Steve Best on The Left’s Ignorance of Cognitive Ethology
Steve Best's verbal presentation of his ideas sometimes irks me. It's over-the-top, for me, and I often resent the time I must spend working through the ranting. But "Minding the Animals: Ethology and the Obsolescence of Left Humanism" is a different read and a great look back at how we humans have managed to always find a way to consider ourselves unique, despite what the reality of the nonhuman world tells us. If you haven't appreciated Best's style in the past, give this one a try. Here are some of my favorite passages . . .
[S]ince the opening of modernity five centuries ago, human beings have had to confront (for starters) four major discontinuities which problematized their alleged radical uniqueness and special status in the universe. In each case, "rational man" had to rethink human identity ¯ his species identity common to all other humans, or rather, all those counted as "human" and as part of the valuer´s community. In quick succession, the reflexive members of Homo sapiens had to overcome scientific and philosophical false dichotomies and illusions of separation from the infinite cosmos, the animal world, the unconscious, and machines. Humans had to engage, even if to deflect, the theoretical developments that increasingly decentered their place in a Platonic perfect unchanging universe allegedly constructed for them to lay down culture and "civilization" over nature, which has meaning only when seized for human purposes.
. . . .
Having misled us for so long about animals, science is initiating a revolution in our understanding. Through evolutionary theory, genetics, neurophysiology, and experimental procedures, many scientists are providing strong evidence that animals feel and think in ways akin to us.
. . . .
With traits allegedly unique to humans running out, philosophers and scientists claimed that only humans have minds complex enough to allow a sense of self-consciousness or self-identity, but, alas, chimpanzees and other animals demonstrated significant degrees of self-consciousness too.
. . . .
The praise of humanity´s multi-faceted achievements is well-deserved, but this stunning radiance also has a macabre and dark side that is an inseparably part of human history and nature; it involves an equally long history of violence, warfare, massacres, genocide, hierarchy, domination, colonization, environmental destruction, and extermination of other species.
. . . .
If humans have for so long failed to understand animal minds it is because their own stupidity, insensitivity, and deep speciesist bias have for so long blinded them. But now the blinders are coming off, and it is time Leftists take their own off and wake up to the fact of the ethological revolution and its profound implications for human identity, our moral relationships to nonhuman animals, and to politics. While it took the Left a good century to catch onto the importance of ecology, and to begin merging concerns such as justice and autonomy to sustainability and ecology, the Left has consistently devalued or ignored the plight of animals, failing to understand this as a profound moral issue in its own right, and as an indispensible lens for understanding the current global social and ecological crisis.
Check out the rest and let me know what you think.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a090c3ad-8797-4548-a1ec-4aebe5f22659)
I attempted to read Best's essay with an open mind, since you mentioned that he had dropped his dramatic tone. Yes, I admit that his writing in this essay is more mature and lacks the usual pointed accusations, and that, I guess, was refreshing.
For starters, I don't really get his gripe with "Leftists" in particular. Why are Leftists to shoulder the blame for the exploitation of animals simply because of their tardiness in arriving on the animal rights scene? Too many people are pointing fingers at the wrong folks these days.
In any case, the beginning of the essay actually peaked my interest when he started talking about the frontiers of science and how new technology and discoveries are redefining (and will continue to redefine) humans' view of their own identity. In the case of clones, cyborgs, and "cyberhumans," call me a geek, but the latest Battlestar Gallactica series takes on the question of what it means to be human in relation to this issue in a fairly sophisticated (as far as TV shows go) and interesting way. And I suspect that these next invented realities will follow the same pattern of ignorance and discrimination by the human populace. I do not look forward to the age of genetically engineered humans, human clones, or human-like machines because of the horrible ways in which they no doubt will be treated (well, they'll be treated like animals are treated…they'll be exploited for same numerous unethical reasons). I admit that Best is right on the mark when he says that no matter what new information or new realities throw humans off their pedestal of illusory superiority and importance, they will always find ways to rationalize their way back on. I rather think that the only way to possibly knock them off for good is by humans surviving long enough to make the journey into other solar systems/galaxies where alien life will give them some perspective as to how really insignificant they are in terms of what's out there (far older, more intelligent/sophisticated, compassionate life forms I am guessing – the odds exist for it). One really quick way to put our nano-sized existence into perspective is to study a little bit about space. When you learn that our solar system is but one in more than 100 billion in our galaxy (the Milky Way), and this galaxy we live in is one in more than 100 billion galaxies (and that's just in the known/observable universe), it instills a decent amount of humility. Check out this (or any) photo of space: http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2003001a/ . All those points of light are not stars…they are *galaxies*!
Our journey into space will be similiar to the journeys that humans made into the new world and other regions of previously unexplored territory – another chance to understand ourselves and our extended home. I believe it's our only chance, actually, of getting a grasp on who we are. In the meantime, we know little about ourselves in terms of why we are here…for the more important question – what is the universe and why it is here – will never be answered with our puny brains. For we are only intelligent enough to question why we are here, and just stupid enough not to be able to answer the question. So we are left in limbo and that's a scary place to be – which is why religion and other nutty stuff was/is created to fill in the gaps and make ourselves feel better. The truth hurts, so we don't acknowledge it.
In terms of Best's ideas on human evolution…I never use human origins as a reason against animal use (or for anything else for that matter). The fossil record is ridiculously spotty; there is an insufficient number of extant fossils to prove unequivocally what our origins are. That is why there are various camps of paleoanthropologists who can't agree on their interpretations. It irks me when someone claims they have the absolute answer as to how and why we evolved (for example, the latest nonsense to come out about how cooking is the reason why we evolved: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/books/27garn.html …I won't even get into that). 99.9% of what's out there are guesses…that's all. And why does Best talk mostly about how our closest ancestors are chimps who are aggressive, while not talking about bonobos, who some scientists believe are actually even closer relatives than chimps? Bonobos are peaceful and resolve conflict through peaceful relations (like having sex…hey, it's better than war!).
As Best started getting into animal emotions, intelligence, culture, etc., I became bored. There's so much of this information out there that (well, to me) it seems passe (when it hits the NYT most popular article list, you can usually safely bet the subject has already done the rounds in more intelligent [alternative] communities: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/science/02tier.html?_r=1&em ). As you know, Marc Bekoff has written a number of books about animals' emotions/intelligence that seem to be doing a pretty good job of educating people on the subject. While reading one of his books a few months ago I thought to myself, "Isn't it obvious that animals have emotions? Are people that much in denial that they didn't know this already?!" But I guess people are really either that oblivious or ignorant not to have noticed (ignorance is a useful device in making excuses for everyday acts of exploitation). I never needed Jane Goodall to tell me that the animals I have observed throughout my life most obviously have emotion and intelligence. Though, her books (along with Diane Fossey's, Birute Galdikas', Frans de Waal's, and Shirley Strum's) could have educated people long ago that animals DO use tools and have complex social lives. Regardless, I do understand Best's point that human animals no longer have any inane reasons left to set themselves apart or above other animals as a way to rationalize exploiting them.
The essay wasn't mind blowing, but it's better than Best's other stuff that I have read. I'm glad he didn't bring up any militant direct action stuff (I kept anticipating it, but surprisingly it never happened – though he may have alluded to it without my catching it). Sorry if I was all over the place in this post. Best was kind of all over the place himself in his essay, and perhaps my thoughts reflect that. Either that or my brain is frying from the hot weather.