Human Exceptionalism
Brett Walker argues that humans should rejoin the animal kingdom, or at least admit that they could never leave a group with which they belong, and stop seeing themselves as superior to animals. He does this by examining the case of a young mining engineer, Carnegie, who was forcefully reintegrated into the natural realm when he was digested by a pack of wolves. Carnegie was no longer superior or separate from nature, but a part of it and in what is perhaps its purest form – energy. Oddly, at the same time Carnegie’s death reminds us that humans are a part of nature the wolves become part of our history. Some might say that the wolves were always part of our history but there presence here would not be noteworthy if the victim was not human. I think it is hard to view man as superior in the face of stories when nature reminds us that we are not at the top of the food chain, but rather “just another flavor of meat.” The tales of violent human interaction with animals seem to exhibit agency, by definition.
This leads to the interesting case of domesticated animals, dogs are the example Walker uses. When humans domesticated dogs they began the long process of conquering this animal and controlling its evolutionary fate. Humans have controlled dogs, breeding, behavior, eating habits, uses, etc. since the dog first came under our control. It’s interesting that Walker says dogs chose to become domesticated. I wonder how much of a choice the first dog had in its domestication? Did the animal choose to be subjugated or was he broken by the human? Walker believes that it worked out well for the first canines and contrasts their experience with the evolutionary track of the wolf. Clearly the dog has prospered and the wolf suffered, but it is difficult for me to see the choice, or agency, the animal acted upon. I also think that this is even more troubling with smaller organisms, like insects and microorganisms. If we use the same line of reasoning as Walker then don’t we have to give agency to viruses? This might be easier since humans have struggled to maintain their dominance over infectious diseases. Viruses are another reminder of how close we still are to nature/biology but it is hard to imagine a virus having agency, or is it?
David,
I think the aspect of the readings that stood out the most to me was the suggestion that an entity can have agency without having the type of intentionality that humans demonstrate. Instead, there are different types or distributions of agency, often working together in a system (such as the soldiers and the dogs on the Western Front), and in these systems or at these different levels of agency, the actors still impact history. The Walker discussion reminded me of many of the discussions that have taken class in my Environmental History classes–many of the actors in this subfield of history are nonhuman, whether diseases, natural disasters, or a tree falling in the forest. In some way, each of these entities have impacted the course of history, yet without rational determination. I think Pearson’s suggestion that there are multiple types of agency that make up the historical narrative is important for helping to broaden the field of history to include nonhuman actors.
I wonder about the domestication of cats, especially “working” cats like barn cats, etc. Were they voluntary in their adaptation to the human world? Did they really have a choice? I have a very hard time wrapping my head around animal agency, although I’d like to think I’m progressive and believe fully in it…. you brought up interesting points that challenged my thinking. I look forward to hearing what you have to say in class.
I just wonder…is a virus showing agency when it mutates? Or is it random genetic evolution? Or something else? Do some animals have agency and others don’t? When my goats kick me when I am trying to catch them, is that agency? Or when Rosie is busy barking at the coyotes in the back of our house and doesn’t come when I call her, is that agency?
I look forward to the discussion! 🙂
Perhaps different kinds of animals demonstrate different kinds of agency in different contexts? Of course dogs are the domestic animal everyone seems to wonder about the most. I think we lose sight of the nuances and the big picture when we see the evolution of the human-dog partnership as being a human-directed project — a kind of engineering feat. Or as an event, rather than a process. Wolves became dogs in a complicated dance with humans that affected us as much as it did them. In evolutionary terms dogs have been much more successful than wolves (just look at the numbers!), which might suggest that some kind of agency is at work, even if you don’t think it’s the kind of agency that involves “intent.”
Hi David,
Not knowing much about the domestication of dogs, I just kind of took Walker’s word for it that they partially domesticated themselves. You might already be aware of this, but cats fully domesticated themselves and in many senses are still wild due to not having been selectively bred the way that dogs have. Cats were “settlers of matters” while deciding to hang out in grain silos eating mice, and the farmers appreciated them for it.
Claire
Hey David,
I was glad to see that I was not the only one in the class that was wondering about animals and their agency or interaction with humans. This week’s reading were very eye opening, as I had never really looked at the theory that we were just animals ourselves, having evolved to our current place in the animal kingdom. I then started to think back on how animals have been utilized by humans for their ability to do certain things, i.e. chimpanzees in space, dolphins used by the US Navy, etc. Animals definitely deserve the recognition.
for humans to rejoin the animal kingdom would take another two more generations at least. http://www.appealslawgroup.com/