Eric Vilmer
9/15/20
Professor Simpson
Animals & Critical Geography
In both essays, "The Lives of Animals,'' by J.M Coetzee and "Culture & Nature at the Adelaide Zoo,"
by Kay Anderson discuss animal lives in a zoo setting and how we as humans think of non-human
animals in different aspects. I am going to focus on these two essays specifically because I wish to
study animals in a philosophical manner and the reason why humans view non-human animals in the
manner that they do. "The Lives of Animals" essay is unique for this class because it is written as a
work of metafiction. The characters are fiction but the concepts within the reading are real. "Culture &
Nature at the Adelaide Zoo" discusses the geography in a zoo setting and is relevant to a class in critical
geography because the reading discusses a zoo as a space in which humans view animals. A zoo is a
place that has changed throughout history and our concept of how animals in a zoo should be treated
has changed as well. My favorite quote from the reading is "Indeed, it set itself up as neutral, objective,
panoramic and all knowing - as history's master subjectivity - when in reality it was a 'partial
perspective' that relied on various stages of denial, exclusion, spatial separation and stereotyping of
women, racialized peoples, non-human animals and 'nature' more generally." (Anderson, 277) In
modern times, humans view non-human animals as beings of lesser value. Many opinions are not based
on anytime spent trying to understand animals, but are based on fear, prejudice, and misunderstanding,
and from only a certain groups perspective; a mans and quite possibly, a white mans. A quote from "The
Lives of Animals" reiterates my point that perhaps most of us have no idea what goes on from a non-
human animals perspective. "I don't know what I think," says Elizabeth Costello." I often wonder what
thinking is, what understanding is. Do we really understand the universe better than animals do?
Understanding a thing often looks to me like playing with one of those Rubik cubes. Once you have
made all the little bricks snap into place, hey presto, you understand. It makes sense if you live inside a
Rubik cube, but if you don't..." (Coetzee, 45) An idea that I have argued is that just as we cannot truly
understand how our own species of individuals perceives reality, we cannot understand how a non-
human animal does as well simply because we are not that animal. We will always be limited to our
species perspective of the world and no other perspective.
I really like that quote from Kay Anderson as well. It brings to mind not just the injustices of animals but all of them and shows that this is a pattern and a system. In order to break this pattern there has to be a complete change in the system (just as Marx wants the working class to revolt). In our world change is very hard outside of systemic change.
ReplyDeleteThat quote from Anderson allows us to see the way space is never neutral, it is always political. Foucault is also at work showing us the way in which the form of architecture and space in general functions as an invisible, yet concrete and in plain site, entity through which power performs its work.
ReplyDeleteAt work in all of these essays is a close reading of "Rationalization" as itself impartial--and as you note--typically toward European and property-owning, white, male interest specifically. This is a crucial point and allows us to enter into discussions regarding knowledge production quite differently than before.
Coetzee's point, through Costello, is also has something to say about this. "Thinking" and "Understanding" the universe or animals might be questionable, but again it is not "knowing" that need be fetishized. We may closely connect to animals and the universe much stronger through other means over and beyond thinking, Costello wants to say. What are these other ways?