“Not all who wander are lost” - J.R.R. Tolkien P1

“Not all who wander are lost” - J.R.R. Tolkien

It all started with the stealing of the worms. One summer, about fifteen years ago, my grandparents lived on Lake Conroe, and fishing was a mutually adored past time amongst adults and children alike. Lynne, the eldest of eventually twelve cousins, mysteriously disappeared while the rest of us were setting up our rods. When it came time to bait the hooks— the worms were nowhere to be found, but Lynne was. She was in the neighbor’s yard, putting the worms back in the earth thus saving them from a sure demise. And she’s been like that ever since.

Lynne dutifully continues to rescue those she can help. When we were younger, she saved all the miniature frogs in my hot tub, and the June bugs from drowning in the pool drain. I didn’t understand why we had to waste precious playtime on such trivial things. Another such instance took place when a blue bird crashed into the window of her apartment. She took it upon herself to nurse the bird back to health, and received the satisfaction of releasing it back into the wild after it recovered. Another instance involved the man-made lake behind her parent’s house. Naturally, Lynne took notice of the animals occupying it. She would feed the ducks daily, routinely, everyday before school, until one day she noticed that the number of ducks seemed to be slimming. So she decided to find out why. Eventually discovering that the culprits, for the disappearing ducks, were hungry snapping turtles she contacted the neighborhood in search of a solution. Within a few weeks of constant harassment, the neighborhood responded by separating the turtles from the ducks. She proactively saved them both.

Based on her track record for saving animals, it was only natural that eventually she would save or adopt pets of her own. Lynne says that she chose to save Kingston and Cosmo because she had the opportunity to offer the chance of a better life, without suffering, and without the risk of being put to sleep. She found Kingston on Craigslist, posted by a family ill equipped to handle a dog, and unwilling to put in the effort to fix it. So the family just left him outside so he would not shed in the house before finally putting him up for adoption. Lynne read the bio, saw the handsome face of the miniature golden retriever, and decided she could and would change his life for the better. Cosmo on the other hand, found Lynne. The cat was living on the street as a stray, and after Lynne spent days searching for her rightful owner, but never found it. Not normally a cat person, but an animal lover of all kinds, she took the cat into her home as a new member of the family.

Certain traits, expressed in the anecdotes above, set Lynne apart as a person and as a leader. She has an incredibly high moral standard, has an endless imagination, and has a positive, optimistic outlook on life and on those less fortunate. She is motivating, inspiring, helpful, encouraging, responsible, passionate, and selfless. She embraces change as a necessity, and isn’t too stifled by hubris to know when she needs to ask for help. Her patience, awareness, and sympathy towards others originated from her innately ability to listen, really listen. Listening attentively to those who speak: she exhibits a genuine interest in what people have to say. She reserves judgment, and resists the inclination to interrupt, so to truly hear what is being said. Active listening, along with her other expressed traits, plays a vital role in her recently founded business.

Lynne has volunteered with different special-need organizations since she was sixteen years old. She has worked with children with special needs in a variety of different environments including hospitals, inclusive classrooms, as well as pediatric therapy clinics. Last year, at twenty-three years old, she acquired the sufficient resources and qualifications to start her own program for special-need kids. Her fearless expression of love and passionate drive to care and nourish others began to spark interest within the community. She began to embrace and channel her sympathetic imagination into innovative ways to help disabled kids. Sympathetic imagination is the ability of a person to penetrate the barrier which space puts between him and his object, and, by actually entering into the object, so to speak, to secure a momentary but complete identification with it. [1] Thus, she created S t r e a t c h (website here), a unique program to help children with and without special needs. It creates an inclusive environment that enables children to enjoy a fun, social, and physical activity while gaining a greater sense of body control and awareness through yoga. Her mission is to stretch the body, mind, and imagination to help reach each individuals potential. [2] Through yoga, she teaches the children techniques to control their self-stimulating or hyperactive behavior, and to foster focus and concentration, thus creating a more confident, successful, and self-sufficient child.

