“I Am Not an Animal” – the signature cry of our species | Earth in Transition.
Just before I publish my third post in my Ernest Becker writing cramp challenge, I thought you’d like this little interlude from Michael Mountain in Utah.
“I Am Not an Animal” – the signature cry of our species | Earth in Transition.
Just before I publish my third post in my Ernest Becker writing cramp challenge, I thought you’d like this little interlude from Michael Mountain in Utah.
Ernest Becker 2: Oh, Our Lovely Tummies
So, following yesterdays post, Becker argues that we are animals. Well, what else? I know, I know, we think of ourselves as humans not animals, but that’s not a distinction that makes much sense. Science has gone way beyond thinking of things on this planet as being exclusively plant, animal or mineral. It’s not as simple as that. However, for the moment, I hope you’ll accept my argument (and Becker’s) that we aren’t rocks or minerals or grapefruit. No, we are animals. We share genes with grapefruit and we need some minerals to survive, but we aren’t plants or minerals in any obvious sense. That’s Becker’s opening argument: we’re animals. We behave very much in animal ways although we also very much deny it with all of our best efforts. We have a lot in common with most animals, more with some than with others, of course. So carrying on from where we left off in the last post Becker writes:
Beyond the toothsome joy of consuming other organisms is the warm contentment of simply continuing to exist – continuing to experience physical stimuli, to sense one’s inner pulsations and musculature, to delight in the pleasures that nerves transmit. Once the organism is satiated, this becomes its frantic all-consuming task, to hold onto life at any cost – and the costs can be catastrophic in the case of man…For man…this organismic craving takes the form of a search for “prosperity” – the universal ambition of human society…In man the search for appetitive satisfaction has become conscious: he is an organism that knows that he wants food and who knows what will happen if he doesn’t get it, or if he gets it and falls ill and fails to enjoy its benefits. Once we have an animal who recognizes that he needs prosperity, we also have one who realizes that anything that works against continued prosperity is bad. And so we understand how man has come, universally, to identify disease and death as the two principle evils of the human organismic condition. Disease defeats the joys of prosperity while one is alive, and death cuts prosperity off coldly.
Tomorrow we’ll see where Becker takes us from here. But from what he’s established in the first two or three pages of his book in a chapter called The Human Condition: Beyond Appetite and Ingenuity we know that for us humans, death is a final insult to an organism that is warm and feels so wonderful with a full stomach. We love our tummies. How could they possibly melt away into insignificance?
So, for the next 30 days (probably more) at the rate of one quote per day, I’m going to go through Ernest Becker’s Escape From Evil (EFE) drawing out quotes I feel are particularly powerful. Becker’s widow and her publisher published EFE in 1975 a year after Becker’s death from cancer in a Vancouver hospital. I consider EFE to be one of the 5 non-fiction books that has had the greatest impact on me. I’ve read hundreds, if not thousands, of books and many have moved me, but not many to the extent that this book has. Sometime, I’ll discuss the other four, but for now, it’s Becker I want to deal with.
My plan is to start on page 1 and go through the book until I get to page 170, the last page of text, pulling out quotes that strike me as particularly interesting and that will contribute to your understanding of his work. Of course there is no substitute for reading Becker’s books for yourself. I’m doing this in the expectation that you might just be curious enough with what I do here to get the book and read it.
Becker is described as a cultural anthropologist, but he’s much more than that, in my opinion. He’s a master storyteller, a psychologist, sociologist, economist, historian and critic and anthropologist all rolled into one. He’s a consummate inter-disciplinarian. EFE is about the contradictions, guilt, violence, love and anxieties that plague us all. He starts his book with an analysis of our ‘animality’ and our ingenuity. This is the quote I’ve chosen for today. It starts on page 1:
“Man is an animal…Whatever else he is, is built on this…The only certain thing we know about this planet is that it is a theater for crawling life, organismic life, and at least we know what organisms are and what they are trying to do.
