Sociology: Humans and Other Animals - Essay Example

Humans and Other Animals Animals are an integral part of society from the dawn of mankind, be it in their capacity as food providers, for their labor qualities or merely as objects of affection, providing comfort to humans. The way in which we treat animals has often been a benchmark for the “civilizing” trends seen in society. Sociologists have been pondering over the question of the impact of human-animal interaction upon society, the various ways in which they assist humans as well as the social problems caused by animals, as much as the emotional problems human unleash on animals (Grandfield, Robert 2006). Arthrozoology, or the relationship between humans and animals had not been a very deeply researched arena, because of the Cartesian theory that only humans are capable of forming and sustaining close relationships (Arluke and Sanders, 1996). This became one of the most important arguments for the way in which men treated animals. (Thomas, 1983:34) This was further neglected due to the anthropocentric and/or utilitarian theory that held the view that animals are the means to an end in the universal chain where humans stand at the top (Taylor, 2007, a & b).This second hand treatment of animals is slowly being replaced by a growing sensitivity to the plight of animals as much as their invaluable inputs and assistance in our daily existence. This interest is still more empirical than epistemological (Sanders,1993) and more work needs to be done in the field of sociology, especially in the study of human and animal relations. Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, also which could have been used as a contribution towards challenging these ideas, did not change peoples attitudes towards animals. According to Darwin-Humanity was not created in God's image, but was the product of natural selection just like other animals. Therefore, there should be no unabridged gap between humans and non humans. Darwin was emphatic in the physical and mental continuity between non humans and humans or the “anthromorphism” that is a part of his studies (Crist 1999), yet, people in general want to believe in the continuity of the physical aspects of evolution only. The treatment of animals can be studied more convincingly if we were to make a study of the way in which humans and animals interact with each other. This can be done by applying Goffman’s analysis of interaction order and joint labor, which can be applied to caretaker dog relations (Sanders,1993) shelter staff-cat relationships (Alger& Alger 1997, 2003) and emotional care in animal shelters (Arluke, 1991). A great shift in the balance of power between humans and animals can be traced to about 11,000 years ago, when man started to depend on animals for food (Susan Jean Armstrong, Richard George Botzler-“The Animal Ethics Reader”). In ancient times, cruelty towards animals was frowned upon keeping in mind that “all creatures were manifestations of the divine” (LaLue 1991:3) Stoic philosophers laid emphasis on reasoning, considering it a part of the cosmic and divine law, and rejected animals as a part of the moral contingent of humanity on the grounds that they lacked reason. It was though accepted that their usefulness to humanity ascribed to them some kind of divine intention (Boersema 2001:202-3). Ontological security is the term given to that aspect of a human security which assures him, without even having to think that, “key areas of one’s life are stable, predictable and taken for granted”. (Adrian Franklin, Animals and Modern Cultures, Pg.85) According to Giddens, it is stable mental state which comes from the security that an individual derives knowing that the events in his life are stable. Applying this theory to animal life implies that animals who are secure about their future may display different behavior. This aspect of security of animals has been looked at very often from the perspective that since animals lack sentience (lack of feelings, especially pain), they do not necessarily deserve to be treated with any kind of moral consideration. Historically, we see through the ages, the different philosophies used to justify the kind of treatment being meted out to animals. Aristotle made the ability to reason about one of those characteristics that distinguished man from other animals. Philosophers like Locke Leibniz and Descartes also propounded this theory to distinguish humans from other non-human animals, and Descartes based his reasoning on the lack of language using ability of animals as a reason for their insentience. Locke and Leibniz, while granting animals a degree of being perceptive and therefore of having a degree of consciousness maintained that they still do not have the capacity to reason. Hume, on the other hand argued that animals too exhibited a certain degree of reasoning, pointing towards them being sentient. During the medieval ages, attitude towards animals became ambivalent (Cohen 1994:68). Early Christian saints had a great concern for animals and there are numerous stories of them rescuing animals, sharing food with them as well as treating the wounded ones. St. Francis of Assisi saw in all creatures, the maker himself and there is a legend that tells how he convinced a wolf to stop eating people. (Ryder 1989:33) In spite of showing a compassionate view towards animals in the seventeenth century, the intellectuals of that time considered them to be “beasts” that were inferior in the areas of sensibility, compassion and imagination and had no memory power (Thomas 1982, 32-3). In the seventeenth century slavery was attacked for it treated humans as animals but did nothing to eradicate the slavery and domination over animals. The idea of human dominion changed as many well to do families began to keep pets. The religious orders of the Middle Ages also had animals living with them. