RECENTLY, I added two cat images (see) that I thought were funny. I especially liked the commando-cat image. I thought the other image was iffy, humorwise.
One of our readers (MAH) objected to the commando-cat image. In a note to another reader (BS), she opined (in passing): “the cat with [the] gun is horrible!”BS responded, noting (in passing) that he liked the “cat with a gun,” judging it to be a “creative” use of a yawning cat.
Later, MAH shared her usual thoughtful reflections about things, but she added:
All right: just to show my grumpiness at the June gloom, I don't even like the cat with mouse and laptop. I never did care for that kind of anthropomorphized imagery of animals. Remember those godawful commercials in the old days that made cats appear (not very well) to speak words? Hated 'em more than I can say. The magnificent creatures are interesting enough in their own right not to need "enhancement" with faked human activities. [I added the dictionary link.]
I briefly responded, arguing (good-naturedly, I hope) that the “commando” image either did not anthropomorphize or that it did, but in an acceptable way. I said that, at least for me, the humor of the image depends in part on the manifest absurdity of placing a cat in these settings—not on the idea that cats are like Rambo (or are like computer geeks). (No doubt MAH will explain to me that she doesn't need me pointing this out.)
I’m not sure, but I think that the commando-cat image is “fun” for me in part because it vaguely ridicules the embarrassing and unsophisticated “Rambo/Hollywood-commando” fantasy or mindset. It does not ridicule cats or suggest that cats are anything like one of these stupid cartoon-commandos. (I’m passing no judgment on real commandos.)
OK, so one point is this: I do not object to portraying cats as people per se, just as I do not object to portraying, say, babies as adults per se. (No doubt, MAH will agree.) I noted that the current E-trade commercials (portraying a baby/toddler as a kind of hip young male stock speculator) are funny and unobjectionable (at least re our attitudes toward babies). (See below.) Their creator is clever and understands the creepiness and absurdity of viewing babies as hip young traders. These commercials are generally striking and entertaining, to me. (On the other hand, they utterly fail to cause me to buy what E-Trade sells. In fact, I had to look up whose commercials these were!)
Along with MAH, I did not like those old Meow Mix talking-cat commercials and the like. (See below for the "meow" commercial, although MAH perhaps had some other commercials in mind.) These kinds of commercials don’t strike me as objectionable. To me, most of them are simply unclever and stupid. Do they imply anything about the nature or quality of cats? I don’t see how. I think they pander to a common capacity to be dazzled and entertained by stupid things. (OK, I am now flashing my “elitist” card.)
MAH is of course correct: some commercials anthropomorphize animals in the sense that they in some sense impute human thoughts and attitudes to nonhuman animals. And some of these commercials are stupid precisely on that score.
My candidate: the “Morris the cat” (9 Lives) commercials. (See below.) There’s something too easy, and somehow just stupid, about the "haughty cat" stereotype. Cats can be finicky, of course, but I don’t think they are ever haughty, and that's what these commercials suggest. Are they sometimes indifferent to our desires and actions? Well, no, for indifference implies awareness, but it seems to me that on those occasions that inspire talk of feline “haughtiness,” cats are not aware of our efforts or wishes. Are they disdainful of us? Well, again, no, for they seem to proceed as though we are not present. There’s nothing really present for them to be contemptuous or disdainful of. It seems obvious (to me) that cats are never contemptuous or disdainful, though they share some of the behavior associated with those attitudes among humans.
No doubt some of you will now reveal your claws.
As any cat person knows, it is possible to “connect” with a cat. With some effort, one can make a cat aware of one’s presence and needs or desires (to some extent). When prompted, cats have no trouble looking into a person's eyes and paying attention to them. Such occasions seem to interrupt the general flow of feline obliviousness to others. I think cats are more oblivious of others than humans are. It's just their way.
I guess I “object” to Morris commercials more or less in the way that I object to silly and crude stereotypes generally. Most of the time, crude stereotypical thinking strikes me as stupid more than wrong. But, obviously, it can be wrong, too.
