Animals and Reification

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy, Animal Husbandry
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm hoping to develop a critical social theory regarding animal husbandry (dealing mainly with modern agricultural techniques). Namely, how have our social constructions of animals changed over time (hunter/gatherer=animism, late capitalism='meat' and 'pets'), to what extent do animals suffer socially through human industry, and in turn, dialectically, how does this shape human understanding. Or as Marx stated, "by acting on the external world and changing it, [man] at the same time changes his own nature."

Right now I am looking at two classical insights: Marx and Schopenhauer.
The reason I am attracted to Marx are his various theories surrounding the concept of reification, or the process of various relations becoming things rather than relations.

Schopenhauer claimed the solidarity we feel, or should feel, with animals is based on mutual suffering. I wish to explore how this is experienced socially and how it is socially constructed. This is an odd combo of classical insights as Schopenhauer was Hegel's foremost rival and Marx was a Young Hegelian. But I see many similarities between The World as Will... and Marx's 1844 Manuscripts. So much so that I cannot help but think Marx read and was, to a point, influenced by Schopenhauer.

(On this note, does anyone have any info on any Marx comments on Schopenhauer or vice versa? Did Marx even read Arthur?!)

The reason I am coming to the philosophy forum as a sociologist is general questions of epistemology (how do I know that animal's suffer, if we even have social relations with animals etc.) ontology (do social relations with animals even exist or am I just granting human properties, or anthropomorphizing, animals), and, to some extent, methodology (I don't want to fall into positivism!).

(btw, is my above philosophical terminology correct?)

Any insights? Books to read?

Note: I am really not looking for an ethics discussion, although I stand firmly on the side of animal liberationists. :meuh:

Another note: I will be out for about a week so I won't be able to respond to comments for awhile. But I better have plenty to look at when I come back!:bigsmile: Thanks!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,840 • Replies: 13

No top replies

@ryang,

I can only respond personally on this one. I have begun to abstain from beef, lamb, and pork products, on ethical, environmental, and spiritual grounds, as of about 7 months ago. I think it is very easy for the consumer to feel that meat is something that develops inside these hygienic little plastic packets in just the size and shape necessary for a meal. I wonder how much meat they would eat if they had to go to a slaughterhouse and bring home rough cuts of meat. Yuck, they would say, how uncivilized. But as for the philosophical analysis of the topic I don't have much to add sorry.

1 Reply

@ryang,

ryang;139280 wrote:

I'm hoping to develop a critical social theory regarding animal husbandry (dealing mainly with modern agricultural techniques). Namely, how have our social constructions of animals changed over time (hunter/gatherer=animism, late capitalism='meat' and 'pets'), to what extent do animals suffer socially through human industry, and in turn, dialectically, how does this shape human understanding. Or as Marx stated, "by acting on the external world and changing it, [man] at the same time changes his own nature."

Looks like you're letting us know where you're coming from (animal liberation) but also saying you don't want a conversation about ethics. Hmmm.

Is that like a guy waving a red flag in front of a bull and commenting that he's not a matador? That's a toughy. To draw from philosophy to examine the nature of animal suffering without bringing in ethics might be complicated by umm.. the suffering part. Maybe a look at what we imagine is true about animal consciousness in general... and then some analysis to break it all down? Maybe the first port we come to is consciousness itself?

Anyone else know the starting point?

But what you're looking into is obviously something that touches all of us.

1 Reply

@ryang,

ryang;139280 wrote:

...
The reason I am coming to the philosophy forum as a sociologist is general questions of epistemology (how do I know that animal's suffer, if we even have social relations with animals etc.) ontology (do social relations with animals even exist or am I just granting human properties, or anthropomorphizing, animals), and, to some extent, methodology (I don't want to fall into positivism!).

...

You know that animals suffer in exactly the same way that you know other people suffer. When they are injured, they exhibit pain behavior. When you poke a man with a pointy stick, he screams. So does a pig. It is precisely the same method of knowing that there is pain with both humans and other animals. If the method were not satisfactory, then you would be unjustified in supposing that other people feel pain.

As for what would happen if you "fall into positivism", it need not affect your fundamental position:

ryang;139280 wrote:

Note: I am really not looking for an ethics discussion, although I stand firmly on the side of animal liberationists. :meuh:
...

There is no positivistic prescription of which I am aware that states that thou shalt not regard the suffering of animals as bad.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;139407 wrote:

Looks like you're letting us know where you're coming from (animal liberation) but also saying you don't want a conversation about ethics. Hmmm.