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the pets became a household feature among the middle class (Thomas 1983: 110).Gradually tamed animals were accepted as property of the owners and were allowed into the house and could accompany their masters to the Church. This led to the foundation that animals were to be given moral consideration (Thomas 1983: 110-19). Another factor responsible for the rise of animal rights was the industrial climate in England. The emergence of industry made animals indispensable as they were instrumental in increasing production (Thomas 1983: 181).The educated clergymen and the well-to do townspeople led the reformist movement. The middle classes were against the hunting tradition of the nobility which indulged in it as it simulated warfare. Bear-baiting and cock-fighting was also not approved by them because it represented private combat. The growth of natural history gradually resulted in the classification of animals solely on their structure. The theological orthodoxies of the times conflicted with the experiences that humans had with animals on their farms and houses. The herds were small and the sheep could be recognized and distinguished by the shepherd. Stolen cattle could be traced by the farmers by studying the hoof prints (Thomas 1983: 95). In the seventeenth century anthropocentrism was the prevailing outlook but in the eighteenth century non-anthropocentrism set in. The philosophical and religious teachings supported this sensibility. One reason cited for the moral awakening towards animals was the feeling of repulsion towards the cruelty meted out to them at the hands of humans. During the 16th and 17th centuries, with advances in modern science and the sweep of Protestantism, the deification of nature and in relation to it, of animals stopped completely. The general trend was motivated towards highlighting the uniqueness of humans and this necessitated that animals be vilified as “dead, soulless matter” (Armstrong, Botzler-“The Animal Ethics Reader”3). The difference between humans and animals, highlighting the superiority of humans, resounded from all pulpits. (Thomas 1983:35-6) By the turn of the 19th century, these fundamental issues began to narrow and people began changing their attitude towards animals. While the battalion of animal sympathizers diminished, there was still a small group which worked for the safety and better treatment of animals. These included Martin Luther and John Locke, whose concern for all of God’s creatures was constant, while Sir Isaac Newton invented the cat flap. As far back as 1661, Sir Matthew Hale, an English Chief Justice, said that “ …there was a certain degree of justice due from man to the creatures…” and another Christian theologian, Thomas Tyron, in 1683 asked for animal protection.(Munro 2000:9) In order for sociology to avoid being epistemological in nature, it necessitates that studies of animals steer clear of being anthropocentric. The Algers’ argument that “ in humans and domestic animals, an operative understanding born of long association and evolutionary similarity allows us to interact routinely in a manner that grants satisfaction to all involved” (1999, 120). But this takes into account only those animals which have been domesticated, and rejects the study and behavioral pattern of other non- domesticated animals. Social thought has been geared towards the idea that animals are “outside” the realm of humans, tracing once again its roots to Aristotle’s argument based on reasoning abilities. This has led to the interaction between humans and animals in the West primarily conditioned on the treatment of animals as “others”. Theological thought too placed emphasis on the human dominance over other creatures. The idea of animals as others is seen in some of the appellations which humans use, like the use of the word “beast” to describe other humans who indulge in acts of criminality or violence. Animals are only seen as food providers, as a source of pleasure in the form of pets, as a source of entertainment in zoos and circuses or else as a means of sport during hunting. There has also been the ontological classification differentiating humans from animals, based on arbitrary methods, which has led to a lack of study between human-animal interactions. This has created an anthropocentric bias in sociology, leading to the exclusion of the study of animals and their behavior and instances of their research are based mainly on animals being perceived as objects. (Taylor & Signal, 2008) Domesticated Animals Putting it simply, animals living in human habitats are guaranteed a