Universal Compassion Bookclub discussion
This topic is about
The Lives of Animals
First Selection
date
newest »
newest »
Hi Megan! Thanks for the invitation. Ordering the book now.
Mod
Can't wait to intellectually wrestle over the text with you - This is my third read of the story and it's a densely packed punch in the brain.
Mod
It's a really dense and intellectually challenging story. Coetzee won the Nobel prize in 2003 and he's a real intellectual heavy-weight. I really enjoy the fictional exploration of the issue. I feel strongly that fiction allows us to wrestle with ideas that are awkward and intimidating in a safe way that allows readers to explore and stretch their own internal views in ways that non-fiction cannot.
I don't know where Bryan's at in his reading (update us Bryan!) but I've been thinking a lot about Elizabeth Costello's comparison of animal rights to the holocaust and how much it upsets the other professor who refuses the dinner invitation because he is so offended that Costello would compare the suffering of animals to the suffering of human beings. He finds it offensive.
Its put me in mind of Alan Watts (one of my favorite Zen philosophers) who said that all lives are of equal importance, but naturally, ours matter more to us than say that of a fly, but to the fly its life is of just as much importance to it.
I think this is a fundamental question involved in animal rights and ethical vegetarianism/veganism - the idea that animal/insect lives have meaning and relevance outside of the value judgment that we allow them to have. And that concept, and idea is central to this story - what we value in animals that we don't eat, is what mirrors our own achievements: consciousness, ability to use tools, etc. And the less we see animals as mirrors to our own (self-professed) remarkability, the easier we find as a species, to use them to our own ends.
This was true of the Nazi's in regards to Jews during World War II - it is the foundation of the holocaust. The Nazi's reduced the humanity of the Jews, indoctrinated themselves to believe them to be foreign, alien, animal and therefore saw it as fit and natural that they, the superior beings, should use them to whatever end they needed.
When the argument is applied back to animals, to say that the holocaust and the suffering animals endure (or more often do not endure) in the slaughter house, scientific laboratories, farms, etc. is the same as that of the Jews during World War II, however, is very insulting in the comparison. Though I don't stumble over the logic of it, as a human being, something in me revolts to the comparison of human suffering to animal suffering, much the same as the professor's reaction in the novel.
Is it right to compare suffering like this? Is it useful when arguing for animal rights or ethical vegetarianism? Costello's argument makes people bristle at the outset - pushing them farther and farther from any exploration of abandoning meat and cruelty as a means of self-substantiation. But is there any argument you can make to someone entrenched in the sense of superiority and entitlement that would reach those who eat meat? Is it as futile as discussing human rights with a Nazi?
That's where I am with the text so far, and the questions its making me ask myself - where are you two at?
I must admit that I haven't started the book yet - I'm hoping to dive into it later today, if I get my other work done. If not, I will definitely start this week. Super duper busy as a first year teacher - but more on that if I ever get a chance to send you that catch-up email I've been planning on writing!
By the way, has Iain posted in here yet? I see that he's a member of the group, but don't see anything he's posted.
Mod
I haven't read much past page 47 yet either - been midtermish time. But the reading period is open for another month and a half and since no one else has remotely shown any interest in the book club or the Buddhist club. . . we can extend that if needed ;-)
No, no posts from Iain yet - I'm not sure if he understands how to use goodreads or not. I don't think he has it set up to receive emails when there's a response, but I dunno.
Anyhow, don't rush, take your time, we have immeasurable kalpas to finish the book ;-)
M.C. wrote: "Howdy Iain! Yay! There are three of us now. In answer to your question, this is my third read of the book in question. Currently on page 47 and it will be my first read of this particular version w..."Hi Megan - I think there may be some comparisons in our treatment of animals within the industrialized meat....industry(for lack of a better word)in terms of the suffering inflicted. I, too, resist the idea that they are equal or comparable though. The intent of the Nazi's was to inflict torture and to kill just for the sake of killing. They were motivated by pure hatred. The harm that is being done to animals is motivated in large part by greed and ignorance, so the intention is very much different. Also, some good does come from these harms done to animals - food, medicine, scientific knowledge, etc. This, in no way, makes it right, but it certainly isn't the same level of spiritual and moral corruption that created the holocaust. Also, it is often counterproductive to make such extreme comparisons as it will just make it easier for others to dismiss our point of view or just cause them to dig their heals in further. As individuals concerned for the well being of all sentient beings, including animals, I feel it is better to draw upon and encourage the innate compassion within people, and just help raise awareness, rather than to see vegetarianism and ethical treatment of animals as a political agenda we need to force on others.
Well, I did finally manage to pick up the book long enough to get to that 47 page mark. I really don't have much to add to what's been said so far - I agree that I just don't see the value of comparing the eating of meat to the Holocaust, or any other form of cruelty that's been imposed upon one group of people by another. Not eating meat is a personal decision for me - I don't consider myself a capital v Vegetarian, and I don't proselytize about it. Anyone who's not willfully ignorant or willfully blind knows about the suffering that animals go through, so I don't necessarily consider it my job to change their minds. If someone else brings it up, I'm fine with discussing it, but I'm never the "instigator"; everyone's on their own path. It took me many years and many attempts before I finally gave up meat - it was a decision I finally had to come to on my own, and I don't think anybody could have helped get me there any sooner.I'm really interested in what Coetzee's point, or take, on all of it is. So far, I haven't figured it out - is his argument the same as Elizabeth's? Or is he saying what we're saying - that compassion can't be beaten over people's heads, and that Elizabeth, while well-intentioned, probably isn't doing the animals much good with her Nazi comparisons? I'm intrigued. I don't know anything about Coetzee other than what Megan wrote. It is a pretty enjoyable read so far.
Mod
But then again if millions of sentient beings are being slaughtered everyday, isn't that something sympathetic people should be fanatical about?
I read a very well-written and interesting article on the issue the other day @: http://theamericanscholar.org/loving-...
I just recently stopped being vegetarian after four years and it's strange to see the issue from both sides.
In the responses to the linked article, the most potent criticism comes in the form of ethical vegetarianism being a sentiment based argument.
I see that critique applied often - but my question is why are sentimental arguments invalid? We are sentimental and emotional creatures.
I think the novella asks far more questions than it will even attempt to answer. I've enjoyed all the thought provoking that the novel has inspired in my noodle, but I can't seem to land on a solid conclusion either.
Universal Compassion Bookclub
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lives of Animals (other topics)Elizabeth Costello (other topics)
Our first selection will be The Lives of Animals, The novella is also found in: Elizabeth Costello. Reading and discussion period is open from now until March 31st.
Megan