Is that like a guy waving a red flag in front of a bull and commenting that he's not a matador? That's a toughy. To draw from philosophy to examine the nature of animal suffering without bringing in ethics might be complicated by umm.. the suffering part.

Haha I know, I know. Granted, critical outlooks usually take a moral position on their subjects of interest. But for my purposes I would like to avoid discussing whether or not intensive animal husbandry is defensible, even though it is a very important and profound conversation. Someone could easily make the case that even if animals suffer, that does not imply human moral duty toward animals. At this time in my research I am not concerned with that discussion as my stance is fairly firm.:bigsmile:

Arjuna;139407 wrote:

Maybe a look at what we imagine is true about animal consciousness in general... and then some analysis to break it all down? Maybe the first port we come to is consciousness itself?

Please do! This is a very sticky and complicated issue. Schopenhauer granted perception to animals but not conceptualization. Descartes took the other extreme. Anyone know of any other philosophers who have taken up this subject?
This is what I mean by not falling into positivism. To judge if animals are self-conscious, or, self-aware, a positivist would simply hold up a mirror and record the animals behavior and in turn decide if the animal 'recognized' itself or not. This seems incredibly limited to me. But is there any other approach? I hope philosophical insight holds the key!

Along with self-consciousness, language and subjective or emotional states of mind are also sticky subjects and I would love some insights or reading recommendations.

0 Replies

@ryang,

ryang;139280 wrote:

I'm hoping to develop a critical social theory regarding animal husbandry (dealing mainly with modern agricultural techniques). Namely, how have our social constructions of animals changed over time (hunter/gatherer=animism, late capitalism='meat' and 'pets'), to what extent do animals suffer socially through human industry, and in turn, dialectically, how does this shape human understanding. Or as Marx stated, "by acting on the external world and changing it, [man] at the same time changes his own nature."

Right now I am looking at two classical insights: Marx and Schopenhauer.
The reason I am attracted to Marx are his various theories surrounding the concept of reification, or the process of various relations becoming things rather than relations.

Schopenhauer claimed the solidarity we feel, or should feel, with animals is based on mutual suffering. I wish to explore how this is experienced socially and how it is socially constructed. This is an odd combo of classical insights as Schopenhauer was Hegel's foremost rival and Marx was a Young Hegelian. But I see many similarities between The World as Will... and Marx's 1844 Manuscripts. So much so that I cannot help but think Marx read and was, to a point, influenced by Schopenhauer.

(On this note, does anyone have any info on any Marx comments on Schopenhauer or vice versa? Did Marx even read Arthur?!)

The reason I am coming to the philosophy forum as a sociologist is general questions of epistemology (how do I know that animal's suffer, if we even have social relations with animals etc.) ontology (do social relations with animals even exist or am I just granting human properties, or anthropomorphizing, animals), and, to some extent, methodology (I don't want to fall into positivism!).

(btw, is my above philosophical terminology correct?)

Any insights? Books to read?

Note: I am really not looking for an ethics discussion, although I stand firmly on the side of animal liberationists. :meuh:

Another note: I will be out for about a week so I won't be able to respond to comments for awhile. But I better have plenty to look at when I come back!:bigsmile: Thanks!

I feel the urge to say that if someone does not believe that animals suffer and that a human can not have a relationship with an type of animal they must be making the most imaginative assumptions possible or have never been withing twenty feet of a dog and owner*. All the same proof that says a baby that cant tell us something hurts feels pain in the same way a dog that cant talk to us can. The clear assumption to make seems to be that know the difference between contentment and being hurt and value contentment and run like hell if you start hurting it. My dog appears to like me to pet it and i like to pet it. is that not a relationship? or do we have to be on speaking terms to make certain. it is impossible to define any of these and most philosophical arguments in a way that makes an answer with certainty possible. With no scientific way to be certain you should look to the common assumption based on endless human observation that animals can have relationships with other animal types including humans. By far the common assumption is that animals feel pain. This common assumption is the same as calling it common sense but this is all observation based. If ignorance is bliss then animals have evolved to better maximize their goods than humans. John Locke would have to agree that an island full of dogs would be happy a greater percent of the time than humans do. animals spend much time content and most of the rest in enjoyment. I would like to see one case were someone found a morbidly fat lion because their was tons of prey around, they eat till their full then they relax or play until they need something else but they do not feel greed. If you assume that feeling greed and the never ending cycle of satisfying greed is a good thing then you would not be on the same page as me and Schopenhauer. Animals are better off without humans. they all as a whole worked together perfectly until human greed came along and decided to assume it was cool to factory far them. The assumption that its not only cool to kill something that does not want to be killed to eat it but that you can also torture that animal its entire life in the living conditions of all factory farms makes me want to physically cause a day or twos worth of pain on someone responsible.