secure life. Domesticated animals act as a good support system to human beings. They are diverse creatures who are inter-dependent on us for their survival. Domestic animals are extremely useful to humans for use in ploughing the field, drawing water for irrigation, for transport, to catch thieves or to sniff out contraband items from carriers and protect us from unwanted and dangerous elements. Violin, Mary Ann (The Broadway View Press, P. 34) tells us that “The philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras ( c. 580–c. 500 BCE), who has been called the first animal rights philosopher was the central figure within animism” whose belief was that both humans and non- humans possessed the same kind of soul and urged people to respect them. Animals like dogs, cats, birds, rabbits and other animals are used as pets at home. We do not think of our pets as animals but as one of the family .The dependency of the pet at home goes to the extent of depending on us for their individual care and sustenance, when ever they get sick, to alleviate their boredom, to boost their morale and indulge in their boisterous behavior. Therefore if pets are thrown on the streets they do not have the capacity to look after themselves well and end up getting mange or even mad. Pets are so innocent and generous in showering us with a lot of love and affection, but never – the-less at times they exhibit disgusting behavior such as rummaging dust- bins, biting shoes and other things, digging holes in the garden, dirtying the house, and nosing around destroying things, but yet we love them for who they are. Domestic animals are also used in the field of Science for research purposes in laboratories to help us find out more about diseases and their treatments. In referring to how scientists feel about the issue of animal consciousness (Rollin B, 1986) says that the “question of animal consciousness and experience seems to be too closely tied to valuational issues to be a comfortable topic for most scientists.” They are also used in the field of medicine where they are trained to be good companions and guides for the disabled and lonely.  Animals in the wild   The study of human beings and animals in the wild is a phenomenal and remarkable difference by way of both knowledge and judgment. It is impossible for Wild animals to live in human habitats because their natural instincts are to practice the ways of the wild. But never – the - less humans have to tolerate and endure the existence of wild animals because they are also an important factor that contribute to the survival of mankind. Therefore, it is inevitable that man has to encourage the growth of wild life in order to maintain the delicate balance of ecology and nature. Conflict does transpire between man versus the wild such as provoking animals through encroachment of their natural habitats through the felling of trees for ornamental purposes, for furniture and the production of paper. Wild animals are also hunted down for their beautiful skin which is made into handbags, belts and other fashionable clothing and accessories. Hence, any kind of encroachment would amount to dismantling the delicate balance of life on earth because wild life has to depend on the resources of nature for their survival. If humans deprive animals of their rightful right they have no choice, but to fight back or perish. Speaking on the subject of animal consciousness in his seminal study called “The unheeded cry” he points out that the “animals themselves received no benefit, only significant suffering. Once again ... agriculture was broken. Neither confinement agriculture nor animal research are ethically, conceptually, or legally captured by the anti-cruelty ethic" Rollin B (1989) Humans are quite selfish in this context and thinks of self, but there will be no self if we are determined to destroy what we already have. The earth’s domain is activated to hold all subjects both human and wild. Therefore, we should learn to live off the land and take only what's needed, be it fish or fowl. But Ryder (2000) in his “Animal Revolution” gives us another side to the argument as he quotes Genesis 1:26- 28, which states - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Ryder also highlights another aspect related to Hindu and Buddhist societies that advocated widespread vegetarianism in adherence to the doctrine of “ahimsa” (non- violence) because people believed that animals possessed the same feelings as human beings. In Hinduism killing a cow was considered to be a grave sin and he states that “Failing to observe the duty to care could lead to bad karma, which increased the likelihood of returning as an animal next time round.” (Ryder, 2000, pg. 21)   We are supposed to be the cultured or civilized ones and we are expected to live as such. The perspective of understanding the human self plays an important role in all types of life and it is not within our obligations and accountability to dominate wild life, but on the other hand, we could remain neophytes to scrutinize the animal world or dream of becoming an etiologist. Since man is endowed with a capacity and power to think and rule he must not forget his status and keep his animalism in check when he conflicts or collides with wild