BTW: it turns out that Morris the Cat is a fairly decent guy. According to Wikipedia,
Yes, I know. It would be naive to conclude that the "9 Lives" people are focused on the welfare of pets.
Morris the cat “9 Lives” commercial:
E-Trade “talking baby” commercial:
“Meow Mix” singing cat commercial:
As any cat person knows, it is possible to “connect” with a cat. With some effort, one can make a cat aware of one’s presence and needs or desires (to some extent). When prompted, cats have no trouble looking into a person's eyes and paying attention to them. Such occasions seem to interrupt the general flow of feline obliviousness to others. I think cats are more oblivious of others than humans are. It's just their way.
I guess I “object” to Morris commercials more or less in the way that I object to silly and crude stereotypes generally. Most of the time, crude stereotypical thinking strikes me as stupid more than wrong. But, obviously, it can be wrong, too.
BTW: it turns out that Morris the Cat is a fairly decent guy. According to Wikipedia,
Morris has appeared in [various] media over the years. He starred in the movie Shamus with Burt Reynolds and Dyan Cannon in 1973. He also appears as a "spokescat" promoting responsible pet ownership, pet health and pet adoptions through animal shelters. To this end, he has "authored" three books: The Morris Approach, The Morris Method and The Morris Prescription.
In 2006, Morris was depicted as adopting a kitten from a Los Angeles animal shelter, L'il Mo, who represents the first in a campaign known as Morris' Million Cat Rescue.
Yes, I know. It would be naive to conclude that the "9 Lives" people are focused on the welfare of pets.
Morris the cat “9 Lives” commercial:
E-Trade “talking baby” commercial:
“Meow Mix” singing cat commercial:
17 comments:
We listen to music, that we listened too, when we listened to music.....Nice list.
I probably spent too much time thinking about this, but: My gut reaction, and I still think this is correct, is that this is a matter of aesthetics. Apparently this is part of axiology, which is a branch of philosophy, and I've never even read about it! Anyways I dined on the wikipedia page about aesthetics. I am still awaiting MAH's opinion, but I still think that Chunk's intent was not to anthropomorphise (Why is this a bad thing, again?) the kittens, but merely it is the side effect of his sense of humor. Which, for the most part I seem to agree with, except I think Morris was freakin' hilarious.
I'm just assuming that the problem here with the anthropomorphising is the result of MAHs tastes. Which brought up some interesting questions for me, because I thought, pft, why should I care about what MAH thinks? *friendly jest*
Then, I thought, and I don't want to hijack the topic unless you sages wish to humor or educate me, since tastes are said to be learned, shouldn't we try to make them as simple as possible? Wouldn't it be better to find pleasure in all sorts of music? Or all stupid videos of cats? I mean, I understand the complications involved in that, but if I find Morris funny (oh, and I do) should I be concerned? ashamed? etc.
Also, I am curious, what do you guys think about the Geico Gecko? Taco Bell dog? (TBD has obviously been retired and is owned by my uncle now. His name is Taco.) I think the Gecko is interesting, usually entertaining (has a lot of personality), but the TBD I've always considered stupid.
Omygod; I just lost a huge, long, responsive comment that (incidentally) was brilliant. You know that moment of despair, discouragement, trying to get your energy up again to rewrite what is fresh in your mind, but that will take a lot of effort to recreate? That's where I am.
I'll be back in a minute.
Well, let's try that again. DAMN; I hate when that happens!
Anyway, here a few (probably) disjointed comments:
You're probably right, BS, that some of this is about aesthetic taste. That puzzles me, 'cause so far as I can tell, Chunk van Gogh and I are in sync with many aesthetic matters. I'm not going to delve into the rich trove of philosophical questions about taste here and now, though.
