorsandillustratorstoanimalcharacters,here

labeled‘symbolichuman’and‘animalself.’

iv

TABLEOFCONTENTS

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

CHAPTER1:WHATAREANIMALSELVESANDHOWDOWEKNOWTHEM?………………….3

CHAPTER2:ANTHROPOMORPHISMANDTHELITERARYIMAGINATION……………………..14

CHAPTER3:CASESTUDY:ANIMALSELVESINCHILDREN’SLITERATURE………………………19

ANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHYOFCORESOURCES…………………………………………………………25

APPENDIXA:SURVEYSAMPLE…………………………………………………………………………………….51

1

INTRODUCTION

Nonhumananimalsfascinateus.Theyhaveappearedinartandstories

throughouttimeandacrossmosthumancultures(Boyd,2007;DastonandMitman,

2005).Inourstoriesandart,particularlyinchildren’sliterature,fantasy,andfolktales,

weourselvestransformintootheranimals,wecommunicatewiththem;weevenmarry

them,livewiththem,andlearnfromthem.Thereisasenseofalargercommunityof

beingsofwhichweareonepartandinwhichwetakedelight.

Butthereisanothersidetoourrelationshipwithnonhumananimals,especially

inthemodernWesternworld.Overthelast150years,inresponsetoEuro‐American

industrializationpracticesandsomeaspectsofempiricallaboratoryinvestigation,a

steadilygrowingconcernforanimalwelfareandanimalrightshasarisen(Irvine,2004;

Wynne,2004).Increasinglywearecomingtounderstandthatouractionsinpursuitof

perceivedhumangoalshaveresultedinthedevastationofournaturalenvironment,

includingwildanimalhabitatsandpopulations.Animalswehavedomesticatedoften

farenobetter.

Inhisinfluential1967articleforSciencemagazine“TheHistoricalRootsofour

EcologicCrisis,”historianLynnWhite,Jr.tracesthefusionofwesternscienceand

technologyanddiscussestheprofoundinfluenceofChristianaxiomsonthescientists,in

particulartheaxiomthat“noiteminthephysicalcreationhadanypurposesaveto

serveman’spurposes.”(1205)Thesetrendscombined,accordingtoWhite,tocreate

ourmodernecologiccrisis.Heconcludesthatapplyingmoretechnologywillnotsolve

2

currentecologicalproblemsoravoidfuturebacklashes.Wemusttracerootcausesby

rethinkingouroldreligionandideasaboutourrelationshipwiththenaturalworld.

Inthispaper,Ihopetocontributetotheefforttorethinkourhumanrelationship

withnonhumancreaturesbyoutliningrelevantscholarshipinthescienceofmind,

philosophy,literature,andinanthropologythatpointtoawayofengagingwithour

environmentandwiththenonhumananimalswhoshareitwithus.Thiswayisoneof

relationship;ithasancientroots,affordsknowledgeandunderstanding,andmaybe

foundintheWestinworksoftheimaginationincludingliteratureandartaswellasin

everydaycommonsense.

Iambeginningfromthepremisethatanimalsareselvesinmanyoftheways

thatweare;thatcapacitiessuchasemotionalexpressionandcognitiveprocessingare

presentinnonhumananimalsinwaysbothsimilartoanddistinctfromourown,and

thatwecanunderstandandrelatewithindividualanimalselvesinwaysthatarenot

dependentonlanguageAspartofmyanalysis,Iwillpresentfindingsfromasurveyof

animalcharactersinasmallsampleofmodernchildren’sfiction,nonfiction,andpoetry.

AsIwillshow,animalcharactersarepresentedintwobroadways,whichIamcalling

‘symbolichuman’and‘animalself’.Theyaredistinguishedbyphysicalpresentation,

charactervoice,andbytheactivitiesengagedin.Theimaginativedevelopmentof

naturalisticanimalprotagonistsmayitselfbeinformedbythedirectexperienceand

knowledgeofanimalselves.

3

CHAPTER1

WHATAREANIMALSELVESANDHOWDOWEKNOWTHEM?

Twotheoriesofanimalselfhoodexistingintherealworldareintroducedinthis

chapterafterabriefcontextualdiscussionofevolutionarycontinuity.Thefirst,

sociologistLeslieIrvine’sCoreSelfelements,stemsfromherworkwithdomesticpet

animals,especiallycatsanddogs.Thesecondhasbeendevelopedfromscholarshipin

animism,ananthropologicaldescriptorfor“awayofbeingthatisaliveandopentoa

worldincontinuousbirth.”(Ingold2006,9)

CONTINUITY

CharlesDarwin’stheoryofnaturalselectionimpliescross‐speciescontinuity;that

is,thedifferencesbetweenhumansandotheranimals,andamonganimalspecies,are

ofdegreeandnotkind.Darwinwrotein1871of‘numberlessgradations’separatingall

animals.1Theanimalsoftheearthareunderstoodtobekinduetosharedevolutionary

ancestry.Indeed,biological,physiological,andgeneticcontinuityiswidelyassumed.

Currentunderstandingofanimaltaxonomyandtheapplicationofexperimentalresults

fromanimalstopeoplerelyonthisassumption.

1SeeTheDescentofManandSelectioninRelationtoSex.NewYork:TheModernLibrary,[1936].

4

Theassumptionofmentalorpsychologicalcontinuitybetweenhumansand

otheranimals,althoughsimilarlyimpliedbynaturalselection,iscontroversial,justas

biologicalcontinuitywas(andstillis,forsome).Uncomfortablefeelingsaboutspecies

ambiguityandthe‘demotion’ofhumanbeingsareprovoked.Becausementaland

psychologicalcapacitiesaredifficulttomeasureempiricallyeveninverbalhumans,

attemptstodosoinnonverbalanimalsappearsabsurdandimpossibletomany.

Despitetheseobstacles,Darwinhimselfpracticed,inpart,whathascometobe

calledanecdotalcognitivism;hedescribedmanyinstancesoftheexpressionofmental

andemotionalcapacitiesintheanimalsheobserved.Forexample,Dastonquotesfrom

TheDescentofManDarwin’sobservationthatadoghasimagination“asshewnbyhis

dreams”(45)ThoughmorecriticalthanDarwinofanecdotalcognitivism,disciple

GeorgeRomanescollected,classified,andpublishedanecdotes(AllenandBekoff,1997)

inwhichheincludes,forexample,observationsofmaternalandmischievousfeelingsin

monkeys.

Theideaofcontinuitybetweenhumansandotheranimalshasgeneratedan

ongoinginterestanddebateaboutboundariesbetweenspecies,aboutkinship,and

particularlyaboutwhatitisthatmakesushuman.Manyofthetwentiethcentury’s

findingsofanimalstudiesscientistsinbehavior,languageacquisitionanduse,and

geneticshavechallengedspeciesclassificationsandassumptionsaboutthecapacitiesof

nonhumananimals.Chimpanzeesmakeandusetools,elephantsreturnrepeatedlyto

siteswherecloserelativeshavedied,anddolphinscoordinatehuntingactivityand

communicatewitheachotherusingcomplexsystemsofsound.Itisbecomingmore

5

apparentthatunderstandingthesimilaritiesanddifferencesamonghumansandother

animalsiscomplicated,dependingontheanimalinquestionandthecapacityunder

investigation.

PsychologistCliveD.L.WynnehasproposedwhathecallstheSimilarity

Sandwichinordertoframetheissueofcross‐speciescontinuityinahelpfulway.Likea

sandwich,therearethreelayers.Thebottom,orbread,layerasksthequestion,whatis

different?Wynneobservesthatallspeciesaredistinguishable,thatspecificsensory

abilities(batsonar,dog’ssenseofsmell,eagle’sfovia)varywidelyacrossspecies

affectingperceptionandexperience.

“Aboveallthiswonderfuldiversity,thewhirring,humming,perceiving,reacting

multiplicityofanimalnature,isanothermorepeacefullayer.”(228—229)Themiddle

layer,thepeanutbutterandjelly,describeswhatisshared.Wynnelistscognitive

capacitieswhichseemtobe“commontoawiderangeofspeciesandtooperatein

similarways.”(6)Theseincludeasenseoftime,number,same‐different,navigation,

learning,somekindsofmemory,andproblemsolving.

Thetoplayeridentifieswhatisnearlyuniqueinhumans.HereWynneincludes

sophisticatedlanguageabilitiesandasenseofindependentself‐awarenessasthose

capacitiesthatdistinguishusmostclearlyfromotheranimals.

ANIMALCORESELFANDINTERSUBJECTIVITY

AccordingtosociologistLeslieIrvine,whohasworkedextensivelywithdomestic

companiondogsandcats,animalshavethecapacityfortheelementsofacoreselfthat

6

enablesthemtoparticipateinrelationshipswithus.Interactionswithinallofour

relationshipsconsistoftwosimultaneousprocesses.First,theselfoftheotheris

revealedtousthroughtheiractionsandresponsesandsecond,wereceiveconfirmation

ofourownself.Althoughhumandevelopmentaddsastrongverbaldimensionto

selfhood,thecoreselfthatwesharewithotheranimals,whichdoesnotdependon

language,allowsthisprocesstooccurinrelationshipswiththem.So,forexample,when

potentialadopterscometoananimalshelter,theyoftendecideonaparticularanimal,

whichmaynotbetheanimaltheadopterwasoriginallylookingfor,basedona

‘connection’thatIrvineconcludesisacompatibilityofcoreselves.

IrvineborrowsWilliamJames’fouraspectsof‘I’andrefinedbystudieswith

preverbalinfants.2Theyareagency,orasenseofcontrol,coherence,orindividual

integrity,affectivity,orthecapacityforemotion,andself‐historyormemory.Irvine

describesthislastelementasconnectingtheselftogetherintoanindividualsubjectivity.

Thecoreselfhasafunctionalaspectbasedongoalsandactionsandanexperiential

aspectallowingustoknowandtofeel.Thesecoexistingaspectsinformeachotherand

arepartofthedevelopmentofthespecificcoreselfelementsinindividuals.

Evidenceforagencyindogs,accordingtoIrvine,canbefound,forexample,in

behaviortraininginwhichdogsarebeingtaughttoexerciseself‐control.Theimplication

oftheabilitytocontrolone’sbehavioristhatonemusthaveameasureofvolitionor

2Inparticular,Irvineliststhesesources:James,William.ThePrinciplesofPsychology.[1890]NewYork:Dover,1950;Myers,Gene.ChildrenandAnimals:SocialDevelopmentandOurConnectionstoOtherSpecies.Boulder,Colo.:WestviewPress,1998;Stern,DanielN.TheInterpersonalWorldoftheInfant:AViewFromPsychoanalysisandDevelopmentalPsychology.NewYork:BasicBooks,1985.

7

will.Catsinitiateinteractionswithpeopletoachievegoalssuchasfood,companionship,

orplay,oftenbyinterferinginhumanactivities.Indicatorsofasenseofnonverbal

coherenceincludeactionsthatprotectbodilyintegritysuchashiding.Affectivitycanbe

understoodtomeanbothindividualfeelings,likehappinessorgrief,andbodily‘vitality

affects’,throughwhichweoftenrecognizetheindividualfeelingsofothers.Self‐history

turnsinteractionsintorelationships.