animals and nature. Economic security coupled with unprecedented conditions of wealth and success in industrial revolution has made human beings less obligatory to take care or look after the lesser or inferior non- human kind – animals. Hence animal activists and their organizations are constantly up in arms with the issues of cruelty meted out to this category of living things. Rollin B (1989) in his insightful book on animal consciousness titled “The unheeded cry” states that the "issue of animal consciousness is just such an area, for the scientific presupposition that animal experience is unknowable has great moral consequences” he also further states that an "experimental physiologist would never see his own pet dog as an `animal model', and few behaviorists can avoid mentalistic attributions….” Rollin B (1989) Australian philosopher, Peter Singer published his book called “Animal Liberation” (Singer, 1975) and attached a concept of moral standing to non- humans i.e. animals. Singer did not approve of using a theoretical framework when it came to dealing with animals. His argument was that since animals were capable of feeling pain and suffering their interests should be taken care of and that “the idea of rights was not necessary in order to consider them.” He was the person who coined the term "speciesism" in the book. In Singer’s book on “Practical Ethics” he tells us how some hold the opinion that the uniqueness of human life holds no comparison, but he highlights the fact that his book is all about comparing and equating human life with that of animals. He is quoted to have said that, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (Singer, Peter, pg. 108) Singer’s “Utilitarianism” is said to justify genocide because he says “if we are preference utilitarian we must allow that a desire to go on living can be outweighed by other desires." (Singer, Peter, pg. 99) In order for any belief be it in either ethics, or Science consistent, or any other subject, it has got to be consistent, but utilitarianism cannot be called logical because it fails in logical consistency. According to Singer’s principles of ethics that he accepts are more consequential in nature and are as follows - 1. It is not about self – interest 2. It is universal and 3. Our rationality should guide our ethical thoughts. According to Singer, “The consequences of an action vary according to the circumstances in which it is performed. He brings forward the act of telling lies and explains that to a utilitarian, lying would be bad in some cases and would be good in some cases and this would depend on the circumstances of the individual. The origins of a specific school of thought credits the concept of ‘utilitarianism’ to the philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham who was also a leading theorist in the area of the Anglo- American philosophy of law who advocated ‘utilitarianism’ for the concept of animal rights.’ (Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy) Bentham Jeremy tried to set out rational principles which were morally obligatory and that which t made the greatest number of people happy. Bentham too is in agreement with Singer that the pain in animals is quite similar to the pain in humans and argued that it is not the ability to suffer but it is the ability to reason that should be the criterion in dealing with living beings other than humans. Speaking on the subject, he had commented “But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? On the contrary to Singer’s utilitarian principles, Reagan believes that there is no justification in any kind of animal research even though the fact remains that such research is going to benefit thousands of human beings. “The use of animals in laboratory courses has come under special criticism.” (e.g. Reagan, 1983) To Reagan it was morally irrelevant. While Singer propounded that there were problems surrounding animal rights, Reagan insisted that the utilitarianism was critically flawed. Ritvo, H (1994) in his book on “Animals in the 19th century Britain” tells us that modernity and technological advancement have made people change their style of living to one that are luxurious and comfortable and this attitude does not allow for keeping a pet like a dog or a cat. According to Ritvo, H (1994) humans are a social species and as such are attracted to the “popularity of urban living” which further estranges them from the natural environment. Rendering care and attention to looking after pet animals is not a commitment they would like to prefer. To meet the demands of a modern lifestyle they enroll their pets in day care facilities which at present is in the infant stage but is very likely to pick up in the future on a fairly large scale. The globalization of the world’s food markets and the harmonization of diets along different cultures will see more animal products exported from countries that can produce them efficiently.” (Van Doreen, 2006) The Royal Society for the prevention of Cruelty to Animals – (RSPCA) The RSPCA was a society that was formed in London in 1822 to prevent cruelty to farm animals. In 1840, it was the then reigning Queen Victoria who honored the society by giving it the prefix “Royal”. In 1871, the first RSPCA was established