Coetzee's The Lives of Animals is a very interesting work, and while it did not manage to turn me vegetarian it certainly pushed me to consider not only what I eat, but how I behave. A concept I found interesting in the lectures was how they approached the idea of reason, specifically "The Philosophers and the Animals." Elizabeth Costello, the character through which Coetzee writes these lectures, presents to us in the novel the idea that "Reason is the being of a certain spectrum of human thinking." (The Lives of Animals, pg. 23) The reason why I point to this statement is because I believe that Coetzee, through Costello, is arguing for us to see past reason so that we may become more open to a discussion of animal rights, as well as our treatment of other human beings. I say discussion because I do not think that Coetzee feeds to us an answer of what is right and wrong, but instead presents to us the tools for a new way of thinking. In this passage Costello states that reason is only one established "spectrum" of the way we think, pointing to the fact that we have many other ways at our disposal to analyze and see the issues. Although, the novel draws the striking comparison between the Holocaust and the slaughter of animals I do not that Coetzee is trying to push an animal rights agenda down our throats, rather I believe that Coetzee is trying to throw his readers into a situation where this very taboo and touchy topic takes us out of our usual spectrum of thinking. That is to say, we cannot solely rely on our ability to reason to comprehend the several ideas that are at stake in the discussion of animal rights.
On one level I believe that the novel is presenting us several points on the rights of animals, but on the other hand I believe that Coetzee's talk of animals also brings about some interesting points about our humanity towards humans. However, the significant point which I believe is relevant to both is the fact that we cannot run away from knowledge. Coetzee states in his non-fiction essay "Remembering Texas," that “Complicity is not the problem – complicity was far too advance a notion for the time being. The problem was with knowing what was being done. It was not obvious where one went to escape from knowledge.” (Doubling the Point, pg. 51) Coetzee says this about his time at school in Texas, in response to a student who asked him why he lived in US if he did not agree with the war. What Coetzee is trying to say in this phrase is that the student assumed that Coetzee dislike of the war lied in some sense of complicity with what was being done, but it was not complicity that perturbed Coetzee, but only the simple fact of knowing. We must consider that Coetzee had been living in South Africa during apartheid and there too did he suffer the faith of knowing the injustices being done without being able to hide from it. Coetzee's statement says more than it appears to say because through knowing the history of Coetzee's life it implies that the injustices are taking place everywhere and anywhere and we, especially in this age of technology, cannot escape the burden of knowing. I feel that this idea is prevalent in The Lives of Animals and that what Costello is pointing to is not our complicity with a monstrosity, whether in the form of the Holocaust or slaughterhouses, but how knowledge is a powerful thing and our biggest mistake is trying to ignore it. I think this theme has appeared again and again in the works I have read so far. I believe that what the novel is pushing for is a realization from its reader that when one has the knowledge of something one cannot simply try to cover it up and ignore it, and that while complicity may be part of our crime, trying to drown out the cries of others is equally as bad or worse. In Waiting for the Barbarians, the Magistrate is both complicit and attempts to ignore what is being done, but near the end of the novel he denounces the crimes of the army and the citizens publicly, and I believe that really what Coetzee, through Costello, is looking for in these lectures is not necessarily to change the way people think, but to encourage us to not "just...sit silent" (The Lives of Animals, pg.59) against any kind of injustice.
Karla, I thought it was very interesting what you said about how Coetzee is not trying to push an agenda down our throats in The Lives of Animals, but is instead trying to “throw his readers into a situation where this very taboo and touchy subject takes us out of our usual spectrum of thinking.” I think it’s definitely true that he wants us to look at the topic of animal cruelty in new ways and that he is presenting all sides of the topic in order to create a forum for debate rather than push one opinion. You make a great point about how he does this in order to show that “we cannot run away from knowledge.”
ReplyDeleteI think there are some other possible reasons, too. I think he uses a fictional character to present many sides of the debate as a way to remove himself from a topic he’s passionate about and present it from a more distant, objective point of view. I think Coetzee does have an opinion on animal cruelty – I think he is concerned about it in the same way that he is concerned with cruelty among men. There are hints of this in many of his fictional works. In Waiting for the Barbarians, for example, the Magistrate says (through Coetzee’s words): “It occurs to me that we crush insects beneath our feet, miracles of creation too, beetles, worms, cockroaches, ants, in their various ways” (107). This shows Coetzee’s concern for all living things. At the same time, I think Coetzee is also an author who thrives on ambiguity. His fictional works indicate this, as well. In nearly all of his works, he debates philosophical issues without bringing them to any true resolution, thereby leaving his readers to form their own conclusions. I think he is doing this same thing in The Lives of Animals. While he may have an opinion on the topic of animal cruelty, he prefers not to “throw it down people’s throats,” as you say. Instead, he creates a forum for debate so that he can present his own view in and amongst the opposing views, thereby giving the reader a wider outlook on the topic and diffusing any critical opposition to his views.
Karla,
ReplyDeleteYou made some very interesting and thought provoking comments on The Lives of Animals. What I found to be most interesting and completely agree with is that Coetzee does not force the reader to have a certain opinion or agenda. I do honestly feel that Coetzee is using the concept of animal cruelty to help people see the injustices around them. Unfortunately, some people need more of a push to have the message reach them. It strikes a cord in me especially as I feel that animals and people should be treated with the same amount of respect and reverence. I am a meat eater, but I do believe we are all here for a purpose, and I feel that Coetzee's true calling, his purpose is to provoke us, the readers, to make a change in how we live our lives, even if it is in small doses, or even our thoughts alone.
-Christine van Eyck