At its most elemental level the human organism, like crawling life, has a mouth, digestive tract, and anus, a skin to keep it intact, and appendages with which to acquire food. Existence, for all organismic life, is a constant struggle to feed – a struggle to incorporate whatever other organisms that can fit into their mouths and press down their gullets without choking. Seen in these stark terms, life in this planet is a gory spectacle, a science-fiction nightmare in which digestive tracts fitted with teeth at one end are tearing away at whatever flesh they can reach, and at the other end are piling up the fuming waste excrement as they move along in search of more flesh. I think this is why the epoch of the dinosaurs exerts such a strong fascination on us: it is an epic food orgy with king-size actors who convey unmistakably what organisms are dedicated to. Sensitive souls have reacted with shock to the elemental drama of life on this planet, and one of the reasons Darwin so shocked his time – and still bothers ours – is that he showed this bone-crushing, blood-drinking drama in all of its elementality and necessity: Life cannot go on without the mutual devouring of organisms. If the living spectacle of all that he had organismically incorporated in order to stay alive, he might well feel horrified by the living energy he had ingested. The horizon of a gourmet, or even the average person, would be taken up with hundreds of chickens, flocks of lambs and sheep, a small herd of steers, sties full of pigs, and rivers of fish. The din alone would be deafening. To paraphrase Elias Canetti, each organism raises it’s head over a field of corpses, smiles into the sun, and declares life good.”
The problem with Becker’s work is that every sentence is packed with meaning and must itself be digested and incorporated into a string of understanding linking the whole argument in the book. Obviously I can’t reproduce the whole book here, as much as I’d like to. So I must be content with snippets which together I hope will paint a decent picture of Becker’s arguments. As I said before, there is no substitute for reading Becker’s work itself although I would recommend starting with EFE and moving back in time, if you wish, to his penultimate book, The Denial of Death, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize and even earlier works.
Throughout this mini writing and publishing marathon, I propose to italicize the quotes I take from Becker’s EFE and leave my own commentary in normal text. If you come into this series part way through, you might want to consider starting with this first post and reading subsequent posts in order. I number them for your convenience. They will make much more sense to you read this way than any other way.
Pronoun Switching.
In an article by Gary Mason in the Globe and Mail (Saturday, April 13th, , 2013, p. S1) Christy Clark , the premier of British Columbia, is quoted as saying: “Leadership changes people…One thing is enduring all the criticisms. I think that’s made me more resilient and forced me to dig deep and tether myself to my principles and what I believe in. You can’t endure all the barbs that have been thrown at me without really knowing where you stand and what you believe in and be firm about it.” [my emphasis]
Now, this is not a comment on the content of Clark’s statements. My observation here is not about what Clark says but about how she says it. Furthermore, I’m not contending that Clark is special in any way by the way she makes her statement. The linguistic pattern Clark employs here is pervasive. We call it pronoun switching or pronoun bending. Here’s another example:
“A Reuters article by Michael Perry in Sydney, Australia reported on the high suicide rate among farmers in Australia following years of drought. He quotes a farmer ‘Mick’ who wrote a book about his experiences. In this book he writes: “I just want some cloud and some rain…The stress is just so constant and long and it’s like someone grabbing at me by the throat and slowly choking you a bit more each day.” (Comox Valley Record Daily, Thursday June 9, 2005) [my italics]
Now, why would Clark switch in mid-sentence between using you then me and then going back to you in the rest of the sentence? She could just have easily said: “ I can’t endure all the barbs that have been thrown at me without really knowing where I stand and what I believe in and be firm about it.” So, what’s the difference between these two constructions, hers and mine? Well, for one thing, mine is more consistent. It uses the same level of personal pronoun consistently throughout the sentence. The focus is on I and me. Clark, meanwhile, moves from the first person pronouns I and me to the indefinite (in this case) pronoun, you.