Sharingthoughts,intentions,andfeelingswithanimalsdoesnotdependon

language;thatis,althoughtheabilitytotalkabouttherelationshipdoesrelyon

language,theabilitytohaveitdoesn’t.Withanimals,‘thoughts’canbeunderstoodas

thefocusofattentionthroughvocalizingoreyecontact,aswhenadogchecksinor

glancesatthedoorortheleashorthefooddish.Thebestexamplesofsharedintentions

betweenguardiansandanimalscomefromplayactivitieswithdogsandcats(especially

kittens)becausecommunicatingintentioncreatesthenecessarycontextforthe

behavior.AccordingtoAllenandBekoff:

Tosolvetheproblemsthatmightbecausedby,forexampleconfusing

playformatingorfighting,manyspecieshaveevolvedsignalsthat

functiontoestablishandmaintaina‘mood’orcontextforplay.Inmost

speciesinwhichplyhasbeendescribed,play‐solicitingsignalsappearto

fostersomesortofcooperationbetweenplayerssothateachresponds

totheotherinawayconsistentwithplayanddifferentfromthe

responsesthesameactionswouldelicitinothercontexts.(98—99)

8

Mostpeoplewhospendtimewithanimalsbelievethemtobesensitivetoemotional

states.IrvinerelatesthefamousexampleofCleverHans,thecelebratedcountinghorse:

CleverHanslivedinBerlinintheearlytwentiethcentury.Hebecamea

celebrityforhispurportedabilitytosolvemathematicalproblems.His

ownerwouldaskhimforthesumoftwonumbers,andHanswouldgive

theanswersbystrokinghishoofontheground.Manypeoplesuspected

fraudandaccusedHans’ownerofgivingthehorsecuesforwhentostop

stompinghishoof...(Arigorousinvestigationdiscovered)thatHanswas

indeedrespondingtocues,butofasortdifferentfromwhatanyone

expected...Hanswaspickingupsubtle,unintentionalcuesfromthe

peoplearoundhim,whoimperceptiblyrelaxedorquietlyexhaledwhen

hereachedthecorrectanswer.(158)

Irvinearguesthattheunderstandingofemotionalstatesobservedinanimalshasboth

aninstinctive‘affectcontagion’aspectandisasocialnecessity.Theinterplayofthese

aspectsacrossspeciesthataremoreorlesssocialmayhelptoexplaindifferences,for

exampleincommunicationstylesandmodes,betweendogsandcats.

Whydowehaveactiverelationshipswithanimals?Irvinereviewsvarious

answerstothissuchasthewilltodominanceorthatanimalsaresurrogatepeople

standinginfordeficienthumanrelationships.Becausetheyrefertosinglecauses,she

findsthem‘lacking.’Animals,accordingtoIrvine,helptoconstructandmaintainwho

weare.Ouridentitiesare‘fluid’and‘interactive.’Wedevelopandultimatelythriving

throughintersubjectiveinteractionswithothersentientbeings.

9

ANIMISTPERSONHOODANDRELATIONALEPISTEMOLOGY

EdwardTylor,consideredthefatherofanthropology,coinedtheterm‘animism’

inthelatenineteenthcenturyfromseventeenth‐centuryalchemistGeorgE.Stahl’s

‘anima,’usedtorefertothevitalizingelementoflife.AccordingtoTylor,animismisa

ubiquitousandprimitivedelusion,definitiveofreligion,andacategoryerrorthatcould

stillbefoundinthemodernspiritualismofhisday.Tylorwasinterestedintheoriginsof

religionand,usingsecond‐handaccountsfromnewlycolonizedindigenouslands,

developedhisideasthatreligionandreligiousperspectivesaremythopoeticandlearned

mistakesabouttheworld.3

Definitionsofanimismchangedverylittlethroughmuchofthetwentieth

century,despitericherandbroaderdatasets.Scholarscontinuedtoattributeanimistic

beliefsandpracticestochildisherror,fancifulinterminglingofcorrectrepresentations

ofthingswithmysticaltales,projectionsofinternalprocesses,orasareasonablebut

mistakenperceptualsurvivalstrategy(Bird‐David,1999;Harvey,2006).

However,animistpracticesandconceptionsoftheworldareincreasinglybeing

reexaminedbywesternscholarsinfluencedbychangesinthesovereigntyand

subsequentself‐definitionofindigenouspeopleandby“anewacademictendency

towardsdialogueandagrowingrespectfordiversity...metwithadegreeof

uncertaintyaboutmodernity’spreferenceforobjectivityoversubjectivity(whichhas)

3SeeTylor,EdwardB.PrimitiveCulture:ResearchesintotheDevelopmentofMythology,Philosophy,Religion,Language,ArtandCustoms.NewYork:H.HoltandCo.,1874.

10

resultedinahostofnewconversationsbetweenacademicsandothers.”(Harvey,205)

Amongthe‘fruitful’areasofinvestigationarepersonhoodconcepts(Irvine,Bird‐David)

andecologicalperception(Bird‐David,Ingold).

In1960,notedanthropologistA.IrvingHallowellpublished“OjibwaOntology,

Behavior,andWorldView”inwhichhebeginstodescribewhathascometobeknown

asthe‘newanimism.’4Theconceptofpersonhoodiscentraltothisunderstanding.

AccordingtotheOjibwe,theworldisfullofpeople,onlysomeofwhom

arehuman.However,itisamistaketoseethisasaprojectionor

attributionofhuman‐likenessorlife‐likenessonto‘inanimate’objects.

Whiletheydodistinguishbetweenpersonsandobjects,theOjibwealso

challengeEuropeannotionsofwhatapersonis.Tobeapersondoesnot

requirehuman‐likeness,butratherhumansarelikeotherpersons.

Personsisthewidercategory,beneathwhichtheremaybelistedsub‐

groupssuchas‘humanpersons’,‘rockpersons’,‘bearpersons’,and

others.Personsarerelatedbeingsconstitutedbytheirmanyandvarious

interactionswithothers.Personsarewillfulbeingswhogainmeaningand

powerfromtheirinteractions.Personsaresociablebeingswho

communicatewithothers.”(Harvey,17—18)

Hallowellcoinedtheterm‘other‐than‐human‐persons’todescribenon‐human

membersofthislargerpersonhoodcategory.

4SeeDiamond,Stanley.CultureinHistory:EssaysinHonorofPaulRadin.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1960,pp.19—52.

11

Theanimismthatinformsthisviewofpersonhoodisfoundmoreofteninthe

eldersofagroupthaninthechildren.Thisisbecauseitmustbetaughtandlearnedasit

involves“developingtheskillsofbeing‐in‐the‐worldwithotherthings,makingone’s

awarenessofone’senvironmentandone’sselffiner,broader,deeper,richer.”(Bird‐

David,S77—78)Attention,openness,interaction,communication,(Bird‐David,Harvey,

Ingold,Brown,1992)andhumility(Brown)aresomeoftheskillsthatmustbedeveloped

overalifetime.

IsraelianthropologistNuritBird‐Davidmadeamorerecentcontributiontothe

conceptof‘new’animismwiththepublication,in1999,of“‘Animism’Revisited:

Personhood,Environment,andRelationalEpistemology.”Afterreviewingthemajor

anthropologicalliteratureonanimism,Bird‐DavidintroducesDevaru,aconcept,

“enigmatictopositivistthought,”usedbySouthIndianNayakapeopletodescribe

beings/personswithwhomtheyregularlyrelate.Devaruisaspecificexample,according

toBird‐David,ofHallowell’s‘other‐than‐human‐persons.’Theyareneitherspiritbeings

norsupernatural(aboveoroutsidenature),butareunderstoodbytheNayakatoreally

existintheworld.

Bird‐Davidborrowstheterm‘dividual’5tocointheverb‘todividuate.’Adividual

isonewhoisacompositeofrelationshipsandisnotaseparateentitysetagainstother

boundedentities.Nonhumanpersonsaresimplyotherdividualsdefinedanddescribed

throughtheirrelationships.

5SeeStrathern,M.TheGenderoftheGift:ProblemswithWomenandProblemswithSocietyinMelanesia.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1988.

12

WhenIindividuateahumanbeingIamconsciousofher‘inherself’[asa

single,separateentity],whenIdividuateherIamconsciousofhowshe

relateswithme.ThisisnottosaythatIamconsciousoftherelationship

withher‘initself,’asathing.RatherIamconsciousoftherelatedness

withmyinterlocutorasIengagewithher,attentivetowhatshedoesin

relationtowhatIdo,tohowshetalksandlistenstomeasItalkand

listentoher,towhathappenssimultaneouslyandmutuallytome,toher,

tous.”(S72,emphasisintheoriginal)

Asnotedearlier,Bird‐Davidconsidersecologicalperceptiontobeanimportant

avenuetoinvestigateforscholarsinterestedinanimism.Theanimists’perceptionofthe

worldreliesonthe“trafficofinteractionswiththeirsurroundings”(Ingold,11)from

whichmodernlifeprotectsuswithcars,largeindoorspaces,andothercontrolled

environments.Theworldlyenvironmentisconsidereda‘domainofentanglement’

experiencedmoreorlessdirectlyandnotasaninteriorschematicwithoutward

manifestations.

Bird‐DavidconsidersGibson’secologicalapproachtovisualperception6as

centraltounderstandingtheclaimmadebytheNayakathatdevaruexistintheworld.

ForGibson,ecologicalperceptionseestheworldinecologicalterms,asexistingona

scaleofchangetopermanenceinitsmultiplerespects.Somethingschangerelatively

quicklyandothers,likemountains,persistforaverylongtime.Animistperception

6SeeGibson,J.J.TheEcologicalApproachtoVisualPerception.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1979.

13

affordstheperceiverinformationaboutchange,communication,andrelationship

based,inpart,onwhattheperceiverbringstothesituation.

Relationalaffordancesareunderstoodtomutuallyaffecttheactorsinvolved.

Bird‐Davidgivestheseexamplesofmutualeffects:“ananimal‐avoiding‐meinrelationto

me‐upsetting‐the‐animal,astone‐coming‐towards‐meinrelationtome‐reaching‐for‐

the‐stone,arock‐securing‐meinrelationtome‐seeking‐a‐shelter.”Bird‐Davidcallsthis

typeofinteraction‘two‐wayresponsiverelatedness’so,forinstance,anelephantwho

makeseyecontactwithmeisconsideredDevaru,buttheelephantthatdoesn’tinteract

issimplyanelephant.FortheNayaka,beingsareregardedaspersons,orDevaru,as,

when,andbecausetheyinteract.

TheexamplesgivenbyBird‐DavidarefromherfieldworkexperienceinSouth

India;howevershemakesitclearthatsheconsidersrelationalepistemologytobea

universalhumantendency.Bird‐Davidfurthertheorizesthatrelationalepistemology

enjoys‘authority’asawayofknowinginsomeculturegroups,primarilyhunter‐

gatherers,andissecondaryinothers,suchasthemodernEuro‐Americanculture.The

chapterthatfollowsbuildsonthetheorythatknowingtheworldisadirectresultof

openlyengagingwithit.