Thanks for asking what's wrong with anthropomorphism! Usually, it has been a term that I react to with a wince; for in the bad old days it meant "mistakenly attributing human traits to nonhuman animals." Well, it still means that; and it's a perfectly decent concept. The problem is that many scientists thought (and many still do) that attributing any kind of mental life--say, feelings, of pain, grief, joy--to animals was anthropomorphizing; hence an error; not respectable. Then they could merrily go on about their painful research on animals, with no moral qualms. Those bad days are slowly coming to an end, thanks to the explosion of ethology, neurobiology, and more open-minded attitudes among some scientists. But real anthropomorphizing--thinking that my cat is contemplating the meaning of death, say--is a problem in that it perpetuates our tendencies not to see animals for what they are; and also in that those who exploit animals can conflate anthropomorphizers (fuzzy-headed, sentimental fools) with those who simply want to protect the welfare and feelings of animals.
I know that Chunk is aware of all of this and that he'd never anthropomorphize in any simple, dumb way. I know that he doesn't mean to disrespect animals (and does not do so). But I guess I wince at such images in part because they may perpetuate our culture's ridiculous ways of NOT really perceiving what animals are in themselves: opaque, profoundly different creatures that nevertheless (in many cases) share much with us and are capable of amazing relationships with humans.
Also, I wince because I'm mindful of Chunk's audience--people who will not take the images in his spirit, but in a much simpler and sillier way. (Forgive me, DTB readers, for no doubt severely underestimating many of you.) It may seem (and be) oppressive to restrict Chunk's use of graphics due to boneheads in his audience (and I'd never promote legal censorship, of course); but the bonehead factor does make me uncomfortable with those images' appearance.
Good question, BS, about the Geiko Gecko. I've never minded it at all, up to this very moment. Maybe that's because I have been utterly thoughtless about Geckos; or because the image and Aussie accent seem to work so darned well and are so obviously absurd if taken "straight"----but that puts me squarely in Chunk's camp about images that just are clever and absurd and work wonderfully as such. Maybe I am simply woefully inconsistent! I gotta think about that. But I do stand by my comments above, even if I need to be more consistent....
Thanks for the exchange, as always. Let's see if I can get this posted without incident this time.
I thought "commando" was when you don't wear underwear.
Yes, the word has several meanings, including "boy am I a knucklehead."
What's the matter, 10:36? Get up on the wrong side of the bed?
Wattsamattayou, 9:47 and 12:30? Lose your powers of observation and thought?
In another formulation of my posts I mentioned that I believed all cats went commando. Unless, someone had the nerve of dressing them up. It was a bad joke, omitted rightfully, or so I figured.
Firstly, Chunk Van Gogh! Fantastic!
And then, holy freakin' moly MAH. You have done it again. I'm glad I was less stand-offish this time around, the mental beatdown hurts a lot less. Regarding your woeful inconsistency, this might be true, but after a little thought I'm not so certain I am the one who can confirm or deny this. I'd like to think that from an aesthetics view, without complicated tastes you are seeing the image for what it really is, a clever incarnation of a talking beast (or gecko). This is just a, no doubt, temporary understanding, and I'm probably wrong (please, be gentle). Not to mention, you seem rather justified in your tastes. I, naturally, still have more (or perhaps, even more) questions regarding your thoughts (i.e. what do you and Chunkerton think about scientific testing on animals? Is it worth sacrificing potential knowledge for animal rights? Should humans and animals be viewed equally?) But you don't have to get around to those yet. It's afternoon coffee time.
The dispute over the quality of the "Morris" commercials might rest on generational differences. Not sure. To me, the guy who does the voice is oily. Bleccch. And what he's sayin' is none too clever, if you ask me. Just obvious. "I'm snooty. I'm haughty." What's funny about that? At least the gekko says funny things most of the time. But is that accent Aussie? Never thought so. Sounds working-class Brit to me. But what do I know? Gotta go. Goin' to see Sheryl Crowe at the Greek.
My dad used to tell me there was an "Art of Disrespect." It was just his title for playful jesting, but I grew up with it. I also grew up playing games like "Monkey Island," with insult sword fighting - where you fought with insults and clever retorts. For example,
In a sword fight between Guy A and B:
Guy A: "Have you stopped wearing diapers yet?"
Guy B: "Why did you want to borrow one?"
Or
Guy A: "My last fight ended with my hands covered with blood."
