Humans and Other Animals: A Modern Heretic's View

During my year at the London School of Economics in 2004-05, I heard the British philosopher John Gray offer one of the most provocative and compelling arguments of our times. He argued that human beings were merely one among many animals on the planet, but "secular" Western philosophers, historians and scientists, particularly those since the 18th century, had inherited the anthropocentric prejudices of their Christian predecessors and had thus exaggerated modern ideological notions of human progress, development, and mastery over nature. Gray, ever the maverick philosopher, saw his task as demystifying (and occasionally demolishing) these modern myths, especially secularism and progress, in order to posit a more harmonious balance between humans and other animals. Let me point out here that Gray is not your regular postmodern professor in the United States: for most of his career, he positioned himself as a liberal theorist, writing erudite tomes on John Stuart Mill and Isaiah Berlin, but has grown increasingly disillusioned with contemporary liberalism, particularly after his involvement in Lady Thatcher's neoliberal project in the 1980s. At the very least, Gray's views ought to be considered carefully.

The Argument Against Anthropocentrism

I shall leave aside my views on John Gray's understanding of liberalism for another post. My focus here is his "anti-humanist" stance that puts human and non-human animals on par with each other. Some of us may find Gray's stance disagreeable or eccentric, but I take it very seriously. Why? Because it questions our deepest assumptions in the social and natural sciences. It challenges us to question our inherited understanding of politics, society and history. And it urges us to rethink our interactions with nonhuman animals in our personal lives.

The most obvious evidence for putting humans on par with other animals comes from evolutionary theory. (As many of you know, I find no contradiction between being a firm Darwinian and upholding my religious/spiritual commitments). If natural selection, a fundamentally amoral process (as Richard Dawkins keeps reminding us), is the basis of life on earth, then there is a radical equality inherent in the evolutionary process. Some organisms are bigger, others are smaller; some are fat, while others are thin; some look cute, others do not. But the fact remains that the building blocks of life are the common denominator for all organisms. More importantly, if we regard evolution as an amoral process rather than one driven by a benevolent deity, then we cannot attribute human survival or evolution to intelligence, sociability or any "talent" that is unique to the species; these are merely adaptations to the environment, effects rather than causes of evolution. In short, from a purely biological/biochemical perspective, it is fairly simple to put humans in their place, that is, with other animal species on the planet.

But surely, you may argue, language, intelligence and emotions distinguish humans from other animals? I disagree. Linguistic ability is hardly unique to humankind. We know at least since Aristotle that bees, for instance, have complex linguistic systems to communicate. So too do dogs, cats, horses, tigers, elephants, and countless other animal species. It's quite another matter that we may not be horse-whisperers. But that does not give anyone the license to conclude that nonhuman animals do not possess the gift of language. That sort of impertinence is akin to the ignorant Spanish conquistadors labelling the Amerindians "savages" and "barbarians" because they were neither Christians nor speakers of a European language. There is every reason to believe that nonhuman animals express verbally and non-verbally thoughts that humans can express in words alone. Likewise, intelligence is hardly a singularly human trait. Skeptics may argue that there is no Shakespeare or Netwon outside the circle of humanity, but I can easily retort that these intellectual standards are peculiar to humans alone. There are certainly animal geniuses whose olfactory abilities or endurance are well beyond human capabilities just as composing splendid sonnets might be out of reach for most nonhuman animals. Also, it isn't clear to me whether the average human is smarter than the average nonhuman animal. The same mix of dolts, average joes, and geniuses occur among human and nonhuman animals. IQ or some such humanly-designed test doesn't help to settle matters; we are almost certain to struggle on any nonhuman test of intelligence that involves navigation, catching prey or smell. And if you thought only humans could experience or express emotions, think again! Recent research, despite all its limitations, suggests otherwise. Nonhuman animals can, therefore, express regret, happiness and a wide gamut of emotions commonly imagined to be uniquely human.

Some Key Implications

Rejecting anthropocentrism in the natural and social sciences as well as in everyday life has rather profound implications. The entire edifice of Western philosophy and science is built on the Judeo-Christian premise that man (anthropos) is the center of the universe. Why? Because the Scriptures say so in order to posit a sacred covenant between the human species and the Abrahamic God. Any reader of the Torah or the Christian Old Testament can hardly dispute the centrality of human beings in the narrative that unfolds.The doctrine of human exceptionalism on which Western humanism rests historically is a demonstrable fiction of Judeo-Christian origin. Why then should we continue to retain a secularized version of the same demonstrable fiction? At least in my opinion, doing so is about as intellectually unsound as defending creationism.