There is an inarguable correlation between Lynne’s initial compassion for animals, and her more recently developed compassion for special-needs children. Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man. [3] She says that both share similar characteristics, and thus need special care. She devotes her life to both because she has the ability to create new techniques to make them feel special in a world that has overlooked or neglected them. Both special needs children and animals, if left without help, are often voiceless, defenseless, helpless, and vulnerable. Lynne recognizes the obstacles they face daily, and takes it upon herself to ease such problems. She truly uses her power, gained from leadership, for good, and to transform lives and benefit society. [4]

Lynne’s leadership ability and approach is undeniably effective. Her ability to sense how others feel, and to understand their perspectives, has helped her articulate a truly authentic and inspirational vision. She utilizes her emotional intellect daily, as gifted leadership occurs where heart and head—feeling and thought—meet. [5] She possesses all four domains of emotional intelligence required for resonance leadership: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. Also, she achieves the main tasks [required] of a leader… to generate excitement, optimism, and passion for the job ahead, as well as to cultivate an atmosphere of cooperation and trust. [6] Her spiritual intelligence represents her drive for meaning and her connection with the infinite. Lynne, as an emotionally intell[ectual] leader builds resonance by tuning into people’s feelings—[her] own and others— and guiding them in the right direction. [7] No matter where life takes her, she wants to continue the yoga classes, stating how she could never give up on her students because she forms inexplicable bonds with them.

The lake in her parent's backyard (2006)

Even though we both share an extreme affinity for animals of all kinds, Lynne has always been a sort of conundrum to me because of our vast differences. Her endless capacity to love others, paired with her selflessness, simply baffles my Darwinian life outlook. She is my role model because she consistently lives her life for others, admirably sacrificing trivialities in life that others might become encompassed with. I admire her as an enigma to most societal members, as she is not afraid to feel or express emotion, whereas I try to bury my emotion and focus on my mental intelligence or IQ. The theory of emotional intelligence is destabilizing to people [like me] who have anchored their strategy for success [narrowly] on sheer mental intelligence or IQ—the ability to reason, analyze, think abstractly, use language, visualize, and comprehend. [8] Unlike my expressed emotion impoverished self, she freely embraces her emotions and utilizes them to spark change. [Her] emotions are, in a very real sense, more powerful than [my] intellect, [9] in degree and effective leadership ability. Also, she embraces risks head on to further her vision. She is much braver than I. She patiently works at finding solutions to make life for others a bit more bearable. She is not disillusioned, knowing she can’t change the world, but rather uses this knowledge to focus more arduously on the things she can change, a few at a time. 

---------------------------------------

[1] Walter Jackson Bate “The Sympathetic Imagination in Eighteenth-Century English Criticism” (ELH Vol.12, June 1945) p.144-164

[2] http://Streatchitall.com

[3] Arthur Schopenhauer “The Basis of Morality” http://www.ivu.org/history/europe19b/schopenhauer_basis_of_morality.pdf

[4] University of Texas Core Purpose

[5] Daniel Goleman et al, “Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence (Harvard, 2002) p. 322

[6] Ibid. p. 324

[7] Ibid. p. 322

[8] Ibid. p. 87

[9] Ibid. p. 322

Animal Poetics

Animals play an important part in society and culture, thus such becomes apparent throughout art as outlets of emotion. Animals can be used to symbolize all sorts of things, but in particular, animals may represent the personality of a character. This is because as humans and animals co-exist in the same atmosphere, certain aspects of a character reveal themselves in the compassion or even hatred towards the animal. “Animals [also] stand for human qualities: the lion for courage, the owl for wisdom, and so forth (Coetzee, 95).” Furthermore, since animals are often known to trigger the interests of humans, the attitude of the humans towards the animals contributes much to character revelation. "Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man (Arthur Schopenhauer, German Philosopher).” The simple mention of an animal, a pet, or a farm animal, or an exotic underwater creature, changes the entire depth of, for example, a poem or a painting. Mentioning a puppy instantly brings up thoughts of happiness and love.

Just as Mighty Meg mentioned during her leadership, viewing certain animals evokes a certain range of emotions. Coetzee speaks of “two varieties of animal lovers, hunters who value animals at a very elementary, unreflective level…and people who have little contact with animals yet want all animals to lead a utopian life in which everyone is miraculously fed and no one preys on anyone (110).” It is interesting to define a hunter as a type of animal lover, but it is entirely valid. If hunters “look [the animal] in the eyes before [they] kill him, and thank him afterwards (Coetzee, 95),” they take full advantage of an unfortunate loss of life.

Within the reading, several passages are written from an animals’ point of view, humanizing such experiences. Like zoo animals could be compared to jail prisoners, or pets to servants. Just something general enough to be relatable to both groups instantaneously. For example, zoo animals parallel to those on death row…“[they] [don’t] want freedom. Only a way out—to the right or left or anywhere at all (Kafka, 523).” The animals seem tired, worn down, and powerless. “His tired gaze— from passing endless bars—has turned into a vacant stare which nothing holds (Flemming, 528).” Another caged animal, Jaguar, suffers because “his head is like the worn down stump of another whole jaguar (Hughes, 532).” These shared sufferings, commiserations if you will, are expressed through poetry, through song, through art because such things are driven by pure emotion rather than reason. "His own opinion, which he does not air, is that the origin of speech lie in song, and the origins of song in the need to fill out with sound the overlarge and rather empty human soul. (Coetzee, Disgrace)." 

