30 March 2021 – by Rachel Aronoff
The seemingly insuperable nature of the boundaries between human and non- human beings carried throughout bodies of literary work evokes issues regarding the substantiality of land and animal ethics. The projection of human characteristics onto the natural world is exemplified through both fictional and authentic accounts of anthropological consciousness in relation to non-human sentience. In order to redefine the divisions between humans and the environment, it is imperative to transgress egocentric perceptions of consciousness. The theoretical framework presented in Aldo Leopold’s essay, Land Ethic, manifests a rich representation of the deep interconnections between human ideology and environmental degradation; while J.M. Coetzee’s novella, The Lives of Animals, materializes the necessity of surpassing conventional notions of consciousness to establish climate responsibility. Each of these works posits the significance of advancing ethical thought beyond the limited scope of human egoism, and illustrates the possibility of bridging the divide between human and non-human realms through the emergence of an ecological conscience.
I. The Fragmentation of Anthropocentric Philosophy
Coetzee offers an earnest interrogation of the partitions between human and animal subjectivity in order to challenge the traditional discourse surrounding collective ethics. He positions novelist Elizabeth Costello as the mouthpiece that serves to reassess anthropocentric views of morality. Her main role is to reframe rationalist theology, and dissolve the ethical grounds sustaining human-centric values. Costello suggests that the foundation of humanist philosophy rests upon the use of reason as the main differentiator between human and non-human sentience. She proposes a critique of common modalities of thinking, and argues that principles of reason do not afford humans a privilege of superiority. In a lecture on the complexity of non-human rights, she tells her listeners that
“Reason looks suspiciously to me like the being of human thought; worse than that, like the being of one tendency in human thought. Reason is the being of a certain spectrum of human thinking” 1
The idea that reason itself is a product of the mind serves to destabilize its use as a guiding compass. The reduction of reason to the abstract sphere of a “spectrum” implicitly diminishes its intellectual significance. An inversion of rationalist theory may reveal that the fundamentals of reasoning are flawed in nature, and can be transformed to encapsulate logic beyond our own self- interest. Jan-Harm de Villiers’s research on animals’ “literary voice” touches on the tendency to use reason to support the notion of humanist superiority. He remarks on Costello’s awareness of the human ability to recognize animal suffering, whilst remaining morally passive to one’s own involvement in it.
“Costello locates the root of this passivity in the rationalist tradition’s privileging use of reason above all other human faculties as a capacity or criterion to justify subjugation” 2
It may be possible to rupture one’s personal indifference through the engagement of discourse that falls outside of the realm of traditional thought. In order to disrupt the framework upholding hierarchical structure, it becomes necessary to interact with the concept of suffering. The idea of mental and bodily suffering incurred by human action may serve to provoke a profound change in our views of land ethics. The question of whether or not humans can cultivate a sense of awareness strong enough to manifest an ecological conscience comes to the forefront of this discussion.
Redirecting Humanist Thought
The basis of rational thought must rest on the premise that humans and the natural world are deeply interconnected, rather than divided. In his essay, Land Ethic, author Aldo Leoplod evokes the significance of developing moral conscientiousness of the environment. He suggests that a collective disconnection to the land results in a lack of ethical regard for ecological systems, and creates stagnancy within the conservation movement. He posits that
“Obligations have no meaning without conscience, and the problem we face is the extension of the social conscience from people to land. No important change in ethics was ever accomplished without an internal change in our intellectual emphasis, loyalties, affections, and convictions.” 3
The notion that change must take place on a more intimate level conjures both an individual and collective call to action. A shift in “intellectual emphasis” must occur in order to bridge the boundaries between sustainable living and human indifference. Although many view the natural world through a hierarchical lens, it is important to acknowledge human reliance on the land. In order to materialize ethical consideration for the land, one must experience its complexity through personal immersion. In her essay, Compassionate Coexistence, Uta Maria Jürgens elaborates on the importance of recognizing the interdependent relationship between humans and the natural world. Her research on environmental psychology explains that “the one-on-one encounter with particular animals, plants, and landscapes that, collectively, constitute Nature is the mediating link between personal responsibility and actual land-ethical conduct” 4 In developing a degree of affinity with the land, one can begin to comprehend their own moral responsibility to care for it. This approach requires a massive transition in the way humans view non-human subjectivity. Jürgens comments on the significance of “personalizing” other beings: respecting their inherent right to exist and be perceived as autonomous. In order to mobilize moral responsibility for the land, it is necessary to establish non-human ecosystems as independent entities, and foster intentional relationships with the natural world. A fragmentation of the divisions between human and animal sentience may serve to catalyze this shift in thought.