Same goes for the article by Michael Perry. Why would ‘Mick’ not say: “The stress is just so constant and long and it’s like someone grabbing at me by the throat and slowly choking me a bit more each day.” Why switch to you? It doesn’t make any sense to say it chokes ‘you’ in this case. It had nothing to do with me.
There isn’t a lot of scholarship on this topic. I’ve done library and internet searches (as have some of my students) and come up with a number of sources, but only two that address directly the use of what they call the indefinite you. That was a few years ago, but I doubt if things have changed much in the last six years.
Hyman approaches the subject from the perspective of English and what I came to understand as pragmatics (although he doesn’t use the word) while Senger is a psychiatrist. He concludes that the use of the indefinite you is an ‘ego defense mechanism.’ We’ll come back to that in my next post. Hyman argues that the use of the indefinite you is ‘youbiquitous.’ In other words, it’s pervasive in English speakers all over the world. An analysis of interviews on the CBC program ‘Q’ has established this fact at least in this context, but I’ve paid a lot of attention to this phenomenon over the last few years and it’s absolutely pervasive. Now that you know that people use ‘you’ not pointing to one person or a group of people present in a particular place, that is, in the indexical, vocative-deixic sense, but in an indefinite sense meaning people in general, you won’t be able to stop yourself from hearing it everywhere.
[This is the first in a series of posts on this topic. The next one explores the Senger analysis of the use of the indefinite you and will include a paper some students wrote in 2006 on the subject. Later I will post the results of an analysis (by some of my students in 2010 and me) of a number of CBC Q interviews by Jian Gomeshi that highlight the use of the indefinite you.]
Yes, the title is a wee bit provocative but let me explain. In 1996, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen published Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. This book, from the back cover on my edition, “…lays to rest many myths about the Holocaust: that Germans were ignorant of the mass destruction of Jews, that the killers were all SS men, and that those who slaughtered Jews did so reluctantly. Hitler’s Willing Executioners provides conclusive evidence that the extermination of European Jewry engaged the energies and enthusiasm of tens of thousands of ordinary Germans.” Goldhagen systematically addresses many conventional explanations for The Holocaust: 1) the perpetrators were coerced, 2) that they were merely following orders, 3) that they were under very severe psychological pressure, 4) that they were petty bureaucrats needing to perform whatever tasks assigned them for the sake of their own career advancement, and 5) that people performed isolated and fragmented tasks so that they couldn’t appreciate the significance of their actions. He then addresses each of these explanations and rejects them categorically. He argues that a great deal of horrifying brutality and genocide was exercised not by insane people, but by ordinary people carrying out their sacred duty to The Fatherland. This may be hard to believe, and the only real antidote to this scepticism is a thorough reading of Goldhagen’s book, but he is very convincing in his argument. His book is carefully researched and highly insightful.
For Goldhagen, The Holocaust was not the result of aberrant individuals, bureaucracy, indifference, ignorance or individual pathology of any kind and it was only possible because Germany and Germans, ordinary Germans, were systematically changed into anti-semites in very large numbers well before the war started. It was, he argues, the culmination of a process by which the German people, ordinary Germans, were convinced over decades that the biggest impediment to Germany’s apotheosis, its rise to true glory, was the Jewish people. Over decades before the war, Jews were portrayed as the greatest evil that Germany faced as a nation. So, it seems that Germans in their passionate love of The Fatherland were not only willing executioners of Jews (and other groups of people seen as a threat, either to The Fatherland, as in the case of Jews, or the Aryan race as in the case of people with mental or physical disabilities, the Romany, etc.), but enthusiastic, gleeful, inventive, proud and patriotic perpetrators of unbelievable brutality towards Jews. There is a photograph in Goldhagen’s book of a German soldier, an ordinary German soldier, shooting in the back of the head a young mother while she holds her child in her arms. He did it in front of the camera, proud of his patriotic deed. Obviously, human beings are capable