Dogs are more humane than humans

The problem with the English language is essential in considering the analogy between animal suffering and human suffering. There is such poverty of the English language! It is impoverished of emotional words and loaded with technical words. When comparing animal and human suffering; one tends to equate the two by focusing on the similarities and ignoring the differences. Equal to what? Singer explains, "when I say that all animals- all sentiment creatures- are equal, I mean that they are entitled to equal consideration of their interests, whatever those interests may be (501)." So animals and humans cannot be rightfully equated, but still their suffering is..."Pain is pain,  no matter what species of the being feels it (Singer, 501)." Is it possible to ignore parts of the analogy and still somehow validate it? Garber writes about the problems with language in terms of analogies and metaphors, and their function in moral and ethical questions. She speaks of a "false metaphor"- an argument that speaks directly to the use and abuse of literature and literary analysis in culture (Garber, 499)." For example, "if the Jews were treated like cattle, it does not follow that cattle are treated like Jews. The inversion insults the memory of the dead (Garber, 498)."

Another problem with language is the prospect of being a vegetarian. There are so many different types, some say if you eat fish you cannot be considered a vegetarian, or if you sometimes eat chicken... The English language restricts the naming of such types of people. Can you be a vegetarian or be a carnivore and still have a strong position supporting animal rights? Are those two correlated? 

What makes this book diverting is that while the protagonist is a self-proclaimed vegetarian, the story is told through the perspective of her meat-eating son. The Lives of Animals in Elizabeth Costello, captured many different persuasive arguments met with resistance. The rights of animals is thoroughly explored through a certain point of view, but I feel that the chapter had a gaping flaw. It failed to grasp, what I feel, seems like the central theme of alienation between the two sides. Is the division so deep that neither education nor societal teachings can bridge the gap? "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age (Aristotle)," so shouldn't the aging Costello be able to offer some suggestions? 

"The people who lived in the countryside around Treblinka...said that they did not know what was going on in the camp (Costello, 63), some "have no opinions one way or the other (Costello, 61)." Apathy towards human suffering is analogized with the suffering of animal slaughter. I have discussed the innate problem with equating the two above, and in previous blogs concerning the parallels between the two. Do I think that if the Poles actually did know what was happening, if Roosevelt let the SS St. Louis come into Florida, if anyone had stood up to Hitler, would anything have changed? Or is that even possible? The Jews were strangers to the inhabitants surrounding Treblinka, and like Eric said in class in reference to the hero dog saving the dog hit on the highway in Chile, would humans do the same for a fellow human, humanely?  

The Empty Space from pet dogs past

The story, Blue and Some Other Dogs is completely relatable to my life and to most other dog lovers I would venture to say. It is the real life story of love and loss, but I didn't get the feeling that the owner of Blue necessarily thought the painful loss was worth the years of love because "[he] do[esn't] believe [he] want[s] to face so big a dose of that sort of emptiness again (Graves, 424)." I think that it is always worth it because "love is never lost. If not reciprocated, it will flow back and soften and purify the heart (Washington Irving)." Losing a dog is like losing a family member, but sooner and inexplicably because "dogs are [not] nothing but dogs (Graves, 450)." It seems a sin that dogs live such short lives, as "there is love of course. And then there's life, its enemy (Jean Anouilh)." We want our pets to be everlasting and we love them as such. We, animal lovers, treat our pets as part of our family. We treat them as if they understand what we say and what we feel, and are able to sympathize along with us "at least in [their] own way (Graves, 441)."

"He was weak, he had not ever owned a dog before (Bass, 454)." Above is an illustration concerning the historical nature of mankind befriending caninekind, in reference to Argos in Homer's Odysseus. Argos, Odysseus's dog, waited twenty years for his master to return home to him. Leadership is often accompanied by such a pal, presidential pups are steeped in their own political history. Examples including: Pete, President Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Terrier, who was so aggressive that he was eventually kicked out of the White House and Checkers, President Richard Nixon's Cocker Spaniel, who was gifted to the then Senator’s family and was the center of a financial controversy. Dogs offer a sort of undying loyalty and companionship that can't be substituted or even easily explained. We offer love to each other, dogs can save people and people can save dogs. "All of these things are life. All of these things are a gift to us, and from us back to [them] (Bass, 460)."