Nobody believes animals do not feel pain. The people that end up actually killing animals for meat and in general know damn well it hurts the animal and don't care because of the assumption that humans have domain over the earth. I eat beef but i don't eat much else meat wise. I see it as a cow can feed many people were as a wing night is a dead chicken for every two wings so i opt for the lesser evil but i still rationalize my assumption that i can even eat meat at all because it taste so damn good.

Sorry for this ramble fest. you can almost see me getting higher.

1 Reply

@Doubt doubt,

A quick look at animals:

We all know what an animal rights activist is. Would we say that the ACLU is an example of that?

No. Humans aren't animals. So we note a definition of the word animal that is so much a part of our perspective that we take it for granted. In fact to suggest that humans are in fact animals can bring a harsh response. (I know, because this happened to me on this very forum.)

There's reason to believe this definition of animal (as non-human creatures) goes back a long way. There was a time when the distinction was related to class status. Prolonged, hard physical labor deadens the mind. The slave was the animal part of us.

This is not to say that a slave can't appreciate Bach, Shakespeare, or Michelangelo. But full appreciation of these hallmarks of humanity requires time to become educated and time to reflect. Slaves have neither.

And so we speak about the Athenians without much attention to the fact that we're really talking about a small fraction of the human population of Athens. Slaves made the expression of the potential of humanity possible.

As it turns out, not all our slaves were human. But the story of human slavery has been a long brutal one. In examining the meaning of the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, when British announced that slavery is immoral, we might be simultaneously examining how our understanding of ourselves and animals has changed.

More later... gotta go!

0 Replies

@ryang,

ryang;139280 wrote:

I'm hoping to develop a critical social theory regarding animal husbandry (dealing mainly with modern agricultural techniques). Namely, how have our social constructions of animals changed over time (hunter/gatherer=animism, late capitalism='meat' and 'pets'), to what extent do animals suffer socially through human industry, and in turn, dialectically, how does this shape human understanding. Or as Marx stated, "by acting on the external world and changing it, [man] at the same time changes his own nature."

Right now I am looking at two classical insights: Marx and Schopenhauer.
The reason I am attracted to Marx are his various theories surrounding the concept of reification, or the process of various relations becoming things rather than relations.

hunter/gather seems to be relational Honoring the buffalo spirit and all that.
What was the relationship or degree of reification during feudalism? If you start with hunter/gatherer, failing to address feudalism would be a conspicuous absence.

The obvious question: are pets more relational than a reification or at least more relational than livestock?

The rancher has a different relationship with livestock than the consumer at the store buying the meat, milk etc. The producer has the same relationship with his livestock as the factory owner has with his machines. Livestock are part of the means of production. Same could be said of slave owner and his slaves. Means of production is qualitatively different from commodity.

Producer and consumer: Two different kinds of reification?

In the case of livestock what would it mean to seize the means of production?

Doesn't the word "capital" trace back to a count of how many "head" of cattle a particular person had? Seems I read that somewhere but can't find a citation.

Just a bunch of questions but maybe there's something useful in there.

1 Reply

@Deckard,

Deckard;141199 wrote:

hunter/gather seems to be relational Honoring the buffalo spirit and all that.
What was the relationship or degree of reification during feudalism? If you start with hunter/gatherer, failing to address feudalism would be a conspicuous absence.

The obvious question: are pets more relational than a reification or at least more relational than livestock?

In the feudal world, a portion of the population was bound to the land as if they were livestock.

Did the religion and philosophy of the time posit the animal part of us as evil?

Walter Kaufman suggested that the basis of Plato's metaphysics was the his experience with a society in which class distinctions were deeply rooted. Extrapolating from that: the slave is the earthy part of us... the part of us that has no imagination... the brute (as jgweed says.) The brute is the human animal. If it follows from this that philosophy is one of the hallmarks of the part of us that is divorced from physicality, then how much can philosophy be involved in the reconciliation between brute and the refined parts of us?

I'm too lazy to look it up, but didn't Aristotle suggest that slavery was a necessary evil, but the slaveowner should treat his slaves well. I'm thinking he based this in some notion of what a good person is.

