SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HUMAN ATTITUDES TOWARD ANIMALS Alan R. Drengson Victoria, British Columbia Many of the preconceived and superstitious beliefs about ani­ mals held in the 19th-century West probably grew out of the fears and anxieties ofcolonial Europeans living in places new to them. Europe had been free ofalmost all large wild animals for several centuries by the time colonials arrived on the American and African continents and on the sub-continent of India. Moreover, during the 19th century the industrializing West was a society often characterized by its own oppressive fantasies and fears of repressed human sexual energic~s. As these energies wen: turned toward achievements in the worlds ofthe wild kingdoms, both the indigenous natives and animals came to be seen as life-threatening enemies. The white sl~tt1ers of course knew that they were the invaders, often taking the resources and territory of other peoples with violence, hatred and the conflict that this provokes. In our century, popular fiction expressed a similar brutal atti­ popular tude in the various gorilla stories and wild animal "safari"-type expressions films. The king ofall animal fantasies was perlpps King Kong, oia the world's largest and most ferocious film ape. The big white brutal hunter and the great film apes have shown similar tastes in attitude many film episodt:s. The "movie gorillas," after all, were not unintelligent; they were, in fact, shown to be far more intelli­ gent than most WI~sterners would have been willing to allow. These ferocious movie apes, and the various stories of killer apes, were re-echoed in fiction and film stor~es about killer beasts of every kind: wolves, coyotes, grizzlies, tigers, sharks, rats, bats, birds, snakes and so on. In reading this sort of literature, and in viewing these types of films, one gets the impression that there has been a continuous war between humans and the other animals ofthe earth. The Journal ofTranspersonal Psychology, 1980, Vol. 12, No.1 63 The determination with which animals have been pursued and eradicated displays something that goes beyond mere eco­ nomic drives, for fear, hatred and even fanaticism are in evi­ dence. In many ways this curious phase of our history seems characterized by large doses of psychological projection. Tar­ zan's apes have a culture that is too human to be missed (Burroughs, 1976). Their raids against the African blacks dis­ play levels of brutality and violence similar to that shown by Western society in its contacts with various indigenous "hostiles." The evolutionary theory that was popularly mis­ nature understood as Darwinism saw nature as "red in fang and seen claw." The struggle for survival, dominance and superiority as was seen everywhere. Nature was seen as one continuous competitive competitive struggle, just as human society. The gorilla seemed struggle an apt symbol for this conception ofnatural violence, given its wild, human-like appearance and size. In stories and on the screen, gorillas were usually shown as fighting or attacking humans. Recent field studies ofanimal behavior reveal that this view of the gorilla's "violent" nature is very much overdrawn (Lorenz, 1974; Montague, 1973). At best it simply predisposed people to "see" what they wanted or feared to see. At worst it led them to destroy and to actually extinguish hundreds of irreplaceable and valuable animal species. It was inevitable that sooner or later someone such as George Schaller (l963, 1964) would set out for the dense forests of Africa intent upon studying the behavior offree living gorillas in their native habitat. Schaller pioneered field studies ofthese large primates. Until his work, most of our knowledge of the gorilla and ofthe other great apes was based on hearsay, rumor and observations of apes in captivity. gentle Schaller's studies revealed that the gorilla is one of the most and passive, gentle and placid animals in the wild kingdom. Re­ reclusive clusive and shy, they keep to themselves hidden in the forests, animals roving their territory in small interrelated bands. Before spending time with the gorillas, Schaller was concerned for his safety with them, as stories from nearby natives indi­ cated the gorilla to be a violent and dangerous animal, given to unpredictable rages and charged attacks. However, in all ofhis time with the mountain gorillas, Schaller was never once se­ riously threatened. On the contrary, after they got used to his presence, some gorillas even tolerated being in the same tree with him. Schaller's studies and those ofother ethologists have again and 64 The Journal ofTranspersonal Psychology, 1980, Vol. 12, No.1 again demonstrated that the behavior of animals living free and wild differs markedly from those in captivity. Free-living animal species rarely engage in intraspecific violence. Their territorial clashes are more bluster and ritual than a fight to the death. Moreover, free-living animals, mammals and