Unable are the Loved to die

For Love is Immortality,

Nay, it is Deity --

Unable they that love -- to die

For Love reforms Vitality

Into Divinity.

-Emily Dickinson 

From every poem in the assigned reading and every story, children are mentioned in reference to the ultimate good. Children are considered the chance to change the future for the better. "A child has a voice to tell its wrong (Saunders 483)." Who do adults think they are to abuse a "poor dumb beast (Saunders, 480)?" The story of Beautiful Joe (considered a sort of response to Black Beauty) depicted this swimmingly as the dog "has seen few cruel children (Saunders, 479)." Joe shows symptathy towards animals of other species as well as compassion. It is ironically written from the dog perspective, because some don't consider animals to rank with humans. This story should prove those people wrong, by debasing such a statement through a dog's eyes because such an idea can't be proven wrong. Joe's family equates animal abuse to domestic abuse, as if a precursor for the other. "We're thinking too much about educating the mind, and forgetting about the heart and soul (Saunders, 493)." This is where children step in, and love the "poor, miserable, broken down creatures (Saunders, 479)."

Fear of Feeling

First lines in the movie Crash: "It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something."

This quest for feeling is hindered by fear. Fear of actually being invested in something and thus being vulnerable. Fear of really feeling something. Why are we so scared to do so? Because "apathy prevails over caring [and] we lack the imagination needed to reckon with evil, and it is hard to even imagine evil (Adams,368)," and since "the basis of morality is imagination (Albert Einstein)" being apathetic is inhuman... but still safer. Easier. Apathy is easily achieved through conditioned indifference, lacking interest or concern to make denial easier later. So that in hindsight we can guiltlessly ask ourselves, "how could we have let that happen (Adams, 367)?" Ignorance makes genocide possible, as "attention to individual suffering and to the political economic systems causing the suffering (Adams, 358)" is impossible to achieve if apathetic. Attentiveness is mandatory to facilitate change of any kind. Society has major influence to continue this apathy for some national interest, so "ideological systems [continue to] screen humans from animals harm and suffering by offering rationalizations that legitimize those harms (Adams, 358)," but this is so crucial for humanity to change as such genocide cannot be "explained away (Adams, 368)."This objectifying mindset inevitably leads to loss of awareness of feeling and/or feelings of any kind. The excuses for maintaining apathy seem foolish and cowardly. People rationalize their choice of not utilizing their feelings because "knowledge [can be] so overwhelming," and that it might be "futile to care (Adams, 368)," when in actuality they are simply afraid and caught up in the "war against compassion (Adams, 368)." On the other hand, some people who do act sympathetic and utilize their emotions seem a bit unreasonable at times. Feelings aren't normally rational anyways.

The Playboy bunny degrades women to animal status, which is inarguably belittling because the socially accepted hierarchy puts humans before animals. Being compared to such an animal is rendering some women insignificant futile creatures. I don't agree that animals should be considered equal to humans, but I do think that they don't deserve to suffer. Not all oppression is the same. Not all genocide is comparable. The eco-feminists skew the meaning of morality and compassion as something unobtainable to others (men mostly). I think that the introduction to The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics leaves out a crucial point that it is a natural maternal tendency to rely more on emotions. Women are genetically made this way because women have babies, and to continue humankind at least one sex must raise children. I don't think that all of their arguments are unreasonable or foundationless, I just think that it is a bit of a stretch.

Lastly, in relation to animals suffering in slaughterhouses like we witnessed in Earthlings, today in my Politics of Food class a guest speaker addressed an opposing view of animal treatment. Doug Fairland spoke of how he actually doesn't know of any other animal breeders or slaughterhouse owners who actually unreasonably oppress their animals. He made many valid points, and now after seeing both sides of the spectrum I am a bit confused. I do think that animals are "instrumental to human interests (Donovan, 378)," but I don't believe that morally we should allow animals to suffer for such interests. My rationalizations are competing with my emotions about this subject. I, like Kant, "seem to imagine that emotional experience necessarily obliterates rational thinking (Donovan, 379)." I know that this contradicts what we learned about the necessity of emotional intelligence, but I am having a hard time figuring out how to approach this subject with cooperation from my brain and my heart.  “Just as your car runs more smoothly and requires less energy to go faster and farther when the wheels are in perfect alignment, you perform better when your thoughts, feelings, emotions, goals, and values are in balance (Brian Tracy, author).”
I am imbalanced because of this sudden influx of viewpoints and information.