of incredible personal barbarism but that barbarism is more often than not released against ‘the other,’ the perceived source of all evil and danger to the group, whether it be the marriage, family, community, town, city, province, country or ideology (pick any one). The soldier who shot the young mother did not see his deed as barbaric, but rather as patriotic, as one more step in the elimination of the Jewish evil infecting glorious Germany and threatening to weaken the Aryan race. From this viewpoint, every time a German kills a Jew, man, woman or child, Germany gets stronger. Essentially, the Jewish people were offered up as a sacrifice to ensure the future prosperity of the German nation. From here on, my argument gets a little complex and much of it arises in Ernest Becker’s work summarized in his posthumous book Escape From Evil (1975) in which he writes:
…the psychology of the Nazi experience, […] served as a grim refresher course on the metaphysics of mass slaughter. Leo Alexander, in his outstanding paper on the SS, points out how much the Nazis were animated by what he calls a ‘heathen concept’: they had a whole philosophy of blood and soil which contained the belief that death nourishes life. This was ‘heathen’ indeed: we recognize it as the familiar archaic idea that the sacrifice of life makes life flow more plentifully…Goering, for example, made a statement early in the war that ‘with every German airman who is killed by the enemy our Luftwaffe becomes stronger. (p.103)
So the logic of mass murder becomes clear. The ‘cleansing’ of Germany of the ‘dirty’ Jews was supposed to make Germany stronger, an idea that had been brewing for a long time in the German mind. In essence, Goldhagen’s insistance that Germany was infected long before the Nazi era with a profound antisemitism fits in perfectly with Becker’s observation that The Holocaust was not an ‘event’ in history, but a consequence of a profound and longstanding insecurity that ordinary Germans had regarding the state of Germany. Relief from this insecurity culminated in the execution and torture of masses of Jewish people. It became the duty of all right-thinking, patriotic and heroic citizens to participate fully in the elimination of the Jewish evil, an evil inherent in every sub-human Jewish man, woman and child, the evil that threatened, in their minds, the very source of their life and power, The Fatherland. Of course, the whole enterprise was a lie. No amount of killing could save the German nation.
So, what can we now make of Goldhagen’s contention that it was ordinary Germans who were the perpetrators of Hitler’s program to eliminate Jews from Germany (and everywhere else given enough time)? What we can say is that most evil in the world is not the result of the actions of aberrant individuals -although they definitely express their aberrance when permitted to or encouraged by the state – but of ordinary people expressing their love for country or idea (racial purity, the uselessness of the poor, God, the glory of money, etc…). As Becker states it, “…evil comes from man’s urge to heroic victory over evil.” (p.136)
What lesson can we learn from Goldhagen (and Becker – but more on that later)? That blind nationalism and unquestioning faith in God and country have, and can still, lead ordinary people into committing the most atrocious, genocidal actions possible. The Rwandan massacre of 1994 is an example of just such a thing and let us not think for a moment that it will never happen again. From the vitriol I’ve been reading in comments following articles on the Idle No More movement, I expect that ordinary Canadians could be led into the same genocidal frame of mind as ordinary Germans were during the Nazi era. Canadians are not anywhere close to becoming genocidal now, but systemic racism, scapegoating and a profound ignorance of the actions of their own government towards aboriginal people can set the stage for popular descent into crass racism and incivility. When the government’s agenda are dominated by the private accumulation of capital, any perceived impediment to economic growth such as treaty negotiations will be seen by some as a threat to Canada as a nation and it’s sovereignty. Once aboriginal people are openly scapegoated and blamed for a poor economy we will have to be doubly vigilant to ensure that the situation does not get out of hand and degenerate into widespread and open hostility towards First Nations.
Strong Medicine « thedenialfile.
This is a very powerful message I’ve posted here from another blog that you really should be following. Kirby Farrell is a compelling writer and the denialfile is a blog to be heeded. I’m very happy to be able to pass this on.
The Perfect Susan B. Anthony Quote That The Religious Right Would Really, Really Hate | MoveOn.Org.