14

CHAPTER2

ANTHROPOMORPHISMANDTHELITERARYIMAGINATION

INTRODUCTION

Anthropomorphism,generallyspeaking,canbeunderstoodastheattributionof

humancharacteristicstononhumanothersand,althoughbannedinthesciences,itis

ubiquitousinworldmythology,folklore,art,andliterature.(Boyd,DastonandMitman,

Bird‐David,Harvey)Particularlyinliteratureforchildren,anthropomorphictendencies

arepracticeduncriticallyinthecreationofanimalcharactersandstorieswithanimals.

Bothanthropomorphismandthecloselyrelatedfolkpsychologymaybeexpressionsofa

relationalepistemologyintheWest,acommonsenseknowingthatdevelopsfrombeing

inrelationshipwithothersandthatmayinformtheliteraryimaginationofauthorsand

readers.

ANTHROPOMORPHISM

Theexactmeaningofanthropomorphismiscurrentlyamatterofsomedebate.

It’smeaninghaschangedovertimefromit’soriginalreligiousoneofattributinghuman

characteristicstoGod,somethingthatwasconsideredasin.(DastonandMitman,

Fisher,1996)Manyvariationsofanthropomorphismaredescribedintheliterature.For

example,LorraineDastondescribessociomorphismasanalogiesaremadeatthelevelof

society,generallyhumanandinsect.Gametheoryappliedtoanimalbehavioriscalled

coldanthropomorphismandempathybroughttobearonanalogiesiscalledhot

15

anthropomorphism.GordonBurghardt(inRistau,1991)positsa‘critical

anthropomorphism’thatmaybeusefulforgeneratingscientificideasandpredicting

outcomes.Despitebeingwidelypracticed,it’smeaningamongmanyanimalscientistsis

thefalseattributionofhumanlikecharacteristicstoanimalsandtothingslikecarsor

computers.Changingmeaningsimplythattheyarehistoricallyandculturallybound.As

furtherevidenceforthis,Fisherstatesthat,“Japaneseprimatologistsaresingularly

unconcernedaboutissuesofanthropomorphismintheirstudiesofprimates.Cultural

historycannotbeignoredinexplainingthisfact.”(3)

Becausethepracticeofanthropomorphicattributionisunderstood(intheWest)

asauniversal,yetultimatelyfalse,tendency,itisthereforeconsideredanentrenched

probleminwesternscience,adangerouslyunempiricalreturntomysteriouscausesand

unfoundedsuperstition,and“anembarrassmenttobeavoided.”(3)Anychargeof

anthropomorphisminthescientificstudyofanimalsleadstoassumptionsoflaziness,

sloppythinking,orchildishnessinthesenseofnaïveinnocenceandalsointhesenseof

simpleorprimitive.(Irvine,Fisher,DastonandMitman,AllenandBekoff)

PhilosopherJohnFisherhasdevelopedabasicframeworktohelpclarifywhat

maybemeantbyanthropomorphism,andwhetherattributionsarefalseinallcases.He

beginswithtwobroadcategories,whichhelabelsInterpretiveandImaginative

Anthropomorphism.Interpretive,whichismeanttobeexplanatory,describes

inferencesofmentalisticpredicates(M‐predicates)suchasloyal,brave,orsneakyfrom

observedanimalbehavior.FisherarguesthatHardAnthropocentriccritics,whosupport

asharpdivisionbetweenhumansandotheranimals,havenotmadeaconvincingcase

16

thatanthropomorphicattributionsarecategoricallyfallaciousbecausetheaccuracyof

theattributionsdependsonthespecificpredicate,situation,andspeciesinquestion.

FisherhasconcentratedhisanalysisonInterpretiveAnthropomorphism,leavingthe

Imaginativehalfoftheframeworkundeveloped.Heconcludesinpartthat,duetothe

hardwirednatureofourperceptionsofothers,innateunderstandingacrossspeciesis

plausibleandthatcommonsense“persistentlyrefusestodrawasharplinebetween

humansandotheranimals,andpersistsinretainingsympatheticfeelingsforanimals

andinunderstandingthemalonghumanlines”(11—12).

FisheragreeswithIrvinethatpeopledonotattributeindiscriminatelybut

insteadresponddifferentlytodifferentanimals.Whenwespendtimewithanimals,we

perceivetheirindividualityandrelatetotheirselveswithourselves.Thiscommonsense

approachissometimescalledfolkpsychologyandisdescribedastheuseofinsightor

self‐knowledgecombinedwithoutwardattentiontodescribeandpredictthebehavior

ofothers.Emotionalintelligenceandtheaccurateinterpretationofbodylanguage,

including‘vitalityaffects,’maycomprisesomeofthenonverbalskillsweuseto

understandanimalselves.AllenandBekoffsuggestthatfolkpsychologyisaprototheory

thatmayprovevaluableindevelopingmorerigoroustheoriesofanimalmind.Ristau

arguesforasimilarapproach;cognitiveethologistsshouldborrowwhatisneededfrom

folkpsychologyandleavetherest.

Anauthor,inordertocreateabelievableliterarycharacter,mustpractice

perspectivity;thatisheorshemustimagineaway,usinginsightsandknowledgegained

throughrelationships,intothesubjectiveexperienceofanotherpersonalitywithwhom

17

readerswillrespond.Itislikely,givenevolutionarycontinuity,someformofsharedcore

selfamongEarth’sanimals,andanattitudeofopen,humbleattention,tounderstand

nonhumananimalsenoughtocreatebelievableanimalcharacters,notassymbolic

humans,butasanimalselves.

REALISTICANIMALSINCHILDREN’SLITERATURE

AssociationsbetweenchildrenandanimalsrundeepinEuro‐Americanculture.

Aswehaveseen,originsofanthropomorphictendenciesandanimistattributionsare

sometimessaidtoexistinchildhoodorinchildishunderstandingsoftheworld.(Irvine,

AllenandBekoff,Harvey,Bird‐David,Boyd,Morgenstern,2000)Animalsandchildren

areoftenportrayedtogetherinvisualimages,especiallythoseappealingtonostalgia

andinnocence.Animalsarecentralinchildren’sliteraturetoo,providingsimplicity

(Morgenstern),neutrality(BurkeandCopenhaver,2004),andchallenge(Marchant,

2005).

Animalsinchildren’sstorieswhowalkandtalklikepeopleareconsideredtobe

symbolichumansdelightinguswiththeirsimultaneoussimilaritiestoanddifferences

fromus(Morgenstern).Symbolichumancharactersprovidetheneededemotional

distancethatallowschildrentosafelytryonrolesandwrestlewithdifficultlife

situations(BurkeandCopenhaver).Verylittlehasbeendiscussed,however,aboutthe

realisticportrayalsofanimalsascharacters,althoughtheyhavebeenwithussincethe

Britishchildren’sbookpublishingindustrybegantoflourishinthemid‐eighteenth

century.

18

Animalprotagonistnarratorsmaybeconsideredanimalselvestellingthestory

fromtheirownperspective,justashumannarratorsare.Earlystoriesofthistypewere

oftengenerallifehistories,commentaryonhumanbehavior,oranti‐crueltytales.An

earlyexampleisDorothyKilner’sTheLifeandPerambulationofaMouse,publishedin

1783.AnnaSewellcombinedtheseelementsintoherclassicBlackBeauty(1877).

Towardtheendofthenineteenthcenturyandintothetwentieth,astyleboth

dramaticandrealisticwasbeingdevelopedinNorthAmerica.Examplesofthisnewstyle

includeWildAnimalsIHaveKnownbyCanadianE.T.Seton(1899)andstoriessuchas

CalloftheWild(1903)andWhiteFang(1906)byAmericanJackLondon.Manybooks

werebeingwrittenthatfeaturedanimalrelationships(bothwithandwithouthumans),

dramaticanddangerousplots,andnaturalisticsettings.TheYearling(MarjorieKinnan

Rawlings,1938),MyFriendFlicka(MaryO’Hara,1941),andIncredibleJourney(Sheila

Burnford,1961)areclassicexamples.EnglishmanRichardAdamswroteWatershipDown

(1972),arecentmodernclassicthatappealsequallytochildrenandadults.

Inadditiontotheirnaturalisticcharacterportrayalsandsettings,thesebooks

featurerelationshipsamongtheanimalsorbetweenanimalsandhumansthatarerich,

important,andrecognizablefromtheperspectiveofthereader.Theanimaloranimals

arethecenter,however,andtheconcernsoftheanimalcharactersareanimal

concerns.Assuchtheyarequitedistinctfromstoriesinwhichanimalswalkandtalklike

peoplewehaveknown.

19

CHAPTER3

CASESTUDY:ANIMALSELVESINCHILDREN’SLITERATURE

SURVEYDESCRIPTION

BurkeandCopenhaverdiscussfunctionsofwrittentextsinliterateculture

includingthatofmirroringtheworldaswehaveperceivedit.Howdoauthorsofrecent

children’sliteratureperceiveanimals?Whataresomeofthecharacteristicsofrealistic

portrayalsandoftheinteractionsbetweenhumanandanimalcharacters?Thefollowing

studywasconductedtoexploreanimalcharacterizationinmodernchildren’sliterature.

Iaminterestedinunderstandingwhethertheimaginationmaybeinformedbyaccurate

perceptionsofanimalsintheworldandhowthoseperceptionsaremanifestedin

naturalandrecognizablecharacterizationsofnonhumananimals.

Adescriptiveexploratorysurveyquestionnairewasdevelopedtoassessthe

animalcharactersinasmallsampleofrecentlypublishedchildren’sliterature.Three

bibliographiesofchildren’sbookswithdomesticanimal(usuallypet)characters

publishedbetween2000and2007providedtheinitialsampleof51booksforthecase

study.ThebrieflyannotatedbibliographiesarepublishedonthewebsiteofUniversityof

Illinois’CenterforChildren’sBooks;allthebookshavebeenfavorablyreviewedinthe

prestigiousBulletinoftheCenterforChildren’sBooks.Duplicatetitlesandoneyoung

adultnovelthatfeaturedananimalonlyinthetitlewereremovedfromthefinalsample

of46.(SeeAPPENDIX1)Thewide‐rangingsampleincludesfiction,nonfiction,and

poetryforpreschoolersthroughhighschoolteenagers.

20

Eachbookwasreadandthensurveyedonaseparateform.Descriptive

informationaboutthecharacters,andaboutspecificinteractionsandcommunication

modesbetweenhumanandanimalcharacters,evidenceofIrvine’sselfhoodelements,

andanycognitiveskillsattributedtoordemonstratedbytheanimalswererecorded.A

spreadsheetwasthencreatedtocollecttogetherdemographicdataoneachtitleand

thedescriptivedatagatheredinitially.Thespecificdetailsemergingfromthegeneral

surveywereusedtocreatesomegranularityinthespreadsheet.Patternsin

characterization,activities,species,targetreaderage,wereassessed.Muchmore

rigorousanalysiswithlargersamplesareneededbeforeconclusionscanbedrawnwith

confidence.However,afewinterestingresultsemerged,asshowninthetablesand

discussioninthenextsection.

FINDINGSANDDISCUSSION

Table1comparestwomaintypesofanimalcharacters,bipedal/clothedand

natural,intermsofvoiceandactivity.Talkingvoiceisdefinedasspeakingoutloudin

humanwordsandsentences.Novoiceissilenceorsimplythekindsofsoundsnormally

madebythespeciesinvolvedsuchasbarks,meows,chirps,andsoon.Innarrated

stories,theanimalprotagonisttalksdirectlytothereader;theanimaldoesnottalk

withinthestoryitself.Asshowninthetable,animalcharactersthatareportrayed

naturallyareoverwhelminglynarratorsorhavenovoiceandthosewhoarebipedal,

clothed,orbothspeakoutloudover50percentofthetime.Activitiesengagedinbythe

21

naturalcharactersarerecognizablythoseweseeinanimalsaroundusincontrasttothe

veryhumanactivitiesoftheclothedcharacters.