in Victoria, Australia to discuss the attitude of the colony people towards animals especially horses. The mission of the RSPCA was to enforce laws against cruelty to animals and to kindle responsible attitudes towards all animals by preventing cruelty and also providing good care and health facilities for animals who are recovering from sickness or maltreatment. The RSPCA is not governed by a Government Body, but is an independent community by itself. The main guidelines of the RSPCA is to cater to animal welfare by seeing that animals are free from hunger and thirst, free from injury or pain, fear and distress and also discomfort and diseases. The RSPCA employs staff that work full time, part time and even as casuals. Their staff includes veterinarians, vet – nurses, animal attendants, and administrative staff such as clerks, education officers, staff involved in public relations and marketing and other qualified officers and inspectors to see that the organization runs on well oiled wheels. The services of the RSPCA are indispensable where animals are concerned. They have trained personnel who are always on patrol to investigate places of entertainment where animals are used, market places, pet shops and other sale yards to hear the complaints of cruelty and neglect meted out to animals. Conclusion Life is precious be it human or otherwise and as such calls for care of every kind. Though many theorists hold the opinion that animals don’t have the capacity to think and interact or the ability to speak and communicate, yet animals come under the category of living beings and therefore should be treated with respect because they have life, like all human beings do. The RSPCA which is the chief organization for the welfare and rights of animals and all other such animal shelters are all doing commendable service towards putting an end to cruelty and bringing about a much better attitude from people for the proper treatment of animals besides offering the state – of the – art training and technology to voluntary and other salaried staff who come forward and render their services for such a good cause. References Adrian Franklin. Animals and Modern Cultures: A Sociology of Human-Animal Relations in Modernity. London: SAGE. 1999. pp. 213. ARLUKE, A. (1991) ‘Coping With Euthanasia: A Case Study of Shelter Culture.’ Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, Vol. 198, No. 7, pp. 1176-1180. ALGER, J., & ALGER, S. (1997). ‘Beyond Mead: Symbolic Interaction Between Humans and Felines,’ Society & Animals, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 65-81. ARLUKE, A., & SANDERS, C. (1996). Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press ALGER, J.M., & ALGER, S.F. (1999). ‘Cat Culture, Human Culture: An Ethnographic Study of a Cat Shelter,’ Society & Animals, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 199-218. Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789. Latest edition: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005. Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 274.  Regan T (1983) The case for animal rights, Berkeley: University of California Press Ritvo, H (1994) ‘Animals in 19th century Britain: complicated attitudes & competing categories’, in Manning A & Serpell J (1994) Animals and Human Societies, London: Routledge, pp. 106-126 Rosen, Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, p. 28. "It was Hume and Bentham who then reasserted most strongly the Epicurean doctrine concerning utility as the basis of justice." RSPCA Victoria www.rspcavic.org/kids_stuff/kidsstuff_projects.htm Ryder, Richard D. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, pp. 23-24. Ryder, Richard. Animal Revolution: Changing Attitudes Towards Speciesism. Berg, 2000, p. 17. SANDERS, C. (1993). ‘Understanding Dogs: Caretakers’ Attributions of Mindedness in Canine-Human Relationships,’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 205-226. SANDERS, C. (1993). ‘Understanding Dogs: Caretakers’ Attributions of Mindedness in Canine-Human Relationships,’ Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 205-226. Singer, Practical ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 3-5 and Appendix ‘On being silenced in Germany’ Singer P (1976) Animal liberation: a new ethic for our treatment of animals, London: Jonathan Cape, Chapters 1 & 2 TAYLOR, N. (2007a). ‘Never an it: Inter- subjectivity and the Creation of Personhood in an Animal Shelter,’ Qualitative Sociology Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, TAYLOR, N. (2007b). ‘Human-Animal Studies: A Challenge to Social Boundaries?’ Proteus: A Journal of Ideas, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 1-5. Taylor, N& Signal, T (2008) Throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater: Towards a Sociology of the Human-Animal Abuse 'Link'? Sociological Research Online, Volume 13, Issue 1 The Moral Status of Animals. The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. Thomas, K. (1983) Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes 1500-1800, Magnolia : Peter Smith. Violin, Mary Ann. "Pythagoras—The First Animal Rights Philosopher," Between the Species 6:122–127, cited in Taylor, Angus. Animals and Ethics. The Broadway View Press, pg. 34. Read More