If you were to read some of my blogs over the past few months you would find this quote perfectly understandable. ‘God’ in whatever guise you might find is always a personification of what people think is ‘good’ about their society. All other values or means not sanctioned as good by social leaders are considered satanic, demonic, evil.* Ernest Becker, in Escape From Evil elucidates clearly the reason why we bifurcate society in this way, a process that started millenia ago. We are so dependent on our societies for our lives, our sustenance, our culture that we naturally deify them. Those who might threaten our societies from within or without are evil and must be destroyed or at least ignored, ostracized or shunned. The closer one gets to the core of social values, the closer one feels to ‘God.’ It’s all just illusion, of course. A big lie. But comforting.
In a society characterized by the accumulation of monetary value, those who have been most successful in this venture are the high priests (think Goldman Sachs) and are virtually untouchable, even when caught doing immense damage to the ‘rest of us.’ It’s not about the ‘rest of us.’ It’s about their interests and how they coincide with the perpetuation of capital accumulation. That’s the message of this quote.
* This can be as simple as a married woman who looks the way of a handsome man as they pass on the street thus offending the husband’s notion of how a good married woman should behave (look straight ahead, acknowledge no one) and as complicated as a whole society’s condemnation of homosexuality or of the poor who are considered no better than the walking dead. It refers to a violation of expectations of ‘proper’ conduct.
If there’s a constant in human history, it’s death denial. Ernest Becker, in the last book he published just before his death in 1974, The Denial of Death, explores and explains the pervasiveness of death denial in all cultures all over the globe. I cannot recommend this book highly enough for anyone interested in trying to come to grips with their own death, but also with the death of cultures, ways of life and all cultural artifacts. According to Becker, individual death is a given, at least in the physical sense, but as human beings, we can’t accept that inevitability, so we devise sometimes very elaborate systems of death denial. For Becker, cultures themselves are immortality projects designed to deny death. The Christian idea of the soul is a great immortality project. The body dies, the soul lives on forever. Take that, death! Life 1, Death 0. So, Christians can live thinking that when they die, they live. That’s comforting, I guess, if it’s possible to really believe that. My sense is that doubt is hard to cast aside. Is there really an afterlife? After all, it’s just promises, no proof. It’s also my sense that one way to assuage guilt over doubt is to affirm the death denying ideology of the soul more firmly than ever. I’m not picking specifically on Christians here, everybody else does it too. There are atheistic religions like Buddhism but they also have mechanisms that promise some form of immortality.
None of this is surprising. In the simplest of biological terms, living organisms, particularly the sentient ones, ‘want’ to continue to live. It’s a basic drive. Becker’s book, Escape From Evil, published shortly after his death by his wife, Marie, and his publishers, expresses this beautifully in its first few pages. We are driven to fight the two pillars of evil in life: disease and death. Disease injures our potential to enjoy life, to revel in a good meal, an excellent glass of wine, or a particularly spectacular sunset. Death takes away everything, all enjoyment, all time, all everything. What greater evil can there be? So we devise elaborate schemes to make us feel like none of this will ever happen to us? Not to humans. We are the chosen species. We are not like other animals. We are special under the sun. And if anyone dares say otherwise, well, that’s most unfortunate for them. They must be dealt with in the harshest of terms because if our death-denying ideologies are proven to be weak or just plain lies, then we die…forever. Aboriginal cultures everywhere, when faced with the power of colonialism, abandoned their traditional practices and took on the beliefs of their captors and colonizers. Why continue to put faith in an immortality-ideology that failed to protect them in their most trying moment?
Now, of course, the most powerful immortality-ideology is capital accumulation and wealth. But we know that this kind of ideology, no matter how powerful cannot promise us immortality. Still, there are many people today who live and die for ‘freedom’ to accumulate capital to get rich. They are, in fact, willing to kill the very planet they occupy so that they might live forever.
This short post barely scratches the surface of the importance of Becker’s work. I’ll come back to Becker over and over again in posts to come.