By rejecting anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism, we open up the possibility of more equitable relations between humans and other animals. Furthermore, we open up the possibility of extending the social contract beyond humans to the animals that coexist with us. In a certain sense, such social contracts already exist for centuries in rural and urban communities in the Orient and Occident alike. There is nothing peculiarly rural or non-Western about social contracts that cover wild animals, farm animals, pets or even animals for slaughter. Yet there is something that is being lost in our cities today, especially among the ruling class everywhere (by contrast, humbler folks happily share their world with nonhuman animals). Intellectuals emerge largely from this same class, and hence, our theories reflect their anthropocentric prejudices. Recognizing the falsity of human exceptionalism paves the way for a new philosophy, science, and history. The obsessive Continental quest for discovering the expressive aspects of our being or our phenomenological selves can perhaps be thwarted in this manner. So too can science regard nonhuman species as intelligent, sentient beings rather than mere instruments for human experimentation and play. And historians can explore and appreciate the dialectics that define human-animal relations in different times and places.

A necessary caveat is in order here. My argument does not imply that relations between humans and other animals are meant to be cuddly or cute. Human animals relate to other animals in much the same way that nonhuman animals relate to each other (though each species obviously has its own "stereotypical" or peculiar ways of doing so). The lion does not lie with the lamb, except in the wildest fancies of utopian theologians. Neither can humans be expected to deviate from their omnivorous ways (except in special circumstances and contexts) to conform to some utopian project designed by a small minority. This is a vital consideration because some human societies today and earlier have tended to attach great cultural capital to abstinence from meat and other animal products. Such elitism, vegan, Buddhist/Jain or otherwise, which I label "Neo-Brahminism" in today's context, is a minority response that ought to be studied sociologically as a peculiar tendency of homo hierarchicus across time and space. It is, however, hardly the default option because the majority of humans everywhere continue to be stubbornly omnivorous. Let's face it: Peter Singer's utilitarian calculus isn't likely to convert most of us to the Neo-Brahminical camp. For the majority of humankind, therefore, veganism, vegetarianism and their cousins will forever remain the domain of a bunch of effete socially-detached ideologues whose idea of human-animal relations is restricted to their expensive lapdogs or some such marker of their superior social status.

For many, my argument might sound paradoxical or even contradictory. How can I argue for treating humans on par with other animals yet defend omnivorous behavior? Just like one can treat all human societies/cultures, past or present, on par in moral terms, without necessarily committing to the utopian/minority project of pacifism that persistently emerges across human history. I see no contradiction in my argument. It is a pragmatic rather than a utopian one. It acknowledges that all relations, human-human or human-animal, involve trade-offs that cannot be simply wished away. It is quite justifiable for us to be concerned about the well-being of horses, tigers or dogs, while consuming beef, pork, lamb, chicken or any other animal meat. In fact, it is quite justifiable for us to be concerned about the treatment of animals in mega-industrial farms and slaughterhouses while consuming animal meat. Recognizing animals as intelligent, sentient beings does, by no means, imply that some of them cannot be eaten. What can be eaten and what cannot is ultimately a culturally-specific question, certainly a worthy subject for anthropologists and historians to study. My detractors may claim that the logic of my argument could justify even cannibalism. I agree that this is a distinct possibility, however limited its scope may be historically or today, but like Herodotus, I am too much of a cultural relativist to denounce even cannibalism in the manner that Spaniards and other Europeans did at the dawn of modernity.

Conclusion

So what might one reasonably be expected to take away from this post? You are, of course, welcome to view it as an eccentric contribution by an oddball. But, by doing so, you would merely be guilty of perpetuating the theological, philosophical and scientific prejudice of anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism that plague our planet. Most of us who call ourselves "modern" live in a manner that is deeply at odds with other animals. I tend to agree with John Gray that such an existence is fundamentally delusional and is responsible for the grossly irresponsible manner in which modern human animals relate to their nonhuman peers. So here are my suggestions: be a bit kinder to the nonhuman animals around you, pay a bit more attention to their needs and interests, and try to coexist a bit more meaningfully with them. Such a change in orientation is hardly a substantial one in the context of our everyday lives, but its implications will be nothing short of revolutionary. Whatever else happens, guard against the false temptation of utopian projects, and try to share the joys, sorrows, or even banal existence of our nonhuman friends. We may or may not succeed in creating a better tomorrow for everyone, but at the very least, there is the tantalizing prospect that we may become more humane, and I dare say, truly liberal souls...

Between the Suffering and the Will

Here's a first look at my upcoming novel "Between the Suffering and the Will."

When Vikram Arora, an eighteen-year old from the north Indian city of Chandigarh manages to gain admission into Neverland College in the American Midwest, he has no idea how his life will change in the next four years. His is not your usual coming-of-age story, but one in which self-discovery, the quest for knowledge, and adventure blend together into an explosive cocktail. Vikram's self-doubt, his intellectual journey and his love affairs may appear familiar to most of us, but his nagging ambition, patriotic fervor, and the love of his life lead this mild-mannered middle-class boy to metamorphose into a cunning Maoist strategist and commander of a liberated zone on the Bengal-Jharkhand border.

