Folks in Sheep's Clothing
A University of Melbourne Final Essay Assignment
Under the Freshman subject "Anthropology: Studying Human Diversity
Topic: "Animals are good for thinking. Discuss."
Passed with High Distinction (H1)
============ ============ ============
By Benjamin L** C.Y., written during Semester 2, 2010
Introduction
Animals are good for thinking because they act as simple, symbolic representations of complex issues. They are used as metonymic devices that people use to define and express their thoughts on an issue. This usually occurs through anthropomorphosis, where animals are given human-like traits despite a lack of sufficient evidence for such a ‘personification’ (Horowitz, 2007). These animals are either imbued with desirable traits that humans would like to possess (Eason, 2008, p. viii-ix) or, conversely, come to represent human vices.
We will examine various case studies that explore:
(1) The process of anthropomorphosis
(2) Its use as a metonymic identity marker
(3) How these can reflect a social conflict and become embroiled in it
(4) How animalisation can be an effective alternative to anthropomorphosis.
[MT1]By analysing these case studies, this essay argues that the symbolism attached to animals is nothing more than human ‘folks in sheep’s clothing’. Animal symbols merely function as metaphorical representations of people’s cherished values and/or social identity.[MT2]
Anthropomorphosis involves the value-laden interpretation [MT4]of animal behaviour. Animal behaviour per se is a factual empirical observation and anthropomorphosis only occurs when humans attribute these behaviours to animal agency and appraise its virtues or vices. This implies that anthropomorphosis creates a distinct ‘creature’ out of the animal that inspired it in a way that reflects human values.
The anthropomorphosis of ‘Balto-the-dog’ into ‘Balto-the-statue’ illustrates this point. In 1925, Balto was part of a sled dog team delivered a serum through harsh tundra conditions (New York City Department of Parks & Recreation, 2001) and saved the Alaskan town of Nome from a diphtheria epidemic. When the story reached the New York Airedale [terrier] club, the club decided to finance the creation of Balto’s statue and placed it New York Central Park. A frieze below the statue dedicated it to the “indomitable spirit of the sled dogs” who delivered the serum “across treacherous waters through arctic blizzards”, ending with the adjectives “Endurance, Fidelity, Intelligence” (Kean, 2009). Its tone and content clearly praises canine heroism.
However, this is an erroneous travesty. Firstly, it describes “sled dogs” while disregarding the sled drivers, suggesting a reading where the dogs have “intelligence” and agency while the drivers’ role is secondary. Secondly, the single image of Balto contradicts the plural description of “sled dogs” (ibid.). This shows that the creation of Balto’s statue as a metonym for the whole event was, in fact, a human creation inspired from the raw material of facts, which then acquired a pseudo-mythological form that is independent of the event and its parties. [MT5]Such a view is further supported by the sled dogs’ (and Balto’s) subsequent mistreatment in a “dime museum” (Meyer, 1998).
Balto’s case suggests that humans are less interested in the actual animal and more focused on the qualities they can plausibly attribute to them – in this case, Balto’s ‘heroism’. The Airedale club has ‘hijacked’ Balto’s image and performed an anthropomorphosis that reflects the club’s positive view of dogs while disproportionately highlighting the role of canine ‘heroism’ over other factors in the Nome delivery (Kean, 2009). One could reasonably say that the statue actually represents ‘humans in Balto’s clothing’.
2. Metonyms & Identity – Imaginary lion trounces real squirrel
The anthropomorphised representation of human agendas is also evident in the use of animals as political totems. Just as Balto expressed the Airedale club’s attitudes towards canines, the Lion has been used to define the territory, identity and aspirations of independent Singapore. [MT6]To differentiate between the lion as an animal and the Lion as a national symbol, the latter is capitalised.
The Lion first represents Singapore as a nation-state by acting as a metonymic image for its purported historical origins. According to the Sejarah Melayu (Malay Annals), the Srivijayan Prince Sang Nila Utama supposedly saw a lion when he landed on the island during the pre-colonial period. Based on this sighting, he decided to name the island Singapura where ‘Singa’ means ‘lion’ and ‘pura’ means ‘city’ (Cornelius-Takahama, 1999). ‘Singapura’ was then anglicised into ‘Singapore’ when Sir Stamford Raffles colonised the island, after which the modern Republic of Singapore eventually inherited this name and territory.
The lion’s role in this legend is highly suspicious – because lions never existed in Singapore (Rae, 2007). Instead, the Lion as a symbolic totem invented by the Ministry of Communications and Information as it sought to find an image that exemplifies “the characteristics of Singapore's reputation as a Lion City… and represents the human values of “courage, strength and excellence” while the lion’s mane’s five partings represent Singapore’s 5 ideals of “democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality” (Mohamed, 1997). In this form, the lion as animal became anthropomorphized into the Lion as symbol, which the nascent government then used as a focal point for national loyalty (Rae, 2007).