Bothfictionandnonfictionbooksarenarratedbyanimals.Forexample,Murphy

thedognarratesthefictionalADayintheLifeofMurphy(2003)inwhichhetellsthe

readerabouthisdaywithJohnthehounddogandTomFoolthecat.Thebarnanimals

are“dumb”andthehumanfamilyis“they.”Harry,alonghaireddachshund,introduces

tothereadertheproperwaytogreetdogsinthenonfictionbookMayIPetYourDog?

(2007).

Table 1. Comparing the voice and activities of bipedal/clothed and natural animalcharacters.

Type N Talking NarrationNoVoice

HumanActivitiesNaturalisticActivities

Bipedal/clothes

9 5 1 3

Cooking,dress‐up,goingtoschool,usingcarpenter’stoolsandpaintbrushes,superheroadventuring

Beingheldinlap,climbingatree

Natural 37 6 13 18 Singing

Gettingintostuff,eating,playing,goingtothevet,greeting,working,training,hunting,barking,runningaway,ridingincar

22

ThetwobroadcharacterizationsshowninTable1canbelabeledSymbolic

HumanandAnimalSelf.Animalcharacterswhoaresymbolichumanstendtospeakout

loudusinghumanlanguage.Theyarebipedalandoftenwearclothing.Thesecharacters

engageoverwhelminglyinhumanactivitieslikecooking,usingcarpenter’stools,and

superheroadventuring.AnimalSelfcharactersoftennarratestoriesdirectlytothe

reader,butdonotspeakwithinthem.Theymovewithanaturalgait,don’twear

clothing,andtheiractivitiesarerecognizableasnaturaltotheirspecies.

Table2.Animalnarrationinallbooksandinpicturebooks.

BookSample N AnimalnarrationPercentofbooks

AllBooks 46 14 30%

PictureBooks 24 10 42%

Animalnarratorsappeardemographicallyacrossthesample,although,asshown

inTable2,most(70%)arefoundinpicturebooksforyoungerchildren,includingthe

twoexamplesdescribedabove.OneveryinterestingexampleofanimalnarrationisI,

Jack(2000),afictionaljuvenilechapterbookinwhichaheroicyellowLabradorretriever

tellsacomplexstory.Inan“Interpreter’sNote”attheback,PatriciaFinney

acknowledgestheinfluenceofbothRudyardKipling’sThyServant,ADog(1930)and

booksondogpsychologyincreatingJack’svoice.Finneyusesvariationintextfontto

effectivelyrelaynonverbalcommunicationbetweenJackandhisApedogpack(italic

23

style)andJack’sstrengthoffeeling(fontsize).Thecommunicationitselfisusually,but

notalwayssuccessful;however,itisrecognizableasthatbetweenadogandahuman.

Forinstance,afterJackiscaughtraidingtherefrigeratorforhispregnant‘PackLady’

Petra,thedogsrunawaytofindanearbysafeplaceforPetratohaveherpuppies.On

thewayhome,Jackmeetshishuman‘Packleader’:

Hithere,Packleader!Areyoubetter?Whyareyououtofyournestand

walkingalongthepath,going‘Phhheeeweeet!’betweenyourteeth...

Youshouldberestinginyounest,gettingbetterfromyournastycold.

Oh.That’snice,youwerelookingforme.ShallwegoseePetra?

Sheisveryunfriendly,though.Canyousmellher?ThereisSpecialness

happeninginhertummy.It’sallverystrange...

Packleaderputsmyleashon.Heisbarkinglotsnow,veryquickly.

HeissayingBadBad.Heiscallingmestrangenames.Whatis‘vandal?

Whatis‘fiend’?”(84—85)

InJoyceSidman’sTheWorldAccordingtoDog:PoemsandTeenVoices(2003),

poeticattemptsaremadetodescribetheinteriorworldanddog‐nessofdogs.For

example,in“DogLore”Sidmanwrites,“Patienceandintensity/openthemostdoors.”

(56)Shealsoincludesshortprosenarrativeswrittenbyteensaboutdogstheyhave

known.Manyofthesepiecesdescribeveryimportantrelationshipsbetweenthemselves

ortheirfamilyandanindividualdog.SarahMiller(age13)honorsthememoryofBandy,

anabandonedpuppyfoundbySarah’sunhappyteenagedmother.Bandy“helpedmy

24

motherunderstandtheimportanceoflifeandaffection.Sheguidedmymotherto

appreciatingeverythingandeveryoneasmuchaspossible.”(13)

Inourrelationshipsovertimewithotherselves,whetherthoseselvesarehuman

oranimal,wegrowanddevelop,andintheprocesscometounderstandtheotherself

betteraswell.Theknowledgegainedaboutothersandourselvesisusedbywritersin

imaginativelycreatingcharactersandsituationsforthemtoactin.

CONCLUSION

Recentscholarshipinsociology,anthropology,andcognitiveethologyconverge

topointtodirectrelationshipasawaytoapprehendtothelargestdegreethe

subjectiveselfofnonhumanothers,particularlynonhumananimals.

Anthropomorphism,commonsense,andfolkpsychologymayallbe,moreorless,

expressionsofthisrelationalwayofknowingwhich,inWesterncivilization,enjoysthe

greatestauthorityinworksoftheimagination.

Historically,animalshavebeenportrayedintwobroadwaysinchildren’s

literature.Assymbolichumans,animalsareneutralstand‐inswhohelpyoungreaders

navigatelifeissues.Asrealisticanimalcharacters,animalselves,theyprovideglimpses

intoamore‐than‐humanworld.Authorsmay,inimaginativelydevelopingrealistic

animalcharacters,justastheydowhencreatinghumancharacters,employtheinsights

andknowledgegainedthroughrelationshipand,intheprocess,mirrortheworldaswe

perceiveit.

25

ANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHYOFCORESOURCES

Allen,Colin,andMarkBekoff.SpeciesofMind:ThePhilosophyandBiologyofCognitiveEthology.Cambridge:MITPress,1997.

AllenandBekoffbeginbydescribingthisvolumeasasynthesisoftheoreticaland

empiricalapproachestothestudyofnonhumananimalminds.Theydescribecognitive

ethologyasthesystematicstudyoftheinformationprocessing,beliefs,and

consciousnessofanimalsfromcomparative,evolutionary,andecologicalperspectives.

CharlesDarwin’smentalcontinuityconceptiscentral;answerstoquestionsabout

sharedcognitiveandemotionalcharacteristicsacrossspecieswillshedlightonthe

natureandevolutionarydevelopmentofmentalandpsychologicalcapacities.

Animalbehaviorresearchthroughmostofthetwentiethcenturyhasbeen

guidedbythephilosophyofempiricismandpositivisminwhichmeaningisdependent

onreducingobservable,verifiableexperiencestologicalconstructions.Thegoalof

psychologicalbehaviorismistocontrolbehaviorandexplainbehaviorpatternsinaone‐

to‐onecorrespondencewithphysiologicalprocesses.Asanoverviewofthe

developmentofcognitiveethology,AllenandBekoffbroadlydescribethephilosophyof

naturalism,modernneo‐behaviorists,andclassicalethologists,particularlyKonrad

LorenzandNikolaasTinbergen,whosharedthe1973NobelPrize.

DonaldGriffin,whose1976bookTheQuestionofAnimalAwarenesshelpedto

establishthecurrentfieldofcognitiveethology,wasmainlyconcernedwithanimal

consciousnessandwithcreativeandversatilebehaviorinanimalsasevidencefor

cognitiveprocessing.AccordingtoGriffin,consciousnesslogicallyconfersanenormous

26

adaptiveadvantageofbehavioralchoicetoindividuals.Mostcognitiveethologistshave

concentratedtheirresearchonfindingevidenceofanimalintentionalityreasoningthat

behaviorwhichimpliesintentionalityandgoals,forinstanceplayorinjury‐feinting,also

impliessomeformofmemoryorplanning.

Criticismsingeneraldirectedatcognitiveethologyincludetheaccusationof

fallingbackoncausationbyinvisibleagents(the‘religioncard’),thebeliefthatanimal

mindsarepermanentlyclosedtous,andthedenialofevidenceforstimulus‐free

behavior(whichimpliesinternalmotivation).Inresponse,cognitiveethologistsjustify

mentalattributionsbecausetheyareoftenthemostparsimoniousexplanationfor

observations.Theypointtolaboratoryevidenceofstimulus‐freebehavior,especiallyin

observationallearningexperiments.AllenandBekoffclaimthatbehavioristsoften

privilegethegeneraloverthespecificasaconsequenceofthepressureforstatistical

averaging,thusignoringsignificantbehavioralvariations.Thematerialemphasisof

empiricalscienceisconsideredproblematicaswellbecausenaturalselectionactson

functional,notmaterial,properties.

Althoughgenerallyverycontroversial,theconceptoffolkpsychologycanbe

definedinamannerthatisuncontroversial.“Folkpsychologyconsistsofloose

generalizationsaboutmindandbehaviorthatarereflectedinwhatpeoplesayabout

mentalstatesandactions.”(65)Recognizingthatthementalisticterminologyusedin

folkpsychologicalexplanationsisoftennotclearlydefinedandthatnoadequate

frameworkformentalattributionexists,AllenandBekoffproposere‐conceptualizing

folkpsychology.Theyseeitasa‘prototheory’thataddressesconsciousnessandthe

27

semanticpropertiesofitscontentwithanevolutionaryemphasis.Folkpsychology

shareswithallcognitiveapproachestheideathatmentalstateshavepropositional

content.

Casestudiesincanidsocialplaybehaviorandtheanti‐predatorybehaviorof

birdsarediscussedinwhichemphasisisplacedtheimportanceofcommunication,

changeovertime,andthecorrectinterpretationoftheintentionsofothers.

InChapter8,AllenandBekoffdiscussanimalconsciousness.Theauthorsadvise

fellowcognitiveethologiststomoveawayfromThomasNagel’squestion,“Whatisit

liketobe...?”andfocusinsteadonwhichspeciespossessesconsciouscapacitiesby

targetingbehaviorsthatindicateconsciousness.

Bird‐David,Nurit.“‘Animism’Revisited:Personhood,Environment,andRelationalEpistemology.”CurrentAnthropology4(1999):S67—S91.

Bird‐Davidrevisitstheanthropologicalconceptofanimism,notingthatbasic

assumptionshavechangedverylittlesincetheintroductionoftheconceptinthe

nineteenthcenturybyEdwardTylor.Tracingtheideafromitsinception,Bird‐David

discussesTylorandhisinterestintheoriginsofreligion,andsubsequenttreatmentsof

animismbyEmileDurkheim,ClaudeLévi‐Strauss,andS.Guthrie.Aspartofher

reevaluation,Bird‐Davidfocusesontheconceptofpersonhoodandonecological

perception,presentingevidencefromherfieldworkwiththeSouthIndianNayaka

people,inparticulartheirdescriptionof‘devaru’asnonhumanpeoplewhointeractwith

theNayakaindailylifeandduringsocialevents.

