24 Hannah Mulwanda – The Evolution of Animal Welfare (Excerpt)

Hannah Mulwanda (she/her) is a graduate student that majored in Psychology. She grew up in Warsaw, IN. This paper is the final project on animal exploration for her English Literature class. Professor Alisa Clapp-Itnyre notes, “You *should* be SO proud, and I am proud of you!!! You took every suggestion I gave you and now have an amazingly thorough, 16-page paper on a huge sweep of Brit Lit! You actually DO use 10 secondary sources, you just forgot to get Ritvo and Reynolds in your Works Cited. I love that the subtheme in general, begun with Cavendish and that it is brought up again in the Conclusion. Your comments on anthropomorphism are so perceptive, too! I know I had you ‘work your butt off’ 🙂 but I hope it is a paper you can forever be proud of.”

The Evolution of Animal Welfare (Excerpt)

“We have no right to distress any of God’s creatures without a very good reason; we call them dumb animals, and so they are, for they cannot tell us how they feel, but they do not suffer less because they have no words” (Sewell, 256). Anna Sewell’s Black Beauty is an excellent example of the progression of animal advocacy over the years, as she gives animals, particularly horses, a voice where they previously had none. From the medieval times through the 19th century, animals have gone from being in a position of power to one of submission. Due to the ever-growing technology that humans have used to assert their power over other living creatures, animals have unfortunately been subjected to cruelty, death, and captivity, to the detriment of both humans and animals. However, there is also kindness and compassion towards animals, which is shown often throughout the literature of the past several centuries. From greater and more widely known works such as Gulliver’s Travels, Black Beauty, and Darwin’s Origin of Species, to smaller works of poetry such as “The Hunting of the Hare” and “Battle of Brunanburh,” literature paints a vivid picture of the social and economic journey of the treatment of animals, as both a way to criticize and condemn the actions of humans as well as evoke sympathy and action on the behalf of animals both in nature and in captivity. However, these works of literature did not start out as a movement in animal advocacy; rather, animals were initially portrayed in the ways that they were useful to people or as lessons and cautionary tales. As more knowledge became available, authors adjusted their viewpoints of animals in literature, which ultimately gave animals a voice and defense. In this paper, I will argue that people’s perspective of animals overall has drastically shifted from one of apprehension to one of favor and admiration.

Animals have consistently been in the lives of humans from the beginning, used in many different ways. This can be described using Alisa Clapp-Itnyre’s concept of the “Five C’s” which include Killing, Cruelty, Co-opting and Commercializing, Capture and Condescension, and Caring and Compassion. Each of these sections encompasses a way that humans have used and mistreated animals or advocated for their welfare and protection. Perhaps one of the most prominent of these is the first “C”, Killing. There are obvious ways that humans have killed animals throughout the years, such as for food as a necessity, but once humans realized their advantage over many animals, many animal species were killed and made extinct for sport with no regard for preserving species diversity. Furthermore, as Clapp-Itnyre states, “Killing became for show” and “Animal trophies became huge commodities,” as can be seen with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, to be discussed shortly (Canvas page “Introductory Page to L301, Part 2: Animal-Studies Concepts”). There was not regard for responsible sourcing of these unique collectible items, and as a result, many species suffered.

Another of the “Five C’s” that was (and still is) extremely prominent is that of Co-Opting and Commercializing animals. The main goal of humans co-opting animals is to provide benefits for humans. Examples of co-opting animals are breaking and training horses to ride and pull carriages or aiding in the advancement of science and medicine by vivisection. Often, in cases such as these, little thought is given to the animal being used and only the benefits that will result from their use is considered, as with much of the horse literature coming up in this paper.

Fortunately, the “C’s” are not all bad, as they also include Caring and Compassion. Over the years, many organizations have been founded for the sake of protecting animals and advocating for their well-being, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Defenders of Wildlife (Canvas page “Introductory Page to L301, Part 2: Animal-Studies Concepts”). There is a whole century’s worth of compassionate writers of the 19th century who brought animal welfare to readers’ attention, to the ultimate advantage of animals.

