4/20/10 - Response to “Fear of the Familiar”
By Alli Harrod (04/20/10 17:27:15)
In “Fear of the Familiar” Steve Baker discusses post-modernism in relation to interspecies collaboration, speciesism, and environmentalism as he examines fear and favor of animals and inconsistencies that surround that dichotomy. As post-modernists attempt to rid binary thinking and categories, Baker examines their successes and shortcomings in relation to individuals of any particular species, collaboration and speciesism. Baker claims that post-modern artists may experience an underlying “fear of pets” or rather an “anthromorphobia” which derives from the construction of the “pet” in a category that may be humanlike. However it is vital to the reader’s understanding of the text to note that since “anthromorphobia” may exist for some, it is necessary to realize that the category “pet” lies in a space that is sub-human and non-(“wild”)animal, therefore the “pet” in question finds home in neither. But, thinking of the “pet” in these terms suggests that the “pet” is absolutely an individual. It is utterly biased to critique the socializing that any animal undergoes because there is no definition of “natural” according to a post-modernist framework. So whether an animal grows in the “wild,” in a household, or in a (perhaps) harsh environment that has been affected by human or natural growth or disaster, they are an individual animal regardless of the environment that “normalized” them. It is imperative that a post-modernist understand this fact. Every animal is socialized in some way or another, just like a human is, and this socialization brings them into their individual existence in the world. Whether animals have relationships with humans or other animals or both, it is speciesist to assume that every animal has the same experience, just as it is racist or classist to assume that every member of any particular socioeconomic location lives the same experience.

Baker also found similarities between post-modern artists and animal activists/advocates who both considered to view animals through a framework of individuality. He claims that both artists and activists/advocates search for new ways to interact with animals in their “natural” habitat, in an attempt not to “taint” them. He writes that love has a lot to do with knowledge and I think that this is an important philosophy when debating over “wild” v. domestic animals and the objectivity/subjectivity binary. Love can affect the way that someone views animals as individuals and species as a whole. People like Jim Nollman and Barbara Janelle radiate love for animals as individuals within their work and the way that they discuss their relationships to animals – and this certainly enhances the ability for one to view animals as subjects and not objects.


[Write Comment]