Vikram's story is heroic because it represents a Promethean struggle between the human will to combat the slings and arrows of fortune and the suffering that is the necessary consequence of our worldly decisions, perhaps even of our very existence. Hence the title from Byron's Prometheus. Readers are aware from the opening pages that Vikram is dead though his diaries offer vivid glimpses into the last five years of his tortured existence. Juxtaposed with fragments from the diaries are the narratorial interventions of Joe, a Neverland student writing his senior thesis in anthropology and literature. Joe, who shares a charismatic adviser with the ill-fated Vikram, is interested in filling in the gaps left by Vikram's diaries. As he proceeds to interview the people who appear in these diaries, he is drawn into Vikram's story, its darker and unstated aspects, and ultimately, its tragedy. Soon, the lives of the narrator and the protagonist get entangled in ways beyond Joe's wildest fancies. Struggling to find his own feet and to avoid being sucked into the vortex left behind by Vikram, Joe must use the clues hidden in the diaries to regain his own freedom and sanity.

The non-linear narrative structure in the novel enables Joe to parallel Vikram's journey, yet allows him to escape the latter's fate. Non-linearity also demands that readers construct their own meaning from the diary fragments, interviews, and narratorial experiences that feature in the novel. Readers are thus placed in a position somewhat analogous to that in a traditional play or music performance, especially in South Asia, where the audience is expected to participate in the construction of the narrative or performance. The critical reader is, in this sense, a literary critic making sense of the narrative structure, a historian seeking coherence from fragmented textual and oral sources, and an anthropologist flitting back and forth between diverse cultural contexts.

Resisting Political Correctness

Consider these three anecdotes. The first, which I shall christen "PC Unabashed," concerns a link posted recently by a friend on Facebook, arguing for the rights of "introverts" as a special group that is often misunderstood and even discriminated against by the rest of the population. The "science" of psychology has thus constructed a new category of minorities whose "rights" must now be appreciated and defended because the politically-correct Orwellian thought police says so. Needless to add, every response to the FB post was approving in an unqualified sense.

The second, which I shall call "PC Interrupted," occurred during my first year of college in Grinnell, Iowa, a friend of mine spotted a bunch of students drawn exclusively from the US racial majority, camping outside the dining hall and collecting cash to be sent to educate "poor kids in Third World countries." My friend, who hails from postcolonial South Asia, went up to the do-gooders, and asked, only half-jokingly, whether he might not benefit from their fundraising spree. A stunned silence followed.

The third anecdote, which I shall label "PC Intolerance," comes from President Ahmedinejad's visit to Columbia University a couple of years ago. As he began speaking, a gay couple began kissing as a mark of "protest" against what they perceived to be a repressive sexual regime in Iran. Ahmedinejad, no stranger to controversy or hyperbole, muttered that "we do not have this in our country." An Iranian-American friend of mine interpreted his statement to mean that, while homosexual relations between men are commonplace throughout the Middle East, public displays of affection of the kind witnessed at Columbia were usually frowned upon. In other words, contrary to the opinion of the predominantly US liberal audience that evening, homosexuality can be acknowledged and expressed in ways other than their own.

At first glance, it may not be entirely obvious how these three anecdotes are related to each other. Unless, of course, you happen to have personally experienced (suffered?) first-hand the vigorous imposition of politically-correct contemporary liberal dogma in the university, workplace, government, or some other public location. In its milder form, being PC means resorting to euphemisms for those with mental or physical disabilities, "minority" status, and so forth. In more pernicious forms, the beast reveals its true shape by insisting on attitudes that are certified by its thought-policemen as appropriate for us humble souls. For reasons I shall explain below, it's high time that we put an end to this nonsense, and recognized the imposters for what they're worth. In doing so, I shall also point out why naivete or ignorance, those oh-so-popular excuses, do not pardon the novices in the PC brigade since the problem is a systemic rather than an individual one.

The PC moral police is particularly active with respect to two sets of individuals: physical or mental disabilities, and those outside the charmed circle of the US racial majority. Let me start with the first set. In my first anecdote, introverts are identified by a pseudo-science to be a distinct political group possessing special rights as minorities. We are all aware of such individuals. I can even identify myself as one. I don't always enjoy socializing or being in the company of others. Yet I've never sought a special medical and/or political status. Why? Because I don't regard it as a disability at all. Might I be misunderstood by others, as the article assumes? Sure, but so might people who are extroverts or ambiverts. Or for that matter, anyone. Moreover, I'm not even sure introverts are a minority. No one, to my mind, has calculated the numerical strength of this group, butI guess it might actually be rather large. Only the paranoid who believe themselves to be persecuted by the world would insist on minorityism without any clear warrant. PC attitudes merely validate such paranoia. In effect, reclusiveness and asociability get a facelift, the concerned "minority" believing themselves to be particularly special yet perverse in comparison to the wider population for no good reason. It is assumed implicitly here that a "normal" or "mean" personality exists and these are statistical deviations from the mean. But, in fact, no such social-psychological evidence exists for "normality," so each person is special and we must thus engage with each accordingly. Yet contemporary US liberals, acting under the cloak of "science," have manufactured a problem and a political identity based on the erroneous assumption of "normality." Almost certainly, minorityism is a counterproductive strategy that actually worsens rather than improves matters for the shy and introverted.