As far as works of literature are concerned, it took a while for authors to recognize animals in their writing as valued as living things and worthy of protection rather than only for the use of humans. Eventually, their portrayal of animals did morph into advocacy, all the while exposing man’s cruelty and condemning it. The medieval poem “Brunanburh” describes a battle in detail but does not include any animals in the battle itself, which is surprising because they very well could have used war horses or other animals to aide their fight, and portrayed despair at losing their battle partner. However, the imagery of animals is not depicted until the very end of the poem: “the black raven with its horny beak; the brown eagle of white tail-feather, to feast on the slain – greedy war hawk; and the grey one, the wolf of the weald” (lines 61-65). Before the animals are identified, it is stated that they were left behind, which seems to be a depiction of the battle being at its end, and nature cleaning up after the ravages left by human struggle. It does not appear that the remaining humans from the battle had any particular feelings or attitudes towards the animals, but they do not seem surprised to see them come to clean up the remains of the dead. This is a good example of the passive and almost uninterested way that humans were depicted as using animals in this time period. However, moving forward, things start to progress as humans begin to see more value in animals.

All of the purposes that humans use animals for can be placed in the “great chain of being” hierarchy that many in medieval times would have considered important. The great chain of being starts at the top with God, then moves to angelic beings in their various forms, to humans, to animals, to plants and minerals at the very end (Wikipedia “Great chain of being”). This idea may have influenced their decisions about how to treat animals and portray them in literature. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the knights and lords of Camelot host three hunts over the course of three days, seemingly for sport, of three animals: the stag, the boar, and the fox. As a means to their end, they also used greyhounds to assist them in their hunts, and when they had positive results, “They rewarded the hounds, stroking them and rubbing their heads” (p. 37) demonstrating at least a small level of companionship with them as they served their purpose. However, because the great chain of being was supposedly decreed by God, humans felt that it was their right to use the animals as they pleased. Although the animals were valued and there was a purpose to their death and use, they were still not considered valuable enough in the hierarchy to keep alive or let them simply exist.

In many other instances, animals are portrayed as teaching a lesson. For example, many of the Bestiary poems are used this way, particularly as Christian allegories or symbols. In “The Whale”, although the whale has really done nothing to deserve this description, it is used in its explication as a comparison to the Devil leading people into hell, and serves as a cautionary lesson: “Mighty the Devil in strength and in will, / Like witches in witchcraft, doing ill. / With hunger and thirst he makes men a-fire / And burn with many a sinful desire” (lines 43-46). Conversely, lions are compared in “The Lion” to God himself, as a powerful being who rises to power after just three days, as well as comparing the extreme awareness of lions to the ever-watchful eye of God: “Lastly, the lion, when lying asleep, / Never locks the lids fast when closing his eyes. … So lived our Lord our life to uphold, Willingly watchful, like warden of fold” (lines 11-12, 26-27). Furthermore, in “The Stag”, stags seem to be portrayed as a warning against giving in to temptation to sin, and instead loving each other: “This custom we should bear in mind, / And we should leave all sin behind, / And all of us love one another, / And treat each man just like our brother, / And loyally assist each friend / To beat the load which makes him bend” (“The Stag” 2, lines 23-28).

During about the same time period, Shakespeare also appears to use animals as a form of a lesson or even punishment in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (2015), particularly when Nick Bottom is turned into a half donkey by Puck to make fun of him for making a fool of himself consistently throughout the play. There is a clear irony in it as well, as Bottom does not realize that he has been transformed into a donkey, all the while calling his friends and castmates fools themselves. Bottom being portrayed as a donkey, or otherwise a beast of burden, is not only ironic because of his behavior throughout the play, but because of his position in the working class as well. This is also one of the first times we see animals being given some sort of voice, even though its purpose was not to uplift the animal being portrayed. Bach (2010) points out the place of animals on the continuum saying, “Of course, Bottom speaks in words as well as neighs, and the ability of human animals to speak in words, to use language, has historically been a measure of the difference between the human animal and all other animals”. This theme of giving animals a (real) voice will take shape more around the 19th century and will have a purpose that specifically caters to animal welfare.

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, there are many representations of animals in literary works along with the changes of culture, the upper-class using animals more to fulfill their needs as well as a status symbol. Before this period, animals weren’t given as much consideration in literature, and if they were it was fleeting rather than contemplative as many of the works in these centuries become.

In Alexander Pope’s The Rape of the Lock, animals aren’t necessarily central to the story, but they do pervade throughout and clearly play a part in the lives of the characters. The first presence of an animal is that of Belinda’s lapdog Shock. Shock is obviously a beloved pet to Belinda, rather than what has been seen in the past with dogs being primarily used for hunting or protection. According to the Utah State University Library’s exhibition regarding the lapdog, a woman’s relationship with her dog at the time was very sexualized and considered by many to be a woman’s replacement for a sexual relationship (or other intimate relationships), which they would not have been allowed to have at the time; however, Pope does seem to be portraying Belinda’s relationship with Shock as more of a sensitive, companion kind of relationship rather than a sexual one. Regardless, this view of a woman’s relationship with her dog is not taken at face value and lessens the importance or weight of a dog’s companionship. Pope furthermore uses animals as symbols of other things, such as when he names the salamander as a type of fire spirit and references the way animal products would have symbolized wealth for Belinda: “The Tortoise here and Elephant unite” (Canto I, line 135), referring to Belinda’s tortoiseshell and ivory combs.

Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels takes a much more central look at animals, specifically horses, through the lens of a human, Gulliver himself. Intentionally or not, Swift takes an objective look at speciesism through the personification of horses, or Houynhnhms. To begin with, Gulliver clearly has his own view of where he sits on the totem pole of life as a civilized human. He is taken aback by the behavior of the Yahoos before he realizes what they are and is further surprised by the behavior of the Houynhnhms when they enter the picture and start to communicate. He knows they are horses and identifies them as such, even differentiating them by their breed. As Gulliver spends more time with the horses, he realizes that although he has viewed them as simple creatures, like they would have been back in his country, they are intelligent, or “rational” creatures here, and humans, or the Yahoos, are considered a “brute Animal” (175). As the horses push Gulliver to tell them more about the ways that humans behave where he is from, Gulliver becomes more and more aware of the error of their ways and deeply criticizes them, namely their treatment of horses. He describes the ways they are used in his country, saying they “were the most generous and comely Animal we had; that they excelled in Strength and Swiftness”, and regretfully details the ways they are abused for riding and for their service in the fields until they are injured and no longer useful (180). This serves as Swift’s own criticism of modern society’s use of horses at the time. According to “Gulliver’s Travels & Noble Horses” (Alkemeyer 12), Swift’s criticism of the treatment of horses cannot be generalized to the welfare of all animals. However, if one simply uses the same thought processes and morality concerning other animals as Gulliver did with horses, that doesn’t necessarily ring true. It depends on one’s perspective of nobility and one’s ability to see the worth in animals that would be considered lower on the hierarchy. Swift further seems to criticize human consumption of animals by the way he describes the consumption of meat by the Yahoos, after describing them as “cunning, malicious, treacherous and revengeful”: “they dig up Roots, eat several Kinds of Herbs, and search about for Carrion, or sometimes Weasels and Luhimuhs (a sort of wild Rat) which they greedily devour” (201). Assuming “Carrion” took the same meaning then as it does now, carrion refers to the flesh of dead animals, which is often a word used to describe what scavenger animals such as vultures eat. Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels ultimately portrays animals as intelligent creatures that are worthy of attention and kind treatment.

Poems such as Cavendish’s “Hunting of the Hare” uses animals to call out the unjust treatment of animals when they are simply trying to survive. Like many other animal welfare advocates of this century, Cavendish is a woman and displays a sort of feminine sensitivity, bringing a different perspective to the movement than men previously had. In fact, many women of that time period may have advocated for animals so strongly because of their ability to empathize with them as a perceived lower order of being: “Men of science endorsed such a construction of women by placing her below man and closer to animals and nature on the evolutionary tree” (McNeill para. 2). Women of that time were certainly not valued as their own group of people, and instead were viewed to “embod[y] lower stages of human development, mentally and physically, while white European men had ultimately developed beyond these lower stages” (McNeill para. 2). Women clearly felt the need to advocate for animals that were treated poorly, even as they were not valued themselves. Cavendish was no exception. She tells the story of a hare who is going about his daily business when men with dogs begin to hunt it, and it has to run for its life in order to not become their entertainment or sport. Cavendish then criticizes the fact that men hunt animals for sport or food when God saw fit to give them life in the first place:

As if that God made Creatures for Mans meat,

To give them Life, and Sense, for Man to eat;

Or else for Sport, or Recreations sake,

Destroy those Lifes that God saw good to make:

She further points out that humans simultaneously think they are the gentlest and kindest creatures on the earth, and yet they also have a God-complex that makes them feel that they have the right to kill animals that God himself gave life. Jeremy Bentham seems to support this view of what cruelty really is: “To my apprehension, every act by which, without prospect of preponderant good, pain is knowingly and willingly produced in any being whatsoever, is an act of cruelty; and, like other bad habits, the more the correspondent habit is indulged in, the stronger it grows, and the more frequently productive of its bad fruit” (qtd. on Canvas “18th Century Nonfiction” page). Bentham further advocates for animal welfare in his work Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789) by questioning how creatures in general are treated based off of if they can suffer rather than whether or not they compare to humans as far as their intelligence or capabilities. One who certainly was not under the impression that animals did not have value or intricacies that humans had only just begun to understand, was Charles Darwin.