Donna Haraway, Companion Species Manifesto - Reading report
“Indeed, that is the beauty of dogs. They are not a projection, nor the realisation of an intention, nor the telos of anything. They are dogs; i.e., a species in obligatory, constitutive, historical, protean relationship with human beings.” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.11)
To begin with, I extracted important points Haraway states in this book and I focused more on loving relationships between humans and their pets and less on animals used for jobs as I believe that’s a another whole topic. “The relationship is not especially nice; it is full of waste, cruelty, indifference, ignorance, and loss, as well as of joy, inventions, labour, intelligence, and play.” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.12) This reflects how the relationship of animals and humans as a whole is not very good, because of animal abuse, animals used in research, animal sheltering issues, factory farming, extinction and more. Although there’s the good side of the relationship which is the joy of playing, affection and loyalty that comes along with an animal. In a way its a toxic relationship that we have with animals. “Many dogs live parallel lives among people, more or less tolerated, sometimes used and sometimes abused. No one term can do justice to this history” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.14)
She mentions how “Having a dog lowers one’s blood pressure and ups one’s chances of surviving childhood, surgery, and divorce.” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.12) and this reminds me of what Ascione said about “the importance of pets as “transitional objects,” like a security blanket or favourite to, that help infants soothe themselves, experience safety and...in the absence of adult presence, a pet could provide comfort and security.” (Ascione, F., Children and animals. p.21). The fact Haraway presents the point of going through childhood as “surviving” also reflects how going through childhood had be dangerous and having a pets affirms that safety like Ascione states. Continuously, the serotonin that pets give us is likely to be our addiction to them, while others might have other darker use of them, but Haraway sates “play between humans and pets...spending time peacefully hanging out together, brings joy to all the participants.” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.38)
What is determined to be a companion animal? Haraway answers this by declaring “one does not eat one’s companion animals (nor get eaten by them); and one has a hard time shaking colonialist, ethnocentric, ahistorical attitudes toward those who do”
“Belief in “unconditional love” is pernicious.” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.33)
The quote above is something I never looked into and in a way it shocked me at the realisation, that our pets don’t love us with this fantasy of “unconditional love” because they are just animals in the end. “Dogs restore human beings’ souls by their unconditional love might be the neurosis of caninophiliac narcissism” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.33). Their amount of love is not equal to how we see it and thus calling it “unconditional love” is harmful. Perhaps is more impactful on children because they believe this fantasy thus using pets like a safety blanket like Ascione presents.
Continuously, this can help us find out more about young animal abusers, because if dogs are the definition of “unconditional love” then young damaged children might want to damage that love, because they don’t get any affection in their life, thus why should a dog have some much love? This anger might drive them to hurt other animals.
Haraway mentions Linda Weisser who is a breeder of Great Pyrenees livestock. From the Great Pyrenees Discussion List Weisser talks about her love for a breed and not a dog individually. She presents something I find to be controversial, “she recommends killing an aggressive rescue dog or any dog who has bitten a child...saving the reputation of the breed” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.36) To me she seems to care more on the breed and not the animal’s pain and suffering. In my opinion if Weisser wants to keep a nice, good and safe breed going, I believe she can just not have those aggressive dogs reproduce thus the ‘wild’ genes wont be passed down, the need to kill them won’t be necessary. I could be bias because I’ve had a dog before who bit my little cousin but never bit me, her owners before. I see Weisser’s way as the easy way out by just killing the dog that don’t follow the rules or expectations. Is this a different type of animal abuse? In a way I find it difficult to answer because she’s doing it for a bigger cause and because dogs no longer can live in the wild they are forced to ably to the human dominated rules and if they don’t met those rules, they are killed. Furthermore, also links to how people are quick to abandon their pets “when the dog fails to deliver on the fantasy of ‘unconditional love’” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.38).
To add to this Haraway mentions again the illusions of the big heart and communication of a dog. “There is no room for romanticism about the wild heart of the natural dog or illusions of social equality” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.44) This reminded me of Jacques Derrida, The Animal That Therefore I Am, as he talks about the communication between two species and also concludes that “You can speak to an animal...but it doesn't reply, not really, not ever, that is what Alice concludes.” (Derrida. J., 2002, p.378). The idea of communication between your pet is the illusion we’ve created, from the help of Derrida, its more of a reaction and instinctual then a willing response from our pets and not the illusion that animals can give a response like humans do. Haraway presents that there is “no room for romanticism” suggesting that we should stop the illusion that dogs (other species) operate like humans, after which they can finally be more content. “Besides all that, the human must actually enjoy playing in doggishly appropriate ways” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.44)
Weisser states how her dogs aren’t being able to have a detailed conversation with her. “On the other hand, while my children can talk, they lack the true ‘animal’ sense that that allows me to touch” (Haraway, D., Companion Species Manifesto. p.37) I found this interesting, because as a human you cannot touch another without a reason or purpose but with your companion animal you can pet them whenever you want and they will praise you for it. Some people thrive for that type of psychical need which humans can’t provide. I also believe this is most important in childhood since this is a time they are more psychical and playing involves being psychical with one another which a dog can easily provide. Maybe because its in their nature, which is something us as humans want to be more close to. We lose this touch with nature as we grow older. Healthy children would use animals to stimulate their playful instincts, while abused children would see animals as a chance to inflict pain because that’s what they’re used to, not playing. Play is extremely important in children’s lives, if stripped away it will cause mental damage.
Ultimately, I enjoyed reading Companion Species Manifesto by Donna Haraway as her approach was different to Ascione’s 2005 Children and animals as she takes a more implicit yet more open to own opinions approach that looked into our different species friends. It helped me have a better understanding of why we love our pets so much and why animal abusers don’t.
References:
Ascione, F., 2005. Children and animals. West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, pp. 21
Derrida, Jacques, and David Wills. “The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow).” Critical Inquiry, vol. 28, no. 2, 2002, pp. 378
Haraway, D., 2007. The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Prickly Paradigm Press, pp.11-37.
Comments
Post a Comment