28

Inordertodescribewhatdevaruare,Bird‐DavidbuildsonanthropologistA.

IrvingHallowell’sother‐than‐human‐persons(usinginsteadherterm‘superpersons’)

andM.Strathern’s‘dividual’.Other‐than‐human‐personsarepersonswhoarenot

humanbeings;theyareconsideredpersonsasandbecausetheyaresocialandwillful

beings,notbecausetheylookortalklikehumans.Adividualisapersonmadeupof

relationships,andisnotaboundedsingularitysetagainstothers.Duringregularlyheld

festivalsorsocialevents,localdevaruappearthroughNayakaperformerstotalkand

interactwiththeothersthere.Devaruarealsounderstoodtobespecificanimals,plants,

andotherenvironmentalfeatureswhointeractwiththeNayaka.Devaruareunderstood

toexistintheworld.

Inordertomakethismorecomprehensible,Bird‐DaviddrawsonJ.J.Gibson’s

ecologicalapproachtovisualperceptioninwhichthings“areperceivedintermsofwhat

theyaffordtheactor‐perceiverbecauseofwhattheyareforhim.”(Gibson,S74)Forthe

Nayaka,theenvironmentisconstantlychangingasaresultofinteractions.What

happenstoanimals,orotherdevarucharacters“(orhowtheychange)canaffectorbe

affectedbywhathappenstopeople(orhowtheychange).”(S77)Thesechanges

confirmtheexistenceofdevaru.Theskillofattentionmustbedeveloped;inthisway,

theenvironmentaffordsinformationthatcanbe“moreandmoresubtle,elaborate,and

precise.Knowingisdevelopingthisskill.”(Gibson,S78)Bird‐Davidcallscommunication

ofthiskind‘two‐wayresponsiverelatedness.’

Shegoesontotheorizethatrelationalwaysofknowing(knowingconnected

withbeing)isauniversalhumancapacitythatenjoysprimaryauthorityinmosthunter‐

29

gatherersocietiesandoftensecondaryauthorityelsewhere.Asawayofknowing,

relationalepistemologyiscomplementarywithobjectivist;Bird‐Davidconsidersbothto

berealandvalidandbothtohavelimits.

Commentsfromsevenscholarsinanthropologyappearattheendofthearticle

proper,mostinagreementingeneraloronmajorspecificpoints.TimIngoldoffersan

alternativeexplanationtothatofBird‐David’sontheoriginsofrelationalwaysof

knowing.TheoriesoftheevolutionofsocialintelligenceofferedbyBird‐David,according

toIngold,“restfairandsquareonamodernistconceptionofmindandbehavior”

(Ingold,S82)thatfunctionstoundermineanimisticperceptionbydividingtheworldinto

naturalandsocialandbyassumingthatlifeandmindareinteriorpropertiesof

individuals.“Humanbeingseverywhereperceivetheirenvironmentsintheresponsive

modenotbecauseofinnatecognitivepredispositionbutbecausetoperceiveatallthey

mustalreadybesituatedinaworldandcommittedtotherelationshipsthisentails.”

(Ingold,S82)

Boyd,Brian.“TailsWithinTales.”InKnowingAnimals,editedbyLaurenceSimmonsandPhilipArmstrong,217—43.Boston:KoninklijkeBrillNV,2007.

Boydaskswhywearesofascinatedby‘tailswithintales.’Afterlistingwide‐

rangingexamplesofanimalsinartthroughtimeandcurrentlypopularnon‐human

literaryothers,BoydtellsthestoryofGeorgeHerriman’scelebratedcomicKrazyKat.

Originallyoccupyingjustthebottomstripsinthepanelsofa‘plodding’humanstory,

TheDingbats,Krazy,IgnatztheMouse,andOffissaPupp,brokeawaythreeyearslater

tobecome“awildlysurrealandpoeticseriesofscratchynon‐sequiturs...astoryof

30

animalsliberatingtheimagination.”(219)BoydthencomparesthetwoGenesis

accountsintheOldTestamentcallingthefirst“arationalist’saccount”thatreflectsthe

GreatChainofBeingandthesecond“amuchmoreearthyworld”emphasizing

companionshipwithanimalsallaroundthehumancouple.

Employinganevolutionarypsychologicalexplanationforthisfascination,Boyd

notesthatanimals(includinghumans)mustbeabletorecognizeandinterpretother

animalsandfurther,thatmotionisimmediatelyorinitiallyinterpretedasagency,thus

consideredthebasicmodelofcausality.Insupport,Boyddescribesaclassic1944

psychologicalstudyinwhichstudentswereshownashortsilentfilmwithmoving

geometricshapesandaskedtodescribewhattheyhadseen.ResearchersFritzHeidler

andMarianneSimmelreportedthatonlyonerespondentspokeofgeometricshapes;all

theotherrespondents‘anthropomorphized’themovingfigures.Significantly,thistook

theformofstoryinwhich“aimsandmoods”wereassignedaswellasgendersand

voices.

Becausechildrenareoftenconsideredtobegrowingthroughearlierstagesof

humandevelopmentwhen,itissupposed,humanswereclosertootheranimals,they

areespeciallydrawntoanimals.Theyunderstandanimalsasfictitiouslystandinginfor

themandforotherpeople.“Yetwhenamenagerieofabsurdlydifferentspeciesspeak

tooneanother,inDr.SeussorDr.Doolittle,childrenalsoacceptthatasinonesense

perfectlynatural,sincetheycanseethatanimalsdohavetotakeaccountofthe

purposesofothercreaturesaroundthem.”(225)

31

Animalscontinuetoappearsignificantlyinseriousadultfictionaswell.Boyd

describesseveralreasonsforthis:Theyaresimilartoanddifferentfromusandalso

differentfromeachother,stimulatingtheimagination;theyplaymanyrolesinourlives

withthem;andtheyevokemanystrongfeelings.Becauseforustheyaremute“unable

toexplainthemselves...wehaveattributedtothemawholerangeofproperties.”

(227)

IntheWesterntradition,animalshavebeenunderstoodas‘sub‐souls’since

Heraclitus,Plato,andDescartes.“Livingunderamonotheisticandanthropocentric

religionandincitieswherewerelyonmechanicalratherthanbiologicalpower,

Westernershavetendedmoreandmoretostressthedistinctionbetweenhumanand

animal,todefine‘humane’asopposedto‘bestial’...andeven—andinthetwentieth

century,too!—todespise‘savages’fortheirreverencetowardanimals.”(228)

Inthelastseveralpagesofthisarticle,Boyddiscussesmanyexamplesofserious

adultliteratureincludingTheTempest,Joyce’sUlysses,AnnaKarenina,andMobyDick;

authorslikeJonathanSwift,H.G.Wells,FranzKafka,JulioCortázar,AngelaCarter,and

WillSelf;andeventhecomicstripsFarSideandCalvinandHobbestoillustratehow

pervasivelyinliteratureanimalsareusedtohelpusdefinewhoweareandtowrestle

withtheambiguousborderlandbetweenourselvesandotheranimals.

Brown,JosephEpes.AnimalsoftheSoul:SacredAnimalsoftheOglalaSioux.Rockport,MA:Element,Inc.,1992.

BrownfocusesontheimportanceofanimalsfortheLakotainhisdescriptionof

traditionalLakota“metaphysicsofnature.”Brownwritesthatthe‘metaphysics’are

32

definedseparatelybyeachgroupingreatdetailandarespecifictothelocal

geographicalfeaturesandspecies.Responsibilitiesandinterrelationshipsarespelledout

clearly.Relationshipswiththe‘vastwebofbeing’areestablishedandstrengthened

throughspecificritesandprayers,throughtheformandmaterialsofthebuiltlodge,

andthroughtheuseofthepipe.Anymanifestationofthespirit,especiallyanimals,can

teachorotherwisecommunicatewithpeople;theywanttocommunicate,buthuman

beings“mustdothegreaterparttoensureanunderstanding.”(22)

Communicationoftencomesduringdreamsandvisions,whenadifferentlevel

ofcognitionisaccessed,consideredmorerealthanthatofregularwaking

consciousness.Bothsleepingdreamsandwakingvisions,suchasthosereceivedduring

theVisionQuest(Hanblecheyapi)areconsideredequallypowerful.Mostdreamsand

visionsincludeencounterswitharangeofanimalrepresentativesandtutelaryspirits.

Theseareunderstoodas‘hypothetical’animalsorthespiritoftheanimalthatlives

behindthemanifestedworldandispartoftheGreatSpiritofcreation.Onceonehas

receivedavision,thesubjectiveexperienceofthatvisionmustthenberelayedtoaholy

personorhealerwhointerpretsitandprescribesaction.Therecipientisobligedto

sharetheexperience,generallythroughperformance,withtherestofthepeoplein

ordertoactivateanypowertransmitted.

Withtheproperattitudeofhumility,onecanrequestspecificpowersoraskfor

guidanceonaspecificproblemduringaquest.Individualdreamersmayreceivesongs,

rituals,orotherteachings;personalnames;orpowerstoheal,amongothergifts.Much

dependsonthe“persistence,receptivity,orcapabilitiesoftheindividual.”(56)The

33

animalspiritsarenotunderstoodascontrollinghumandestiny,butmoreaswitnesses

toit.

BrowndiscussesLakotaanimalcategoriesandtraditionalsystemsofassociation

thatlinkcertainanimalsandotherpowersorforcestogether,oftenbasedonbehavior

oreffect.Forexample,Whirlwindisassociatedwiththepowertoconfuseordisorient

and,beingtwo‐leggeds,birdsandhumansarecloselyassociated.

Traditionallyanimalsareobservedcloselyindailylife,theirpowersand

behaviorssometimesbecomingmodelsforidealhumanbehavior.Forexample,bison

areobservedtotakegreatcareoftheyoung,andsoprovideamodelforhuman

parenting.Duetothisanimistapproachshapingtheirworldviewovermanycenturies,

manyLakotapeoplehaveaprofoundunderstandingoftheirnaturalenvironmentasa

physicalaswellasspiritreality.

Burke,CarolynA.,andJobyG.Copenhaver.“AnimalsasPeopleinChildren’sLiterature.”LanguageArts81,no.3(January2004):205—13.

BurkeandCopenhaverarguethatchildhoodstories,especiallythose“personally

significant”favoritesthattouchedemotionalchordsandwerereadoverandover,

addressedneedsthatmaynothavebeenclearlyunderstood.Theauthorsare

concernedwithchildren’sliteratureasa‘thinkingdevice,’helpingchildrentomake

sense,understandvalues,andgeneratequestionsaboutlife.‘Thinkingdevice’functions

inchildren’sliteratureareamoderntrend,reflectingmodernconceptionsofthe

meaningofchildhoodasatimeto“adapt,contributetochange,andcriticallyexplore

issuesandoptions.”(211)

34

Thehighfrequencyofanimalcharactersinthesestoriesfunctiontoprovide

somedistance,a‘bufferedengagement’thatallowschildren“tocriticallyexplorethat

which(they)wouldnotbecomfortableexploringdirectly.”(207)

Asahighlyliteraryculture,wemakeuseoftextsregularlytoorganizeour

thoughts,relayvalues,anddialoguewitheachother.Inmanycases,foradultsaswellas

forchildren,animalcharactersaretheretohelpuswrestlewithcomplexand

emotionallydifficultsituations.Theauthorsurgeteachersandparentstoconsiderthis

functionofchildren’sliteratureandtousetheappealing‘anthropomorphicdevice’of

animalcharactersindevelopingcurriculumandopeningdialoguewithchildrenabout

issuesofculturalsignificance.