A smart leader with no emotions is no leader at all

I am finally starting to realize the power of emotional intelligence. Emotional intellect is crucial for survival as well as leadership. "Our emotions are, in a very real sense, more powerful than our intellect (Goleman, 322)." This surprised me because most people advocate leaving emotions outside of the workplace. Our thinking brain and limbic brain have cooperated relatively smoothly when faced with past physical threats. Now, with complex social realities, we must heighten our awareness and reprogram our "brain [solely] designed for surviving physical emergencies (Goleman, 323)."

Let us take a look at Michael Scott, self proclaimed "World's Best Boss" in the show The Office. He definitely generates excitement, optimism, and passion in the work place. He tries to be involved in the work process and in his staff's lives. He has a huge sense of empathy, always able to listen and take others perspectives in order to conflict manage and lead day by day. Michael is also extremely transparent, clear, and direct even when he wants to be verbose and mysterious. But, as the EI domains are permanently and biologically intertwined, I can not agree with Michael being the best boss. He lacks a crucial domain: Self-management. He has trouble managing his impulses, handling many things with little stress, and also he gets too nosey with the personal lives of his staff. These skills, or lack-thereof in this instance, demonstrate the intense degree of connectivity between domains. Michael also might not be the most intelligent of the bunch, but his emotional intelligence mostly makes up for that (remembering that this is a TV sitcom meant for comedic release).

Dear Obama, "Distributing knowledge is the secret to success (Goleman 325)." Just FYI... Clearly showing compassion fatigue (and many other negative attributes) "apathy or indifference towards the suffering of others or to charitable causes acting on their behalf (OED, 343)," towards issues that are constantly debated and thus exceedingly prevalent to our society. AKA EDUCATION.

This reading has left me questioning... How much empathy is too much? How much sympathy is too much? Do the EI domains change depending on what the leadership position is? Does it really bring dissonance if a leader only utilizes his or her intelligence?

Road Map

if you are a UT student...

Animal Humanities Road Map

History lesson

I had never investigated the true source of human-animal relationships until now. I guess I forgot that it hasn't been like this forever. We have always been earthlings or "terrestrial animals (287)," but the boundaries have never been made clear, and this article blurred those lines even more. From Ecocriticism, chapter seven on animals, "the boundary between human and animal is arbitrary and, moreover, irrelevant, since we share with animals a capacity for suffering that only 'the hand of tyranny' could ignore (244)." The boundary is not arbitrary, it is just more complicated. There are many different distinctions, wild and domestic, mammals, amphibians, birds...etc. I found it very interesting how feelings towards animals have been influenced by church and state, and also how it has changed/advanced over time. I was surprised to learn how compassionate and aware the Quakers seemed to be towards animal-kind. I agree with Whitney in that awareness is key, but also with the statement in Reckoning with the Beast: "others [can] believe in kind treatment of brute animals, but hardly care about it." 

I think it is important to differentiate between those who are sympathetic, empathetic, or compassionate. Compassion and sympathy don't necessarily provoke people to take action. There is so much conditioned indifference in the world, throughout history, that people no longer want to be associated with actually feeling something. Animals have been utilized for survival, as a reliable source of food for humans for centuries. Pre-industrial people didn't victimize the animals for reasons of cruelty, but because their empathy had developed until Aristotle stated, "human beings and animals share a common sensitive goal, but that men have a rational soul denied to beasts." The physical nature of animals was the first indication of similarity and compassion by people, because some animalistic or bestial traits are undeniably apparent with humans.

When cruelty to animals, especially by children, was introduced it did not surprise me in the least. We still witness such things, in Toy Story, news articles, and other movies. It is still prevalent for people to want to assert dominance over other feeling beings. When people feel subservient, they want to make sure they can make someone else feel more subservient... thus animals are the literal and hypothetical easy 'scapegoat'. aka... Michael Vick... Claiming to not know any better, just as the educated class was first aware of the suffering and cruelty being inflicted on animals. So glad he donated money... alls well that ends well? I'm a bit skeptical. 

Lastly, I think that many pets have become the dominant household being. I can speak for my dog for sure, who has her own bed and is clearly the boss. I know that many animals are still abused, and exposed to harsh conditions and cruelty, but I think that the treatment of pets is on the up and up. Maybe it is the optimist in me, but I think that after going through the history of animal treatment it is a definite plausibility. 

Sources:
[1] Ritvo, Harriet. “Chapter Three: A Measure of Compassion.” The Animal Estate. Cambridge: Mass., 1987. 346-68. Print.
[2] Turner, James. “Introduction.” Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1980. 338-45. Print.