Chapter 8, Fear of the Familiar, in The Postmodern Animal by Steve Baker (2000) By Danielle Terhune (04/22/10 12:09:40)
“And then there is the most contemptible kind (of animal):’ ‘individual animals, family pets, sentimental, Oedipal animals each with its own petty history, “my” cat, “my” dog. These animals invited us to regress, draw us into a narcissistic contemplation’...Their (Deleuze and Guattari) particular hostility to the pet stems, it seems, from how conveniently this kind of animal stands for all they despise in the expectations of an unimaginative psychoanalysis: family loyalty, obedience to the law and the possibility of a world made meaningful by well formed and exhaustive interpretations.” (Baker 168-169).
Post-modernists hate the structured. They were rebellious and yearned only for the original. The fear of the familiar stems from their hate of icons and set rules of society. For the Post-modernist there is no black and white, everything resides within shades of gray. These factors lead to the hate of pets. As mentioned in the excerpt above, the strong distaste for pets from these post-modernists stem from the institution they represent. I think that it is unfair for there artists and thinkers to say that they hate all animals who are pets and say that they love all animals who are wild and run in packs. Do these post-modernists believe that pets are just a newly acceptable form of slavery, where anyone can be ‘master’ of his home, even if it is over a tame animal? This would be true if most pets today weren’t more pampered than one’s own family members. Most people see there pets as family members, yet this too is, as the post-modernists have said, is anthropomorphizing and therefore adding to the narcism of humans, allowing a ‘lower’ thing be integrated into the family structure. There are definite issues when it comes to having ‘pets,’ yet I believe pets are not good or bad. It is the human caretaker that creates a situation of good or bad, productive or regressive. There needs to remain a healthy respect for the animal, and an understanding of it own animalistic traits. It is not a human, it will never have human qualities, and when people assume that their animals are a little humans just like them, then yes, I agree with the post-modernists, that is detrimental to both parties. Even though the post-modernists say they have a great fondness over wild animals I feel that they disrespect them as much as they disrespect the family ‘pet.’ They assume the wild animal is original, is unique, and runs its life by its own rules devoid of human interaction. They see the animal as pure. Yet, it an ironic love affair, seeing how studies have proven time and again, that wild animals have a very structured way of life, and that any disruption in there patterns, such as humans cutting down rain forests or global warming changing set weather patterns, wild animals are hard pressed to survive there changes, and may adapt, but may not. Their structures is what keeps them alive. And, although there are not human structures, should not the post-modernists despise these as well, because of their strong fear of the familiar, the predictable? So too, then, should the post-modernists hate wild animals more-so then the ‘pet’ for the pet is the one who has moved away from this set patterns, and moved into a who new alien environment from its nature and from its pack. Therefore, logically, under the post-modernists own choice of values the ‘pet’ should be their favored animal. [Write Comment]