Burton,Lloyd.WorshipandWilderness:Culture,Religion,andLawinPublicLandsManagement.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,2002.

BurtonexaminesthelargerissueofreligioususeofU.S.publiclandsby

examiningandcomparingreligiouspracticesofNativeAmericansandEuro‐Americans

andhowthepracticesandbeliefsaffectactivism,law,andinterculturalconflict.

Throughout,Burtonfocusesonwildanimals,particularlyBison,connectingthese

animalstolaw,spirituality,andculturalconflictforbothNativepeopleandEuro‐

Americans.Indescribingcurrentconflictsovercontrolofbuffaloherdsonpubliclands,

Burtonstatesthat,“Environmentalconservationgroupsandwesternranchinginterests

experiencepoliticalandlegalconflictinpartbecausetheyareproceedingfrom

profoundlydifferentunderstandingsofwhattheappropriaterelationshipbetween

humankindandotherlivingcreaturesoughttobe.”(183)Euro‐Americanconservation

35

groups,accordingtoBurton,oftenhavemoreincommonwithNativeworldviewsthan

withranching,fishing,loggingoranyotherindustrial‐scaleharvestinginterests.

Inattemptingtoconstructivelyaddressconflict,inwhichoneperspectivemust

winout,Burtondiscussesthepossibilityofmorethanonecorrectperspective.Burton

arguesfor“simultaneouslyoccurring‘realmsofknowing’“(9)andstatesfurtherthat

twometaphors“maycombinetoformaperspectivebroadenoughtomeettheneedsof

bothgroups.”(27)

Burtonlinkshistoricalandmodernreligiousmovementsinthiscountrytoanew

re‐discoveryofthesacred.Duringthewestwardexpansionera,explorersintovast

pristinewildernessareasexperiencedaweandreverence.Theinfluenceofnineteenth‐

centurytranscendentalism,authentictwentieth‐centurytransmissionteachingsofAsian

traditions,andagrowingappreciationandrespectfortraditionalindigenouswayshas

setthestageforaseriousreevaluationand“greening”ofmainstreamChristianand

Jewishpolicyandinterpretation.Sparkedbyconcernsforenvironmentalintegrityand

byLynnWhite’s1967article(seebelow),manydenominationsandcoalitionshave

issuedpolicystatements“producedasaresultoftheologicalinquiry...(inwhich)the

stewardshipinterpretation...seemstohavecarriedtheday.”(259)

Daston,Lorraine,andGreggMitman,ed.ThinkingWithAnimals:NewPerspectivesonAnthropomorphism.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005.

Inthiseditedvolume,anthropologists,philosophers,ethologists,historians,and

artistsexaminehowandwhywethinkwithanimalsandhowhumansandanimalsare

transformedbytheserelationships.Intheintroduction,theeditorsdescribethetitleas

36

ahavinga‘doublemeaning.’Humansboth“assumeacommunityofthoughtand

feelings”withawidevarietyofanimalsand“recruitanimalstosymbolize,dramatize,

andilluminate”experiencesandfantasies.

Citingthewidelyacknowledgedlinkbetweenthe“riseofmodernsciencewith

thewaningofanthropomorphicattitudestowardthenaturalworld”(3),theeditorslist

thetypesofreasonsoftengivenforavoidinganthropomorphicattributionsincluding

methodological(Howcanweknow?),historical(attributionsunsubstantiatedinthelab),

andevenmoral(narcissisticprojectionsorlaziness).Whydowecontinuetouniversally

anthropomorphize?Because,sayDastonandMitman,itisusefulforliterarysymbolism,

forsellingproducts,forwonderingwhatbeingananimalislike.

Inherchapter,“Intelligences,Angelic,Animal,Human,”LorraineDaston

comparesthirteenth‐centuryrationaltheologians’attemptstounderstandthemindsof

nonhumanangelswiththatofanimalbehaviorists’nineteenthcenturyattemptsto

understandnonhumananimalminds.Inbothcasesanthropomorphismisconsidereda

problem,asthescholarsnecessarilyreliedonanalogy.Theterm‘anthropomorphism’

beganasadesignationforfalseattributionofhumancharacteristicstoGodandwas

consideredasin,whichmayhelptoexplainsomeofthemoralcondemnationthatstill

existsinthecharge.Bothtraditionswereprimarilyinterestedinthethoughtsand

feelingsofnonhumanothersandbothattempts,Dastonstates,arguablystretchedthe

understandingof“thenatureandlimitsofthehumanmind.”(39)

AccordingtoPaulWhite,inhiscontributingchapter“TheExperimentalAnimalin

VictorianBritain,”thenineteenthcenturysawadramaticriseinbothmiddleclasspet

37

keepingandinlaboratory‐basedinvestigationofcomparativephysiologyusinglive

animalsubjects.Whitediscussessomeofthetensionsthiscombinationproduced.For

example,althoughtheuseoffrogsinsuchexperimentswentunremarked,theuseof

domesticanimalssuchasdogs,thenpresentinmanyhouseholds,‘triggeredprotests’

andclaimsthatitwas“treacherousandinsensitivetocommitsuchanimals,whohad

beenbredandtrainedupsoastoplacetheirconfidenceinhumanstoscientificuse(and

whosewayswere)morewinning...morereallyandintenselyhuman...thanthe

artificial,coldandselfishcharactersonemeetstoooftenintheguiseofladiesand

gentlemen.”(68)

Manyoftheopponentsofvivisectionandotherpainfulexperimentsworried

aboutthebrutalizingeffectsonthescientiststhemselveswhodesignedandcarriedout

proceduresthatcaused“repeatedandprolongedinflictionofpainonhelplesscreatures

(70)...(witha)disciplineddisregardforthefeelingsorperspectiveoftheanimalunder

study.”(75)

CharlesDarwin,Darwin’sdiscipleGeorgeRomanes,andotherswere,atthis

sametime,collectingandclassifyinganecdotalevidenceformentalandemotional

continuityacrossspecies.Thisevidence,althoughdismissedbyexperimentalscientists

assentimentalnonsense,waseffectivelyusedtogathersupportbyearlyanimalrights

andanticrueltyactivists.

In“PeopleinDisguise:AnthropomorphismandtheHuman‐PetRelationship,”

JamesA.Serpellcomparestheeffectsonpeopleandonanimalsofthehuman‐pet

relationship.Forpeople,thebenefitsarewelldocumented;theyincludeincreased

38

physicalhealthandfeelingsofbeinglovedandofbelonging.Someoftheeffectson

animalsarenotsoclearlybeneficial.Populationsofdomesticanimalshaveboomed(as

theirwildcounterparts’populationshavedwindled)anddogs,cats,andothercommon

petsnowoccupyanovelecologicalniche.Perhapsmoredisturbingare

“anthropomorphicbreedingselection”practicesthatattempttocreateanimalstocater

tohumanwhimsandexpectations.TheEnglishbulldog,forexample,hasbeenbredto

havesuchaflatfacethatbreathingproblemsoccur,oftenresultinginprematuredeath.

Otherexamplesincludedockinganddeclawingprocedures,overdependenceon

humanstosolveproblems,anxietyanddistressonbeingleftalone,andhuman

rejectionoftheanimalforbehaviorthatmaybenatural,butnotinlinewith

expectations.Serpellcommentsthatanthropomorphismmaybeeasy,butthat

appreciating‘dog‐ness’or‘cat‐ness’arespecialskillsthatneedtobelearned.

Fisher,JohnAndrew.“TheMythofAnthropomorphism.”InReadingsinAnimalCognition,editedbyMarcBekoffandDaleJamieson,3—16.Cambridge,Mass:MITPress,1996.

Thechargeofanthropomorphism,withitsimplicationoflaziness,sloppiness,

andsentimentality,isgenerallyregardedasanembarrassmentandanobstacleinthe

studyofanimalconsciousness.Fisherarguesthatthefallacyofanthropomorphism“is

neitherwell‐definednorclearlyfallacious.”(3)Forexample,Fisherasks,whatarethe

uniquelyhumancharacteristicsthataremistakenlyattributedtonon‐humans?There

areindicationstheconceptitselfmaybehistoricallyandculturallybound.Theoriginal

theologicalmeaningofattributinghumancharacteristicstoGodhascometomean

39

attributinghumancharacteristicstononhumananimalsandobjects.Thereisevidence

thatJapaneseprimatologistsareunconcernedaboutanthropomorphicattributions.

Fisherclaimsthattheoristshavedifferentconceptionsofanthropomorphism

withoutbeingawareofit.Asanattempttodisambiguateanthropomorphism,Fisher

outlinesatheoreticalframeworkwithtwobroadcategorieshelabelsInterpretiveand

ImaginativeAnthropomorphism.Interpretiveismeanttobeexplanatory,inferringthat

ananimalisbraveorsweetnatured,forinstance,fromobservingbehavior.This

categoryissubdividedintoCategorical(inferenceiscategoricallyinapplicable)and

Situational(inferenceisinapplicableinthissituation).Afurthersubdivisionof

Categoricaldesignatesaninferenceanthropomorphicdependingonspeciesoron

predicate(quality).

Arangeofpositionscriticaltoanthropomorphismmaybetakenfromthatof

disallowinganyinferencesatalltodisallowingcertainspeciesfromconsiderationor

certainpredicates.Mostcriticsviewtheuniversalhumantendencyto

anthropomorphizeaschildishandoverlyimaginative,evendangerous,areturnto

unfoundedsuperstitionandinvisible,immeasurablecauses.

Fisherrepliesthatpeopledomakedistinctionsamongvariousspeciesandthat

evenchildrenrecognizethefictitiousnatureofhumanizedportrayals.“Commonsense

persistentlyrefusestodrawasharplinebetweenhumansandotheranimals,and

persistsinretainingsympatheticfeelingsforanimalsandinunderstandingthemalong

humanlines.”(11—12)Itisentirelyplausible,accordingtoFisher,thatunderstanding

40

oneanotherusinghardwiredperceptionsisaninnateabilityprovidingaccurate

informationaboutotherhumansandnonhumananimalsatleastsomeofthetime.

Harvey,Graham.Animism.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2006.

AsHarveystates,themainpurposeofhisbookistotakeseriously“intimations

thattheterm‘person’appliesnotonlytohumans...buttoafarwidercommunity”(xii)

whichmayenrichdebatesabouttheenvironmentandaboutconsciousness.Harvey

outlinesanddiscusses‘old’animism,coveringatsomelength“Tylor’sspirits,”

“Durkheim’stotems,”and“Guthrie’santhropomorphism,”beforeintroducing‘new’

animistconcepts.“The‘newanimism,’“accordingtoHarvey,“islessaboutattributing

lifeand/orhuman‐likeness,thanitisaboutseekingbetterformsofpersonhoodin

relationships.”(16)The‘newanimism’beginswithA.IrvingHallowell’sinfluential1960

article“OjibweOntology,Behavior,andWorldView.”

