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.