Guy B: "I hope now you've learned to stop picking your nose."
So I might agree with the generational thing.
"Your castle is almost finished your majesty!"
"Good, Reserve the dungeon for yourself"
thing was the funniest to me, maybe not clever, but I laughed. And then "Hark!, the sea winds bring a message!" The word "Hark" is just so over-the-top, it's ridiculous, and thus funny?
I don't know - as I've said in another post, I'm a simpleton with regards to entertainment, so I lack tastes in these everyday things.
Was going to comment from social science perspective that anthropomorphizing animals has made human social relations look natural rather than constructed, "Here's Mr. Lion, returning home to the missus . . ."
but Mozart is commando-attacking my ankles because I'm not paying attention to her (come to think of it, she doesn't wear underwear) and the cat with computer mouse shot reminded me that people have captioned it at icanhascheezburger.com, so I'm going to go there instead. I need the laughs - kthxbai!
BS, you are kind, as well as formicably intelligent. Why couldn't you end up in one of *my* classes, way far away from the OC? Oh, well, I do have a few that pop up now and then who are fun and profitable as intellectual companions.
The "Van Gogh" compliment means a lot, coming from you, who inspired my little effort.
I'd love to talk about scientific research. Maybe I just will for a moment. My own view (not sure about the Chunkster) is this (following Tom Regan in some respects and Peter Singer in others):
There's no reasonable criterion for cutting off moral consideration and rights that will end by awarding moral rights to all humans and deny it to all (nonhuman) animals. If we say, "Only the rational have rights" (or deserve consideration, or however one wants to put it), then many humans will end up sans rights (infants, the senile, the severely mentally handicapped). If we say, more plausibly, that sentience (or feeling) is enough to award rights--so infants, etc. do have 'em--then many other animals, and certainly the mammals that we most use in painful ways, also have rights (deserve moral consideration).
If we take the position that all feeling animals have at least the interest in avoiding pain, death, and terror (plus, usually, many other interests), then it's no more justified to do painful experiments on nonhumans like the intelligent, sociable rats most often used than it would be to do them on infants and the senile.
The challenge for those who approve of animal experimentation, as Singer puts it, is this: why is it okay to sacrifice the most basic interests of nonhuman animals for others' benefit, when it is not acceptable to do this with (mentally comparable) humans such as the senile? His answer: it's *not* okay; rather, it's a manifestation of the arbitrary prejudice of speciesism. We're willing to sacrifice the most serious interests of animals--life, liberty, freedom from pain--for human interests, simply because they are nonhuman, when we would unhesitatingly condemn a like use of humans (such as the victims of Nazi experimentation or the Tuskegee syphilis experiments on African-Americans).
One other good way of thinking about this position: We already put moral restraints on medical experimentation: we require informed consent from human subjects, for example. People like Singer (and me) argue that we need to place more moral restrictions on that research, restrictions that would accord basic respect to animals' most important interests.
I find this argument convincing. Thanks for asking! Now it's time for (another) beer.
First, I meant "formidably," of course. Sorry for the ill-placed typo.
Secondly, I forgot to say: "mental beatdown" is hilarious! I don't think of it that way, though: more a response to an invitation to clarify my thoughts, which is always an appreciated kind of invitation.
Third, your upbringing sounds excellent. An "art of disrespect". I like your Dad already!
MAH
MAH, I haven't forgotten about your response - You just have given me a lot to think about. I have managed to somehow type up about a page and a half, single spaced, in word. There is a lot of debate regarding superiority vs equality in my mind, but for the sake of a comment it seems unnecessary to study it up and keep it waiting. So, for the sake of making a reasonable comment I'll post the jist of my thoughts here.