Euripides and his followers were the anomaly of the ancient world: suggesting that slavery itself is wrong. Euripides would be a prime example of the part empathy with the suffering plays in the development of solidarity. The problem is: Euripides reified the downtrodden. He made them into beautiful works of art. From a certain point of view, this is dispicable. The victim isn't beautiful. Being a victim doesn't make you virtuous... all it means is that you were powerless.

So power. The bull, the engine of the ancient plow, is a symbol of power. Yet the bull, a slave, is powerless. Hmm.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;139393 wrote:

I think it is very easy for the consumer to feel that meat is something that develops inside these hygienic little plastic packets in just the size and shape necessary for a meal.

Exactly! That is reification! There is a rift of sorts between production an consumption in which we start granting autonomous properties to commodities without grasping their social mediation.

---------- Post added 03-19-2010 at 08:50 AM ----------

Deckard;141199 wrote:

Doesn't the word "capital" trace back to a count of how many "head" of cattle a particular person had? Seems I read that somewhere but can't find a citation.

Will definitely have to check that out. That would be very interesting.

Also, if I try to develop a social construction of animals type theory I would definitely examine feudalism as well.

1 Reply

@ryang,

ryang;141239 wrote:

Exactly! That is reification! There is a rift of sorts between production an consumption in which we start granting autonomous properties to commodities without grasping their social mediation.
.

Do you believe that meat is murder?

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

The anarchist philosopher Bakunin argued that to be fully human we have to become fully 'not animal'. This involves embracing all rational and logic, and being able to provide a reason for each and every action. This boils down to what most philosophers think the difference between humans and animals is.

Quote:

The reason I am coming to the philosophy forum as a sociologist is general questions of epistemology (how do I know that animal's suffer, if we even have social relations with animals etc.) ontology (do social relations with animals even exist or am I just granting human properties, or anthropomorphizing, animals), and, to some extent, methodology (I don't want to fall into positivism!).

For your first question, you need to be careful not to confuse pain with suffering. They are two different concepts. My understanding of Schopenhauer's suffering is our mutual perseverance through a miserable world. This type of thought would require abstraction and reasoning. Animals certainly experience and fear pain, an earlier post explained that well, but it is a leap to argue that they fear 'suffering', or even death.

What do you mean by social relations? We tend to have relationships with animals depending on whatever use they are to us. We have a companionship relationship with dogs because that's why we acquire them. We have a 'kill-and-eat-you' relationship with cows because that's why we bother with them. I'm not sure what your implication is with this question.

Animal rights is as vague a concept as human rights. What rights can we really say that we have unless we have the ability to enforce them?

Your paper might be an interesting comparison of Marx and Schopenhauer, but I don't think it will prove much else.

1 Reply

@Rwa001,

Rwa001;141264 wrote:

The anarchist philosopher Bakunin argued that to be fully human we have to become fully 'not animal'. This involves embracing all rational and logic, and being able to provide a reason for each and every action. This boils down to what most philosophers think the difference between humans and animals is.

For your first question, you need to be careful not to confuse pain with suffering. They are two different concepts. My understanding of Schopenhauer's suffering is our mutual perseverance through a miserable world. This type of thought would require abstraction and reasoning. Animals certainly experience and fear pain, an earlier post explained that well, but it is a leap to argue that they fear 'suffering', or even death.

What do you mean by social relations? We tend to have relationships with animals depending on whatever use they are to us. We have a companionship relationship with dogs because that's why we acquire them. We have a 'kill-and-eat-you' relationship with cows because that's why we bother with them. I'm not sure what your implication is with this question.

Animal rights is as vague a concept as human rights. What rights can we really say that we have unless we have the ability to enforce them?

Your paper might be an interesting comparison of Marx and Schopenhauer, but I don't think it will prove much else.

Being 'fully human' is silly.
By social relations I mean praxis (which you have described beautifully).
So you do not have the rights you cannot enforce? (Individually? Socially?)

---------- Post added 03-26-2010 at 11:20 AM ----------

Arjuna;141246 wrote:

Do you believe that meat is murder?

Relative question. Depends upon historical epoch and justification. From here we can cover endless hypothetical situations (what if you were lost in the woods...etc.) but that's not very helpful.

1 Reply

@ryang,

Quote:

Being 'fully human' is silly.

It's a constant process, and I don't think there is a good argument to support that trying to approach 'human perfection' is silly.

Quote:

So you do not have the rights you cannot enforce? (Individually? Socially?)

No, you don't. Rights can be enforced individually, like in the case of self-defense, and socially, as with the abolitionist movement. Animal rights can be(and have been) enforced recently, but there's still a pretty large disconnect between humanity and its animal pals.

0 Replies

Animals and Reification

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know