Hallowell’s‘other‐than‐human‐persons,’aconceptbasedonhisfieldworkwith

theOjibwapeople,arethosenonhumansdefinedbytheirinteractions,theirwillfulness,

andtheirsociability,ratherthantheirphysicalorverballikenesstohumanbeings.The

skillsoneneedsinordertoactasaperson,thatisrespectfully,arelearnedovertime

andareseenmoreofteningrownandelderlyhumansthaninchildren.Foraspecific

exampleofthistypeofcategory,HallowellusestheOjibwadesignation‘grandfather,’

whichisreservedforthose,humanandotherwise,whoactlikethegrandfatherideal.

“Grandfathersarethosewhoarelistenedto,whocommunicatemattersofsignificance,

whoinculcaterespectfulliving,andteachskills.Grandfathersarepersonswithpower

41

andgiftstobestow.”(18)ThecategoriesofpersonhooddescribedbyHallowell

challengemodern,Westernnotionsofwhatconstitutesaperson.

Harveypresentsfourcasestudiesthatillustratethediversityofanimist‐type

beliefsandpractices,lookinginturnatOjibwelanguage,Maoriarts,Aboriginallawand

land,andEco‐Paganactivism.Animistissuesregardinglifeevents,ceremonialevents,

andethicsarecoverednext.Ofparticularinterestarethechaptersonpersonhoodand

consciousness.

Asalreadymentioned,animistsconsiderpersonstobesobasedon

communicationandrelationship.Theyarealsosignificantintheirparticularity.Itiswith

particularbeings,whetherasingledeer,badger,rock,ortree,thatengagement

happens.Animistbeliefsandpracticesareparticularaswellfromonesocietytothe

next.

Harveyarguesforthedevelopmentofnewtermstoexpressnewandnewly

discoveredideas.Forexample“knowingbodies”canbeusedtoindicatetheembodied

natureofbrains,selves,andconsciousness.Manyoftheseanimistideasarecurrently

reflectedbymodernWesternsocietyinartandotherworksoftheimagination.The

authorsandreadersofmodernliterarymovementssuchasmagicalrealismandanimist

realism,emanatingfromrecentlycolonizedpartsoftheworld,“resistdis‐enchantment

andcontinuetoenjoylivinginaworldthatisnotreducedtobeingahumanartefact.”

(207)

42

Ingold,Tim.“RethinkingtheAnimate,Re‐AnimatingThought.”Ethnos71,no.1(2006):9—20.

“Animism(is)traditionallyunderstoodas‘theimputationoflifetoinertobjects’

thatdescribesatypicallywesternhabit,thoughusuallyappliedtoindigenouspeoples.

Ingoldarguesthattheconventionalunderstandingis‘misleading’becauseanimismisa

conditionofbeingandnotasystemofbeliefsandthat,duetothefluidnatureofreality,

‘animacy’isalsoaconditionwithrootspriortoanymaterialdifferentiation.Animistic

ontologycanbemoreaccuratelyunderstoodas“awayofbeingthatisaliveandopento

aworldincontinuousbirth.”(9)

IngolddiscussesevidencethatWesternartistssuchasPaulKleeandMerleau‐

Pontyintheirjournalssometimesdescribeasimilaropenness.

Thepainter’srelationtotheworld,Merleau‐Pontywrites,isnota

simple,‘physical‐optical’one.Thatis,hedoesnotgazeuponaworldthat

isfiniteandcomplete,andproceedtofashionarepresentationofit.

Rather,therelationisoneof‘continuedbirth’—theseareMerleau‐

Ponty’sverywords—asthoughateverymomentthepainteropenedhis

eyestotheworldforthefirsttime.Hisvisionisnotofthingsinaworld,

butofthingsbecomingthings,andoftheworldbecomingaworld.(12)

Ingoldgoesontodescribeanimicrelationsasoccurringon“trailalongwhichlife

islived”andnotassomethingthatoccurs“betweentheorganism‘here’andthe

environment‘there’.”(13)Movementinthiscaseisprimary.Knowingisrelatedto

being,embeddedintheveryexperienceofbeingalive.Bywayofcontrast,Ingoldstates

thatempiricalscienceasawayofknowing“restsuponanimpossiblefoundation

43

(becauseitsmethodsattempttoplaceinquiry)aboveandbeyondtheveryworldit

claimstounderstand.”(19)

Irvine,Leslie.IfYouTameMe:UnderstandingOurConnectionWithAnimals.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,2004.

Irvine’sbookbeginswiththepremisethatanimalsareemotionalandfeeling

beingsandmakestheargumentthatanimalshelpshapeouridentitiesinrelationship

becausetheyhaveselveswithwhichourselvesrelate.Thedimensionsofthisselfhood

aremutuallyapprehendedandstrengthenedduringintersubjectiveinteractionthat

exercisesandchallengesourrelationshipandemotionalskills.Irvinearguesthatanimals

areconsciousindividuals;theyarenotinterchangeableandtheyareself‐awareina

differentwaythanweare.

Irvineborrowsthespecificelementsofacoreselfthatwesharewithother

animalsfromWilliamJames’fourfeaturesof‘I,’refinedwithpreverbalinfantstudies.

Theelementsareagency(selfcontrol),coherence(integrity),affectivity(emotional

capacity),andcontinuity(selfhistory).Thelastelement,continuity,connects,through

memory,theotherthreeintoanindividualsubjectivityorindividualselfthat

intersubjectivelyinteractswithotherselves.Noticethatnoneofthisreliesonspoken

language;ourabilitytotalkaboutitdoes,butnotourabilitytohavetheinteractive

relationships,sharingintentions,feelings,andthoughtswithnonhumanothers.

AccordingtoIrvine,intentionscanbeindividualorshared,feelingsareemotional

states,andthoughtsinthiscontextcanbeunderstoodasthefocusofattention.

44

Irvinediscussesexamplesofthesesharedexperiences.Playbehavior,for

instance,isahighlycomplexandcoordinatedactivityinwhichcommunicating

intentionsandinterpretingtheintentionsofothersiscrucial.Amoodorcontextmust

beestablishedthatcreatesaprotective‘frame,’oftenwithsignalssuchasthecanine

playbow.Thefamous‘counting’horseCleverHanswasdiscoveredtobeaccurately

readingtheemotionalsignalsfromthepeoplewhocametoseehimperform.Inthis

way,he‘knew’whenthecorrectanswerwasreached.Wesharethefocusofattention

withdogswhenwemakeeyecontactinordertocheckin.Dogsguidethefocusof

humanattentiontothedoororafooddish,indicatingclearlywhatisonthedog’smind

orwhatthedoghopeswillhappen.

OthertopicsdiscussedbyIrvineincludeanimaldomestication,thetwentieth‐

centurytransitionfrom‘pet’to‘companion’animal,animalrelationshipsasresources

forhumanself‐construction,andsomeofthedeepimplicationsforsocietyin

consideringanimalsasotherselves.

Marchant,Jennifer.“‘AnAdvocate,aDefender,anIntimate’:Kristeva’sImaginaryFatherinFictionalGirl‐AnimalRelationships.”Children’sLiteratureAssociationQuarterly30.1(2005):3—15.

Inthisarticle,Marchantdiscussesfictionalbondsbetweenadolescentgirl

protagonistsandanimalsasavitalpartofthepsychicdevelopmentforthehuman

protagonist,providingamodelfortheadolescentreadernavigatingthesamecurrents.

Duringthisperiodofadolescentdevelopment,called‘abjection,’boundariesare

45

redefined,astheyounggirlismovingfromtheperiodofunitywithhermotherto

greaterautonomyandintegrationintheadultsocialorder.

AccordingtoMarchant,theanimals(dogs,horses,andadragon)appearingin

hersamplebooksareKristevanImaginaryFatherfigures,father‐motherconglomerates

withwhomadirectandimmediateidentificationismade,whoprovideadeeply

satisfyinglovewithboundaries,andwhoreflectandsupportegoidealsandadult

standards.Althoughaddressingarealneedintheyoungreader’slife,it“seemslikely

that,forsomereaders,atleast,muchoftheattractionisintheprotagonist‐animalbond

itself.”(14)

Morgenstern,John.“ChildrenandOtherTalkingAnimals.”TheLionandtheUnicorn24(2000):110—127.

Children’sliteratureiswidelyconsideredtobesimple.Inordertounderstand

whatconstitutesthissimplicity,MorgensterncomparesC.S.Lewis’useoftalking

animalsinhischildren’sbooks(ChroniclesofNarnia,1950‐‐1956)andhisadultscience

fictionSpaceTrilogyincludingOutoftheSilentPlanet(1938).Heconcludesfromthe

textsandfromLewis’ownstatementsininterviews,thatLewisdeliberatelyremoved

uncomfortableambiguitiesabouttalkinganimalsfromhischildren’sbooks,andthatthis

itselfsimplifiesthestory.Theambiguousfeelingsthemselvesaredescribedasdisgust

aboutembodimentanduneasinessabouttheunclearboundariesbetweenhumansand

animals.

Morgensterndistinguishesbetweenananimalthattalks,aflatcharacterization

thatevokesdelight,andanalientalker,whomoneis‘tempted’tothinkofasaman,and

46

whotherefore‘becomesabominable’.Thedifferencesaresubtle.“Whatisbeing

assertedhereisadifferencethatisnotreallyadifferenceintheanimalthattalksbut,as

Lewispointsout,adifferencein‘thepointofview’oftheobserver.”(112)Lewismakes

another,relatedpoint:ifoneis“‘accustomedtomorethanonerationalspecies’“(112)

thenthereisnoproblem.

Nagel,Thomas.“Whatisitliketobeabat?”ThePhilosophicalReview,LXXXIII,4(October1974):435—450.

Nageldescribesconsciousexperienceasa‘widespreadphenomenon’,

attributingitto‘manylevelsofanimallife’andyet,asheacknowledges,itishardto

knowwhatevidencetocaptureormeasureobjectivelyinsupportofitsexistence.

Certainlyawakingconsciousexperiencethroughanorganism’ssenseperceptions

meansthatitis“somethingitisliketobethatorganism.”Nagelusestheexampleofa

bat;theyaremammalsandyettheirexperienceisverydifferentfromahumanonedue

toitssensoryapparatusanddailyactivities.Thisproblemofaccuratelyapprehending

another’sexperienceappearsintractable;thatis,wecannotcapturetheexperienceof

anotherwithcurrentmethodsofobjectivescience.

Theproblemisnotjustspeciestospecies,butindividualtoindividual.Because

weareunabletoseparateourselvesfromourownsubjectivity,wecannotobjectively

approachanother’s.Every“subjectivephenomenonisessentiallyconnectedwitha

singlepointofview,anditseemsinevitablethatanobjective,physicaltheorywill

abandonthatpointofview.”(38)Nagelconcludeshisinfluentialarticlebypredicting

thatwemayneverbesatisfiedthatweknowanotherorganism’spointofviewfully,and

47

that,sinceweare‘restrictedtotheresourcesofourownmind’,wemustrelyonour

imaginationatpresenttodescribeanother’ssubjectivepointofview.

Ristau,CarolynA.ed.CognitiveEthology:TheMindsofOtherAnimals:essaysinhonorofDonaldR.Griffin.Hillsdale,NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssoc.,1991.