Note, also, that I haven't taken any philosophy courses outside of the IVC classes: Chunks Intro and Ethics class, and then a Logic course. So as per usual, thanks for the attention, and tread carefully as you move through my next argument since it is probably rife with error:
While I seem to agree with the idea that there is seemingly no reasonable cutoff for denying animals rights while simultaneously awarding humans full rights, I disagree with the specieism being arbitrary. I based this on a thought experiment involving Chunkerton, a baby, and a kitten locked in a cabin with nothing reasonably edible. I concluded that Chunkerton would rather the kitten be made chemical energy of, so that the baby may survive. I considered this a form of specieism. Naturally this isn't a very good argument with which to base an entire argument on involving animal rights since, well, we're not in a struggle for survival right now. My point regarding this was strictly that of specieism being arbitrary.
With that, I guess it would be arbitrary regarding animal rights. As I ended up eventually (and roughly, since I was running out of time) concluding that if I take this stance of superiority, we believe in behaving responsibly with power, and since we are not in a survival struggle it is not essential that the rights of animals be sacrificed for human gain. It just seems to me that no matter the point of view you take, whether you believe humans are superior, or if you just view animals as equals per say, there doesn't seem to be any convincing reason to perform cruel tests on live animals, without some sort of inconsistency.
I also have heard recently that there are many ways of getting around the testing of on animals. A few extra restrictions might very well hurry the process up. Though, I brought the topic up with the girl, and she claims that there is already a lot of paperwork these days in order to even get to animals in order to perform tests. That is promising, I assume.
Anyways, I tried to spare you as much reading as possible (it seems I have failed) so that you don't get to the bottom and go 'oh, he agrees.' Being a Physics (some animal testing) and POS (cruel student treatment) major, this topic is interesting and I thank you a million times over for writing your thoughts up.
And I'm confident you don't feel like you're mentally dominating a student - you don't seem the type for ego trips. But this doesn't change the fact that you are kicking my ass up and down this blog!
Very glad you replied, BS--and you make some very nice points. I must go and attempt to attend to my actual *work* for a few hours--but I'll be back.
--MAH
Hey, BS: first, tell me what major "POS" is. Philosophy of Science? (That, with Physics, would be a dream combo, to me.) No doubt I'm way off on that.
Here are some further thoughts on speciesism. (Hate the word, but can't think of a better one.) Even if the Chunkinator did choose to eat the kitten over the baby, which I know he would do with great regret, that in itself doesn't show speciesim to be justified--rather, just a natural impulse. We tend to prefer our own--but so do racists and anti-semites. Just a preference, even by the wise and good Chunk, does not a morally justified choice make.
Still, it seems *reasonable* and right for Chunk to save the baby over the kitten. Is that, though, speciesism?--based solely on the baby's DNA? I don't think so. The baby, if it's a normal one, has huge potential of a long and mentally rich life--probably more so than the kitten, however precocious the little feline may be. Maybe it is the mental potential and richness of the life ahead of her that makes Chunk think that saving the baby is right. (Imagine if the baby had only half a brain--an awful but real condition in some infants--and absolutely no chance of developing into anything more than she was on that day in the cabin. Imagine that the kitten was extremely smart and capable of learning all kinds of wonderful skills. Is it still *obvious* that Chunk should eat the kitten?)
One more thought about "superiority." We tend, as humans, to think that we're superior because of our *rationality* (or associated traits such as free will, language, or moral choice). Isn't it interesting that we choose the one ability that, as soft and physically pathetic, dependent specimens of life, we alone NEED in order to survive? If we were cheetahs, I imagine we'd pick "being able to run at 60 mph" as the trait that elevates a species above all others. Why should sophisticated rationality, a trait that we need, but others don't, for biological flourishing, be THE criterion for moral importance?
Your point that we're in fact not in a struggle for survival is excellent; we could absolutely flourish without brutally exploiting animals as we do. Even when it comes to medical experimentation, which some portray as an "us or them" situation, many have noted that sanitation and personal cleanliness increased our lifespan and flourishing far more than all medical advances altogether. The record on drug-testing on animals is abysmal: in the vast majority of cases, there's no success in finding a safe and effective drug. (And uncounted millions of animals suffer terribly in those tests.)
You might consider checking out PCRM, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. They take a strong stand against medical experimentation on animals, for both scientific and ethical reasons. Really interesting group.
Sorry for another lengthy post! And thanks for thinking it over.
Post a Comment