The fact that the Lion was an invention did not detract from its popular success. In The Straits Times, Singapore’s largest newspaper, a suggestion that an indigenous squirrel would be a more appropriate national symbol met with the following rebuff:
I am sure Sang Nila Utama saw plenty of plantain squirrels upon his arrival… I am confident that the majority of Singaporeans would prefer a national animal that conjures an image of majesty, strength and pride, over a jittery rodent that calls to mind cuteness and fecundity… we are all lions at heart. (Tang, 2005 in ibid.)
This suggests that Singaporeans are more concerned about the human qualities that can be plausibly attributed to a lion rather than the animal’s actual existence. [MT7]In this sense, the country’s reputation as an “Asian [economic] Tiger” (Barro, 1998) rather than a lion city, the Lion’s lack of historical validity, and the presence of more appropriate indigenous animals for national self-definition are irrelevant – the Lion was still accepted as a symbolic ‘totem’ that represents Singapore. Being a ‘human in Lion’s clothing’ is their way expressing their identity and aspirations.
3. Totem Battlefield – Contesting a totem’s value
Since animals can become symbolic ‘totems’ that embody values and identity, it is no surprise that totems can also function as a platform for people to articulate opposing viewpoints. Conflicts of value between opposing camps may involve a disagreement about the status of an animal totem. This effectively turns the totem into a ‘moral battlefield’ between belligerents with “widely differing socio-economic and symbol systems” (Peterson, 1993).
The totem’s function as a moral battlefield is shown in the conflict between whalers and anti-whaling environmentalists. Various cetaceans have qualities that parallel our own, such as the gray whale’s ‘friendliness’ and the humpback’s ‘singing’. The environmentalists have combined these desirable characteristics under the image of ‘the whale’, which belies the fact that no single cetacean possesses all of these characteristics (Kalland, 1993b). This anthropomorphosis has turned the whale into a fictitious, pseudo-human ‘super-whale’ that invokes a sense of human empathy. Those who feel this was way and identify with the ‘super-whale’ totem form the “nature-loving” faction of anti-whalers who stand dichotomously opposed to the “blood-thirsty” whalers (Kalland, 1993a).
On the other hand, whalers resent such violations against their customary right to exploit marine resources. In response to the anti-whalers’ anthropomorphic elevation of the whale’s status, whalers and whaling nations have come to view whaling as an expression of sovereignty and autonomy (ibid.). For example, Norwegian whalers, have come to view whaling as an expression of their rights over local resources while coastal whalers in Japan and Iceland have come to view the consumption of whale meat as the symbolic desecration of the ‘enemy’s’ totem. In contrast to the environmentalists, the whalers view the whale as their commodity and its exploitation doubles as an expression of their autonomy.
The crux of the issue lies in what the whale means as a symbol – a normative valuation relative to a specific cultures – rather than what the whale is as an animal – a positive fact. By using the symbol of the whale to articulate their respective value systems, the conflict over what the whale symbol means has come to reflect a larger conflict about the moral status of whaling.[MT8]
4. ‘Animalisation’ – Metaphorical meaning without anthropomorphosis
Despite the pervasiveness of anthropomorphosis in constructing symbols, it is not the only way to create meaning with animals. Another common method involves likening humans to animals: Instead of the animals ‘taking on’ human traits, the human (or other object) take on animal traits. We will explore how animalisation occurs and study an example of its use.
While anthropomorphosis involves the plausible reading of human traits into non-human animals, animalisation does the opposite: it involves plausibly reading animal traits into humans or human objects. The latter is explicitly present in the naming of Jaguar Cars Limited. William Lyons, the founder of Jaguar automobiles, sought to find a name that would reflect the “speed, sleekness and raw power” of his cars and settled on the name ‘Jaguar’ in 1935 (Jaguar Cars Limited Australia, 2010). These vehicles purportedly embodied “feline grace and elegance, combining docility with remarkable power and agility” (Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust, 2010). Whereas anthropomorphosis attaches human traits to animals, the animalisation of Jaguar cars attaches the animal’s traits to human products as a metaphorical representation of the cars’ merits.
