Circle of compassion rippling through universities by Ed Boks

The New York Times recently ran an article by James Gorman on the status of animals in universities across the United States.

Historically, academia relegated animals to the province of science. Rats were confined to psychology labs; cows to veterinary barns; monkeys to neuroscience labs; and preserved frogs to the dissecting tables of undergraduates. At the same time, the attention of liberal arts and social sciences was directed solely toward human interests.

No more. This spring Harvard is offering “Humans, Animals and Cyborgs,” while Dartmouth presents “Animals and Women in Western Literature” and New York University offers “Animals, People and Those in Between.”

These courses evidence a growing interest in animal studies. In fact, anything having to do with any connection between humans and animals in art, literature, sociology, anthropology, film, theater, philosophy, and religion is fair game for animal studies.

The Animals and Society Institute, itself only six years old, lists more than 100 animal studies courses in American universities. Institutes, book series and conferences are proliferating as formal academic programs emerge.

Wesleyan University, with the Animals and Society Institute, began a summer fellowship program this year. Michigan State now allows doctoral and master’s students in different fields to concentrate their work in animal studies. At least two institutions offer undergraduate majors, and New York University is allowing undergraduates to minor in animal studies.

Scholars never actually ignored animals. Thinkers and writers of all ages grappled with human/animal issues and the treatment of animals. However, the current burst of interest is unprecedented.

Jane Desmond of the University of Illinois, a cultural anthropologist, says public sensitivities are largely responsible for all the animal attention.

The trend may be traced back to Jane Goodall, who first showed us the social and emotional side of chimpanzees in a way we could not ignore. Most recently the popular YouTube video of a New Caledonian crow bending a wire into a tool to fish food out of a container caused academics to wonder how old a child would have to be to figure that out.

The most direct influence may have come from philosophy. Peter Singer’s 1975 book “Animal Liberation” was a landmark in arguing against killing, eating and experimenting on animals. He questioned how humans could justify causing animals pain.

Lori Gruen, head of philosophy and coordinator of the summer fellowship program in animal studies at Wesleyan, said, “Thirty years ago animals were at the margins of philosophical discussions; now animals are in the center of ethical discussion.”

Another strain of philosophy, exemplified by the French writer Jacques Derrida, has had an equally strong influence. He considered the way we think of animals, and why we distance ourselves from them. In “The Animal that Therefore I Am,” he discusses not only what he thinks of his cat, but what his cat thinks of him.

What animals think is something scholars are taking more seriously. Referring to academic programs that focused on disenfranchised populations like women or African-Americans, Dr. Weil of Wesleyan said, “Unlike (those populations, animals) can’t speak or write in language the academy recognizes.” This communication deficit lent itself to academics raising moral arguments on behalf of the animals.

The great variety of subjects, methods, interests and assumptions in animal studies raises serious questions about how it all hangs together. Law schools have courses in animals and the law; veterinary schools have courses about the human connection to animals; and some courses use animals in therapy as part of animal studies.

None of this diversity diminishes the excitement in what’s going on, although there are some academics within the animal studies rubric who think the scholarly ferment has a long way to go before it can truly consider itself an academic field.

One thing the new interest in animal studies does not lack is energy. If you want to better understand what all the scholarly excitement is about visit your local shelter for your homework assignment and adopt a pet today.

The elephant in the room… by Ed Boks

This weekend Los Angeles played host to British artist Bansky’s exhibit “Barely Legal”, that included a live elephant painted to blend into the wallpaper of a living room. The exhibit seems an apt metaphor for the awakening consciousness of Angelinos. LA is a community with arguably the most vocal animal rights activists, a strong public and politically supported “no-kill” initiative in our city shelters, an unprecedented Anti-Animal Cruelty Task Force comprised of Police and Animal Care Officers and City Attorneys, and internationally known celebrities who care enough about animal suffering to use their celebrity to speak on behalf of the voiceless.

As a community we are concerned about pet rabbits fed to snakes, dogs on chains, parakeets sold on Santee Alley, the fate of feral cats, and how animals are treated in the movies. But beyond all the conversations, discussions, protests, policy statements, rules, and laws there remains an elephant in the living room that nobody seems to see.

Until this weekend! Looking into Tai’s eyes, I could not help but think of Jeffrey Masson’s book “When Elephants Weep”. Looking into her eyes nearly brought me to tears. Dozens of people came up to ask me, “Is this right?” Somehow we seemed to know intrinsically that what we came to see was wrong, perhaps even profane.

It was as though there were two groups of people in the room. One group could not see past Tai, the other saw into her soul. George Bernard Shaw once said, “The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That’s the essence of inhumanity.” There was an elephant in the living room and most of us could not see her. We saw an oddity, a freak or clever expression of “art”, but we failed to see the very essence of our inhumanity manifested through our indifference.

In 1780 another Brit, an attorney by the name of Jeremy Benthem, wrote a book entitled, “An Introduction to the Principle of Morals and Legislation.” In his book there is what many consider the most quoted footnote of all time: “The question is not, can they reason? Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?

That was an original question in 1780 when scientists and clergy alike truly felt animals could not suffer as humans do. To answer that question today you only had to look into Tai’s eyes. Animals are a test of our character. How we treat them is the measure of our humanity as a community, and there is no greater sin than to be indifferent.

Los Angeles is a city that has made many people wealthy through the exploitation of animals. We see wild and exotic animals everywhere: in the movies, commercials, TV shows, billboards, ads, art exhibits, and even in the homes and yards of the rich and famous. Dare we admit there is a suffering elephant in our living room? Will we have the courage to ask if our indifference is causing animals to suffer? Can we talk and reason together about how to end animal suffering? Because if we don’t, the elephant won’t suffer alone, we will all surely suffer the loss of some part of our humanity.