A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

They’ve got personality

Jon Katz writes the series Rural Life for Slate.com; he’s a writer who started his own farm with his wife and now writes about it.

One of his recurring themes is the intelligence and personality of farm animals and how human interaction can affect them. Today’s entry is about a sassy hen named Henrietta and the way she interacts with people and other animals. She perches on the donkey, plays hide-and-seek with the barn cat, and generally behaves in ways not typical for your average hen.

Katz writes that

Henrietta is the most recent subject of the unofficial study I’ve been conducting to see if how we treat farm animals can affect their personalities. Animals of the same species can behave very differently, yet there’s little research that explains why. Genetics is a factor, so are health and environment. And I’m coming to believe that humans can also shape the natures of domesticated animals, even creatures that seem to lack individuality.

This reminds me of a suggestion once made by C.S. Lewis. He said that, in entering into relationships with human beings, animals can in some way participate in human personal life, and maybe even enjoy a postmortem existence having been “taken up” into the lives of their human friends. Stephen Webb, a theologian who has written two books about our relationships to animals, holds up the domesticated animal as in some ways the paradigm of animal existence; the telos of animals is to be taken into community with human beings, and ultimately God.

It makes a certain amount of sense that if you treat animals like machines or objects, then that’s what they’ll become, but if you treat them like fellow beings with whom some kind of relationship is possible, then who knows what might develop? We hear stories of the saints talking to, bargaining with, and preaching to wild animals, in some ways anticipating the eschatological reality of a restored creation.

On the other hand, though, I think this needs to be balanced with a sense of the wildness of animals, and a respect for their otherness. Presumably animals have their own worlds of experience which would be as foreign to us as ours would be to them, were we able to experience them (what’s it like to be a bat?). There are kingdoms of which we know very little, and a bit of humility presumably wouldn’t be out of place.

3 responses to “They’ve got personality”

  1. Very well put, Lee. Thanks for your insight, which leads one to further reflection.

  2. Having been led so expertly to further reflection, I ask two questions:

    1. Is it possible for human interaction with animals also to lead them into the animal equivalent of “sin” or to participate in the fallenness of humankind? I think of dogs who are bred to be vicious, and perhaps (if I follow your reasoning) of animals who are turned into mechanistic automatons. In Lord of the Rings, Sauron can breed animals who are evil in nature and even the Orcs are imitations of the Elves.

    2. A caveat to the sort of “humanization” of animals: My wife has noted that on the message board which she helps moderate, there are “animal-lovers” who have openly admitted that it is easier to love their pets than their children. To me, this is interesting in that domesticated animals make far less demands and are satisfied with less than are children, who have the disadvantage of being willful.

    An animal, however human-like, cannot participate in an “I-Thou” relation in the same way that a human can (perhaps with the rare exception and approximation). There are many animal lovers who despise other human beings, I think for that very reason. A relationship with an animal is a patron-benefactor relationship with clear boundaries, while a human relationship is always far messier. This also can illuminate why humans in patron-benefactor relationships often appropriate animalistic terms for others (b***h being only the most common).

  3. Hey Chip,

    Yeah, I think you’re right on with point 1. I think my general view here is a kind of “do no harm” approach. We can’t (and probably shouldn’t) really interfere in inter-animal relations too much, but certainly we should be wary of doing things that make them more vicious than they would otherwise be.

    I also agree with you on two. There is a sense in which it’s easier to love (at least some) animals than other people. It seems that some people who have a really hard time relating to people take a kind of refuge in their relationships with animals. (I’m happy to report that no matter how much I love my two cats I think I get along fairly well with my fellow homo sapiens.)

Leave a reply to Lee Cancel reply