It’s coming right for us
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
By Matthew Irwin
The essayist, novelist, art critic John Berger wrote that humans cannot attribute violent acts to their animal nature. Not only do humans choose to be violent, he says, but we also choose to blame our animal nature to sidestep the ethical necessity of changing.
I’ve referred to these comments of Berger’s before. They seem relevant on the topic of violence. Philip Gourevitch’s view on torture, expressed at Teton County Library, last week, can be seen as an extension of this discussion:
When confronted with the idea that U.S. sanctioned torture in Abu Ghraib was minimal and purposeful next to Saddam Hussain’s torture chambers, he said that one degree of torture could not be excused by one more severe by the other side, that the U.S. adheres to a constitution that does not condone torture, a principle that should apply even outside our physical boundaries.
It’s an important point, though possibly a digression.
The wherefore began this discourse is a piece in Cheyenne’s Wyoming Tribune-Eagle. “They’re just a different animal to hunt” follows a team of coyote hunters in Wheatland, one of 50 participating in a statewide contest.
>
From the headline alone, I was prepared to be troubled by the content, but I was also prepared to laud the reporter for a profile piece on a contentious issue.
However, the reporter’s point of view, seemingly influenced by a chummy attitude with her subjects, quickly became apparent.
Worse than the fact of the hunt and the rationalization of people who participate was the cavalier commentary of reporter Shauna Stephenson:
“There will always be those who think every coyote, wolf and bear should be allowed to repopulate every corner of the lower 48. And then there will always be those who think they should be wiped from the face of the earth.
“But then there are those that comprise the middle - a grand mélange of personal experience, gut reaction, ethics and opinion - and it’s that vast swath of gray area that has us all so stumped.”
To illustrate this great conundrum, Stephenson reduces the argument to the money coyotes cost in lost livestock versus studies arguing that greater control of coyotes actually increases litter sizes. Only a passing mention of ethical concerns; indeed, the very one in her quotation above. And nary a remark on alternatives, such as new defensive measures on the part of ranchers.
Then, in her final act of dismissal, apparently more ignorant than objective, she settles the conflict by giving it up:
“So, to avoid the long, drawn out arguments or name-calling sessions, let’s just say that nothing is truly straightforward when it comes to the coyote.”
Though there is no shortage of nepotism toward the hunters in this story, I believe Stephenson’s error is in reasoning that reservations over the hunt originate from “our internal predator recognizing another.”
It’s a notable reversal of the animal instinct rationale, but only linguistically.
In reality, she diminishes concern for the lives of coyotes to self-concern, and not even acceptably. Our understanding of pain and suffering obligates concern that living things do not die violently or unnecessarily – an instinct as predation might be called an instinct.
The ability to choose which instinct to obey separates humans from animals. JHW
PERMALINK:
It’s coming right for us | Planet JH News Article: Editorial
Leave a Comment