PartofaseriescalledComparativeCognitionandNeuroscience;thepapers

collectedherearefroma1987symposiuminanimalcognition,authoredbyresearchers

andphilosophersincognitiveethology.ColinG.Beeraddressesfolkpsychologicalterms

andconcepts,pointingoutthatthephilosophicaldefinitionofintentionalityisbroader

thanthatusedbycognitiveethologists.Hewondersiflanguage‐basedcriteriaare

anthropocentricandwhethertheycanbetranslatedintononlinguisticterms.Jonathan

Bennettalsodiscussestheintentionalanalysisofbehavior,advocatingmultiple

approachesasawayofdevelopingaricherpicture.GeorgF.Michelcoversmanyofthe

concernsaboutthe‘overrichness’offolkpsychologicalterminologyanditsfailureto

predicthumanbehavior.EchoingThomasNagel,SonjaI.YoergandAlanC.Kamilremind

usthatonecannothavedirectevidenceofanother’sconsciousness.Theauthorsdrawa

lineofinfluencefromCharlesDarwintoDonaldGriffin;bothargueforthelikelihoodof

mentalcontinuityacrossanimalspeciesgiventheevolutionarycontinuityofsomany

otherprocessesandstructures.

Othercontributorsdiscussspecificstudiesofconsciouschimpanzeebehavior

(AllisonJolly),artificiallanguageacquisitioninparrots(IrenePepperberg),andfalse

signalingbehavior(DorothyL.CheneyandRobetM.Seyfarth;PeterMarler,Stephen

Karakashian,andMarcelGyger;W.JohnSmith).CarolynA.RistauandGordonM.

48

Burghardteachapplythefolkpsychologicalterm‘intentionalstance’totheanti‐

predatorfeintingbehaviorofshorebirds(Ristau)andhognosesnakes(Burghardt),

pointingoutthepurposefulorfunctionalqualityofthebehaviorandarguingthat

successfuloutcomesleadtoreinforcementthat,overevolutionarytime,maysupport

morevoluntarycontrol.

DonaldGriffinsurveystheprimarycriticismsofcognitiveethology,includingfluid

termdefinitionsandunevencriticalstandards,thebeliefthatconsciousthinkinghasno

effectonbehavior,thecommondismissalofanyevidenceofconsciousthinkingin

nonhumananimals,andtheaprioriassumptionthatsubjectivitycanneverbeknown.

Thesediscouragingpositionsshouldbeignored,arguesGriffin.Instead,cognitive

ethologistsshouldworktoclarifyelementarydefinitionsofconsciousnessappliedto

animalsbyworkingonsimplecasesandaskingwhatfunctionsareservedbybehaviors.

Inparticular,findingsofcognitivecreativityandenterprisesupporttheviewthat

animalshaveatleastanelementaryconsciousness.

WhiteJr.,Lynn.“TheHistoricalRootsofOurEcologicCrisis.”Science155,no.3767(1967):1203—1207.

Infoursuccinctpages,historianLynnWhitediscussesthetremendousimpact

humanshavehadonthenaturalenvironmentthroughtime,particularlyinNorthern

andWesternEurope.AccordingtoWhite,Christianaxioms,suchasthatof‘dominion,’

createdanattitudeofindifferencetothedestructionofthenaturalworld,and

combinedwiththeIndustrialAgefusionofscienceandtechnology,acceleratedthat

destruction,producingthecurrentenvironmentalcrisis.

49

Fromthemedievalinventionofheavierandmoredestructiveplowsthat

resultedinchanginglanddistributionsystemstothetechnicalsuperioritythatmade

possibletheplunderingoftheknownworldbythe“small,mutuallyhostilenations”of

Europe,Westernskills“inthedevelopmentofpowermachinery,labor‐savingdevices,

andautomation”remainedconsistent,continuingintothepresentday.

Forthesedeeplyentrenchedreasons,Whiteargues,theapplicationofmore

scienceandtechnologywillnotavertfurthercrises;rootcausesforourbeliefsand

actionsmustbeunderstood.WhitedeclaresthatthetriumphofChristianityover

paganismwas“thegreatestpsychicrevolutioninthehistoryofourculture”and

Christianbeliefs,profoundlyconditioningourviewsonhumannatureanddestiny,must

bereexamined.

Wynne,CliveD.L.DoAnimalsThink?Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2004.

Wynne’sbookcontainschaptersdetailinganimalstudiesinavarietyofareas,

includingprimatelearning,languageexperiments,andproblemsolving;sensory

perceptionsofbats;insectcommunication;thesymbolicmeaningsandrolesofpigeons

invariouscultures;artificiallanguageacquisitioninbirds;anddolphinperceptionand

intelligence.Heusesmanyexamplesthroughouttosupporthiscontentionthat

nonhumananimalsarenotintelligentorconsciousintheuniquewaythathumansare,

butthatmuchcanbeobjectivelyunderstoodaboutthenatureandrealityofanimals

andthatmuchissharedbetweenhumansandotheranimals.

50

Manyofthedisagreementsaboutanimalawareness,cognition,andintelligence

revolvearoundwhichqualitiesandcapacitiesaresharedandwhichdistinctfrom

speciestospecies,andinparticular,whatcharacteristicsareuniquetohumanbeings.

Tohelpinclarifyingthisimportantquestion,Wynneintroduceswhathecallsthe

SimilaritySandwich,athree‐layerframeworkforunderstandingsimilaritiesand

differences.Thebottom(bread)layerasksthequestion,whatisdifferent?Allspecies

aredifferent,generallybasedonvarietyinanatomyandsenseperceptions.Themiddle,

orfixins,layerasks,whatisshared?Someinstinctsandcertaincognitivecapacitieslike

basicmemoryandconceptformationseemtobesimilaracrossawidespectrumof

animallife.Thetop(bread)asks,whatisnearlyuniqueinhumans?Here,Wynne

suggests,canbeplacedtheuseofcomplexlanguageandanindependentself‐

awareness.

51

APPENDIXA:SURVEYSAMPLE

Thefollowingisachronologicallistofthe46titlessurveyed.TheyweretakenfromthreebibliographiesofrecommendedbooksaboutpetspublishedonthewebsiteoftheUniversityofIllinois’CenterforChildren’sBooks.TheoriginalbibliographieswereaccessedinFebruary2010athttp://ccb.lis.illinois.edu/bibliographies.html.

George,JeanCraighead.HowtoTalktoYourCat.NewYork:HarperCollinsPublishers,2000.

George,JeanCraighead.HowtoTalktoYourDog.NewYork:HarperCollinsPublishers,2000.

Adoff,Arnold.DaringDogandCaptainCat.NewYork:Simon&SchusterBooksforYoungReaders,2001.

Cowley,Joy.AgapanthusHumandMajorBark.NewYork:PhilomelBooks,2001.

Graham,Bob.“Let’sGetaPup!”SaidKate.Cambridge,Mass.:CandlewickPress,2001.

Holub,Joan.WhyDoCatsMeow?NewYork:DialBooksforYoungReaders,2001.

Holub,Joan.WhyDoDogsBark?NewYork:DialBooksforYoungReaders,2001.

Simont,Marc.TheStrayDog.NewYork:HarperCollins,2001.

Harvey,Amanda.DogEared.NewYork:DoubledayBookforYoungReaders,2002.

Collicott,Sharleen.ToestomperandtheBadButterflies.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,2003.

Cullen,Lynn.LittleScragglyHair:ADogonNoah’sArk.NewYork:HolidayHouse,2003.

Farish,Terry.TheCatWhoLikedPotatoSoup.Cambridge,Mass.:CandlewickPress,2003.

Florian,Douglas.BowWowMeowMeow:It’sRhymingCatsandDogs.SanDiego:Harcourt,2003.

Lee,HoBaek.WhileWeWereOut.LaJolla,Calif.:Kane/Miller,2003.

52

Little,Jean.Emma'sStrangePet.NewYork:HarperCollins,2003.

Luthardt,Kevin.Peep!Atlanta:Peachtree,2003.

Palatini,Margie.ThePerfectPet.NewYork:HarperCollinsPublishers,2003.

Provensen,Alice.ADayintheLifeofMurphy.NewYork:Simon&SchusterBooksforYoungReaders,2003.

Sidman,Joyce.TheWorldaccordingtoDog:PoemsandTeenVoices.Boston,Mass.:HoughtonMifflin,2003.

Finney,Patricia.I,Jack.NewYork:HarperCollins,2004.

Horowitz,Ruth.BigSurpriseintheBugTank.NewYork:DialBooksforYoungReaders,2004.

Joosse,BarbaraM.BadDogSchool.NewYork:ClarionBooks,2004.

Nolan,Lucy.DownGirlandSit:SmarterThanSquirrels.NewYork:MarshallCavendish,2004.

So,Meilo.Gobble,Gobble,Slip,Slop:ATaleofaVeryGreedyCat.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,2004.

Turner,PamelaS.Hachiko:TheTrueStoryofaLoyalDog.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,

2004.

Gretz,Susanna.RileyandRoseinthePicture.Cambridge,Mass.:CandlewickPress,2005.

Kuskin,Karla.So,What’sItLiketobeaCat?NewYork:AtheneumBooksforYoungReaders,2005.

Nolan,Lucy.DownGirlandSit:OntheRoad.NewYork:MarshallCavendish,2005.Rodowsky,Colby.TheNext‐DoorDog.NewYork:FarrarStrausandGiroux,2005.Shyer,MarleneFanta.FleabiscuitSings!NewYork:MarshallCavendish,2005.

Fine,Anne.TheDiaryofaKillerCat.NewYork:FarrarStrausandGiroux,2006.

Howe,James.HoundsleyandCatinaandtheBirthdaySurprise.Cambridge,Mass.:

CandlewickPress,2006.

53

Kelleher,Victor.Dogboy.Asheville,N.C.:FrontStreet,2006.

MacLachlan,Patricia.OnceIAteaPie.NewYork:Cotler/HarperCollins,2006.

Sidman,Joyce.MeowRuff:AStoryinConcretePoetry.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,2006.

Smith,D.James.ProbablytheWorld'sBestStoryaboutaDogandtheGirlWhoLovedMe.NewYork:AtheneumBooksforYoungReaders,2006.

Calmenson,Stephanie.MayIPetYourDog?TheHow‐to‐GuideforKidsMeetingDogs(andDogsMeetingKids).NewYork:ClarionBooks,2007.

Friend,Catherine.ThePerfectNest.Cambridge,Mass.:CandlewickPress,2007.Harper,ChariseMericle.FashionKittyversustheFashionQueen.NewYork:Hyperion

PaperbacksforChildren,2007.Hicks,BarbaraJean.TheSecretLifeofWalterKitty.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,2007.

Jenkins,Steve.DogsandCats.Boston:HoughtonMifflinCo.,2007.

O'Connor,Barbara.HowtoStealaDog.NewYork:FarrarStrausandGiroux,2007.

Straight,Susan.TheFriskativeDog.NewYork:AlfredA.Knopf,2007.

Umansky,Kaye.IDon'tLikeGloria!Cambridge,Mass.:CandlewickPress,2007.

VanFleet,Matthew.Dog.NewYork:Simon&SchusterBooksforYoungReaders,2007.

Ward,Helen.LittleMoonDog.NewYork:DuttonChildren’sBooks,2007.