In a manner similar to how the aforementioned ‘super-whale’ was used, animalisation can also be used to convey opinions and define issues of social concern. For example, the character of Iago in Shakespeare’s play Othello highlights the racial incongruence and immorality of an illicit marriage between Othello, an African Moor, and Desdemona, the daughter of the Venetian nobleman Brabantio. Iago informs Brabantio of the affair using the animalised analogy: “an old black ram is tupping [copulating with] your white ewe” (Act I., Scene i., Line 88-89). The communicative and literary function of this phrase lies in the contrasting connotations associated with black and white while its negative moral meaning rests with the immoral, animalistic behaviour of Othello and Desdemona (Adler, 1974). In the text’s setting of xenophobic Venice during the 17th Century, black refers to a Moor or Negro (“the black Othello”, II. ii. 29), the proverbial black sheep (African Othello in Italy’s Venice), contrasted with the white European Desdemona (“that whiter skin of hers than snow”, V. ii.4) (ibid.). These multi-layered racial and moral meanings in the contrast of black and white reinforce the immorality expressed in the animal imagery of sheep – “ram” and “ewe” – as animalistic behaviour in a Shakespearean context refers to savage sensuality (Shannon, 2009). It can thus be seen that an analogy has been drawn between the Othello-Desdemona union and copulating sheep of different colours: the copulation between a “black ram” and “white ewe” alludes to their racial disparity while reducing Othello and Desdemona to mere animals alludes to their lack of moral temperance over their sensual instincts. [MT9]They have been symbolically animalised to express the conventions and moral beliefs of 17th Century Venice in Shakespeare’s Othello.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has argued that animals are metaphorically used as public representations of people’s cherished values and/or social identity. This is usually done through anthropomorphosis where human traits are attached to animals (Horowitz, 2007). In turn, the anthropomorphised animals function as symbols of humans’ values and identity. As with Balto’s statue and Singapore’s Lion, the factuality of the event or animal(s) in question is not the central focus. Instead, people are only interested in the qualities that they can plausibly attribute to their animal ‘totem’ and, therefore, its ability to function as a symbol of their beliefs. Kalland’s (1993a & 1993b) study on the anti-whaling controversy demonstrates how this can be applied: a fictitious ‘super-whale’ is used to dichotomously identify and represent the anti-whalers vis-à-vis the whalers. This anthropomorphised ‘super-whale’ symbol then becomes a moral battlefield that becomes embroiled in a larger war of values about the moral status of whaling.
Animalisation is a less common, but equally effective way, to use animals for metaphorical expression and communication. Whereas anthropomorphosis attributes human traits to animals, animalisation attributes animal qualities to humans or human objects. As shown in the case of Jaguar Cars Limited and Shakespeare’s Othello, humans ascribe animal properties to humans or human crafts in order to capture a set of qualities or values in a single image – be it a powerful predator or copulating sheep. Both anthropomorphosis and animalisation use animals to economically encapsulate and communicate ideas, identities and meanings in a manner that reflects human attitudes. They paint a ‘picture’ of meaning that makes it simpler and easier to think about potentially complex issues. Just as a ‘picture paints a thousand words’, animals are good to think with because we can use them to capture a ‘thousand’ ideas.
References – Harvard citation format
Adler, D. 1974, 'The rhetoric of black and white in Othello', Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 149-150, viewed 27 October 2009, .
Barro, R.J. 1998, 'The east Asian tigers have plenty to roar about', Business Week, 27 April, 24, viewed 30 October 2010, .
Cornelius-Takahama, V. 1999, Sang Nila Utama, National library board Singapore, viewed 30 October 2010, .
Eason, C. 2008, Fabulous creatures, mythical monsters, and animal power symbols: a hankdbook, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
Meyer, E.A. 1998, Balto, Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, viewed 29 October 2010, .
Horowitz, A. 2007, 'Anthropomorphism', in M. Bekoff (ed.), Encyclopedia of human-animal relationships, Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport CT, pp. 60-66. .
Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust, 2010, The Jaguar story 1935-38 part 1, Jaguar Daimler Heritage Trust, viewed 29 October 2010, .
Jaguar Cars Limited, 2010, Heritage, Jaguar Cars Limited, viewed 29 October 2010, .
Kalland , A. 1993a, 'Whale politics and green legitimacy', Anthropology Today, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 3-7, viewed 26 October 2010, .
Kalland, A. 1993b, 'Whale totemization', Arctic, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 124-133, viewed 31 October 2010, .
Kean, H. 2009, 'Balto, the Alaskan dog and his statue in New York's central park', International journal of heritage studies, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 413-430, viewed on 29 October 2010, .
Mohamed, Z. 1997, Lion head symbol, National library board Singapore, viewed 30 October 2010, .
New York City Department of Parks & Recreation 2001, Balto, New York City Department of Parks & Recreation website, viewed 29 October 2010, .
Peterson, J.H. Jr. 1993, 'Epilogue: Whales and elephants as cultural symbols', Arctic, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 172-174, viewed 31 October 2010, .
Rae, P. 2007, 'Cat's entertainment', The Drama Review, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 119-137, viewed 30 October 2010, .
Shannon, L. 2009, 'The eight animals in Shakespeare; or, before the human', PMLA, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 472-479, viewed 21 October 2010, .
===== END OF ESSAY =====
[Examiner's Comments]
Benjamin,
This was a very good essay. You use very interesting examples to support your argument. You integrate your sources well into the body of your essay and provide insightful conclusions from your analysis. A few minor referencing and expression criticisms, but these are minor. Remember to try and not use too much jargon and academic language. You don’t want to sound too florid. But well done.
H1
[MT1]By “we” just use “I”.
Try not to dot point or list in your essay. Better incorporate this into the body of your text.
Posts