II. The Core of Environmental Disconnection
The idea that animals possess consciousness must be integrated into social thought in order to destabilize the psychological boundaries that disconnect humans from the natural world. Coetzee pushes deeper into dissolving these philosophical demarcations, and offers the use of one’s “sympathetic imagination” as a conduit for engaging with the state of another being. Costello suggests that “to be alive is to be a living soul. An animal, and we are all animals, is an embodied soul.” 5 Through the use of the mind, humans can immerse in the experience of inhabiting the body of another. This practice allows for recognition of the idea that humans do not possess authority over our animal counterparts. She argues that there is “no limit to the extent to which we can think ourselves into the being of another.” 6 The “sensation of being” in itself constitutes a fundamental part of all life. The cognitive awareness of bodily existence pertains to both humans and animals, and can be seen as the equalizing agent of the two realms. This notion serves to diminish justifications for manipulating the environment on the basis of humanist superiority. It emphasizes that human intellect does not exemplify consciousness, and acts to invalidate the bounds between human and non-human ecosystems.
The main purpose of Costello’s claim to the power of embodiment is to engage with the concept of non-human consciousness, and unravel deeply-rooted rationalizations for environmental disconnection. The absence of an ecological conscience creates invisible barriers between human and non-human realms, resulting in chronic detachment from the land. Simultaneously, this separation generates a lack of ethical regard for natural biomes. Although the scarcity of land ethics may seem trivial, it translates to the root of various inadequacies embedded in environmental policy and regulation. This generational dysfunction manifests into major ecosystem degradation, involving extreme weather events and climate-induced displacement on a global scale. In her report The Silent Violence of Climate Change, María José Méndez expands upon this issue, and draws attention to the lack of legal protections currently in place for those affected by environmental disaster. She touches on the unobtrusive nature of climate suffering, and the way in which it prevents exceedingly vulnerable populations from receiving proper rights and recognition. Her field work exhibits that “asylum seekers must parade the psychological and physical wounds that scar their bodies or those of their loved ones, and even then, they are not guaranteed immigration relief.” 7 In order to be considered a refugee, an individual must supply compelling proof of imminent violence or persecution in their homeland.
Concurrently, there remains no official language that effectively defines and protects environmental migrants under international refugee law. The existing policies neglect the adversity of those experiencing devastating financial and agricultural losses due to the prolonged effects of climate change, such as rising sea levels and extensive drought. Méndez remarks on the sensationalist quality of modern thinking that drives legal policy, and inherently subdues less explicit forms of suffering. She finds that “asylum policy, like much mainstream news coverage, favors stories of brutal death or injury and suppresses the economic and ecological harms that also drive people to leave home.” 8 It can become immensely difficult to provide evidence of the acute rationale for climate migration, as these issues have developed and worsened over decades of time. The rise in population displacement and reduced human mobility will continue to intensify with increased environmental degradation.
Collective Outlook
The need for greater accountability and awareness falls on both private corporations and governmental institutions alike. In order to advance ecological responsibility, it is necessary to create a deeper sense of collective obligation to the environment, and those existing within biotically fragile regions. This idea reinvites Leopold’s conceptualization of a framework that prioritizes deeper commitment to the land, and favors an internal shift in our ways of thinking. Leopold brings us back to the assertion that ethical management of the environment must “reflect the existence of an ecological conscience, and this in turn reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land.” 9 It is essential to reinvent global protection efforts in order to preserve the existence of both human and non-human realms. Through the facilitation of enhanced climate awareness, it is possible to redefine our connection to the natural world.
The evolution of environmental progress rests on the prospect of bridging the divide between human and non-human ecosystems. It is crucial to advance beyond egocentric thought in order to transgress socially constructed boundaries of consciousness, and compose a stronger sense of responsibility for the land. In developing an ecological conscience, we can generate a call for change to prevent ecosystem collapse, and ameliorate the health of both human and non-human environments.
Rachel Aronoff recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in English, and a specialization in Literature and the Environment. She is also certified in health and wellness coaching, personal training, and in the process of becoming a yoga instructor.
References
1. Coetzee, J M, and Amy Gutmann. The Lives of Animals. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2001. Print.
2. Villiers, J. H. (2019). Prolegomenon on the Role of the Polyphonic Novel for (Animal) Law: J.M. Coetzee’s The Lives of Animals, the Voice of Refusal, and the Subversive Performativity of the Novel. Law & Literature, 31(3), 2019.
3. Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1949. Print.
4. Jürgens, Uta Maria. “Compassionate Coexistence: Personizing the Land in Aldo Leopold’s Land-Ethic.” Sept. 2014. Journal of Evolution & Technology, vol. 24, no. 3.
5. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals, 33.
6. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals, 35
7. Méndez, M. J. (2020). The Silent Violence of Climate Change in Honduras. In NACLAReport on the Americas (Vol. 52, Issue 4, pp. 436–441).
8. Méndez, The Silent Violence of Climate Change in Honduras. (Vol. 52, Issue 4, pp. 436–441).
9. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There.