especially primates, are far more intelligent and aware than inheritors of 19th-century humbug have been inclined to think. Part of the assertive reason for any existing blindness is related to the assertive character character of our culture during and since industrialization. It of was widely thought and felt that the earth was a human prov­ industrial ince to do with as man wished. But doubts about this arrogant culture position surfaced in various forms. The Frankenstein story, for example, revealed human insen­ sitivity and the failure to control natural forces in the form of a gothic tale. The monster was the creation of a technology and mind-set which isolated humans from the rest ofthe biosphere, at the same time as it tended to desensitize them to the suffer­ ings of their fellow beings. Given that humans are often the cause of much of this suffering, and given also that Wl~ know this, especially at a sub-conscious level, it is only to be expected that this would find expression in allegoric tales. In the nineteenth century the machine-made monster was a the symbol of human arrogance and fear. Today, l:ln often-used mind symbol of our alienated, dehumanized state is the computer, sans which has come to stand for the human mind sans feeling in a feeling multitude of sci-fi stories and films. In 2001 the malevolent computer's cognitive circuits are disconnected-only then is human entry into the "Godhead" possible and rebirth assured. 2001 is a film metaphor for the birth ofa new type ofperson, a humanity that has transcended its own technology, a humanity conscious ofits own native potentials. The computer, in such films as 2001, can be seen as a symbol for the modern rational mind-not the full-blooded reason ofa Plato, but more the narrowed logical functioning of recipe mathematics. The rational mind ofa computer follows lines of thought to their logical conclusion, no matter what kind of absurdity this might lead to. Ifthe logical conclusion is "kill the hibernating astronauts," then that is what will be done. The computer in 2001 is, beyond a certain point, obsessional and paranoid. This "rational mind" also depicts the triumph of scientific technology and finds its philosophical echoes in reductionist, positivistic behaviorism. To the degree that this perspeetive makes us insensitive to other humans and other forms oflire, it also blinds us to the inexpressible mystery oflife as revealed in Social andpsychological implications ofattitudes toward animals 65 our immediate experience. Nevertheless, the positivistic em­ phasis on a methodical gathering of information laid the groundwork for recent field studies of the gorilla and other animals. How far we can be led to narrowed relationships with other life forms, even with family pets such as dogs, can be brought out by considering the views expressed in a recent book on dog training. Charles P. Eisenmann (1971) has claimed that the usual theories and methods of dog training are based on 19th-century Pavlovian theories of conditioning that assume that the dog has only minimal intelligence. Essentially, they represent a 19th-century mechanistic approach. The dog's nervous system is conditioned to react automatically without the intervention ofthought or consciousness. As a result ofthis approach, there is a tendency not to be open to increasing our awareness of the dog's range of sensitivities and its potentials for intelligent behavior. Habit, routine, and other attention­ deadening processes may tend to make one even less sensitive. But this is hardly strange, for even in daily interpersonal rela­ tionships anyone can be inattentive, unperceptive and insen­ sitive, or less than whole-hearted. sensitive My own perception of the differences between sensitive awareness awareness and automaton-like insensitivity involving other of forms of life has centered around dogs. Human relationships other with dogs can at times be characterized by a sort of paradox. forms One may be inclined to think that dogs are not very aware; that of they do not understand very much; that they are simply con­ life ditioned to react to appropriate stimuli or by means ofinstinct; and yet one mayfeel that they do understand much more than we think. Dog-training methods often seem to incline us to think that their understanding is rudimentary at best. The animal is conditioned over and over to behave in a certain way to a single command, and soon the behavior becomes me­ chanical, unthinking, rate. We may rarely consider the animal to be capable of intelligent behavior, perhaps because we tend to associate intelligence with the verbal competence and thought processes that language makes possible. This in itself tends to affect our perception ofanimal intelligence adversely. If we assume that the animal, in this case the dog (or ape), is not capable of intelligent behavior or creative response, then our attitude will tend to discourage its notice, development and enhancement, in self-fulfilling expectation.