The second set of individuals, those outside the charmed racial majority in the US, are located both inside and outside that country. I have found that the farther the distance from the United States, the greater the purported sympathy expressed by liberals. It is preferable if those being sympathized with are too far away to be engaged in dialogue, and even better, if they cannot speak at all (think animal rights!). US liberals can then simply "represent" these silent or mute voices. In my second anecdote, someone irreverent, much like me, talked back to the do-gooders trying to save the planet. Once again, a group (defined racially here) is assumed to be "normal" while deviations from the norm are deemed to be somehow inadequate and in need of representation by the normal folks. We irreverent souls from abroad, however, refuse to be patronized in this manner, as I'm sure many racial "minorities" in the States do too. The pretence of speaking passionately on our behalf doesn't quite work because only a miniscule minority in the States possess a genuine appreciation and understanding of minority or foreign communities, their culture and history, and participate in the everyday lived experiences of those communities. I'm sick of the hordes of US undergraduates who, say, spend a summer in Latin America among "indigenous" communities so that they can pad their CVs for the benefit future non-profit jobs or gradate programs. Their politics is cynical in the extreme, and, sadly, all too common. PC attitudes put a halo around the heads of these characters, and let them believe their own fake messianic proclamations. And what the hell is "Third World" anyway? Jaded Cold War terminology is now being legitimized by the PC brigade as somehow progressive, but is, in fact, reactionary and highly offensive. If you're really keen to educate kids in some postcolonial country, here's my advice: try to find out more about the country, its people and their problems; live among them and share their joys and sorrows; see the world from their perspective as well as your own; and only then try to figure out how their problems might be solved. Stop this PC crap about abstract Third World kids, and stop trying to pretend you care about people you have no clue about!

My third anecdote shows how the two sets of populations patronized by US liberals have much in common. The typical strategy, to recap briefly, is to define what is medically or culturally "normal" in the most arbitary ways, preferably using "science," and then characterize deviations from the normal as political identities and groups that require representation by so-called liberal voices of privilege. The incident that marred Ahmedinejad's Columbia address combines the notions of medical and cultural normality. It is assumed, without evidence, that homosexuality is somehow "deviant," a peculiar American fantasy shared by liberals and conservatives alike, and that only the US normal defines the "correct" attitude towards homosexuals. There's no good reason to assume that heterosexual monogamy is normal in any time or place. Likewise, there's no good reason to assume that the US liberal attitude is necessarily the only one, let alone the best one, that exists today. Making these assumptions serves to worsen the discrimination faced by those who do not meet the homosexual-monogamous norm in the US, apart from widening the vast cultural gulf between the US and the rest of the world. Since both these outcomes are widely considered undesirable or unfortunate, it should be obvious how in-your-face PC attitudes push us into the abyss.

So far, I have used the tone of an anthropologist describing an exotic culture after spending plenty of time amidst the natives. For obvious reasons, I can do so because I fit the bill. But my concerns are global, and frankly, much close to home. Unfortunately, whatever the PC brigade in North America sanctions is automatically lapped up by its lackeys in every other continent. Today, in countries as different as India, South Africa and France, there is a ready clique of flatterers who jump at anything in vogue in the US. Such is the nature of cultural imperialism today. In India today, I am constantly bombarded with silly PC phrases and comments that make a complete mockery of the actual struggles of lower-caste groups, "tribals," religious, gender and sexual "minorities," and so forth. Someone or the other is always preaching to me about the cause of "minorities," completely oblivious that I can carry the minority card on almost every commonly-used criteria used in India. In this manner, I have grown tired of being patronized by US liberals and their lackeys elsewhere, even at home. But whenever possible, I refuse to let the PC thought police from speaking on my behalf and representing my interests; I refuse to let fake sympathy override genuine political struggles for dignity and recognition; I refuse to let some false notion of normality prevent me from regarding each individual as unique, with peculiar gifts and flaws; lastly, I refuse to let the pseudo-cosmopolitan PC alliance set the terms of moral-political discourse. I can't promise much, but I can guarantee that I'll be a feisty opponent that fights to the finish...