Chris wrote:
>I very much doubt that such distinctions can or should be made, similar
>propositions used to be made about race -- as opposed to species. What
>disturbs at the heart of such assumptions is the idea of superiority. Such a
>line of thought leads us to think of (other) animals as commodities. As
>food, or as an acceptable medium for experimentation. I'm not here to
>persuade people of veganism, vegetarianism, or the pros and cons of
>vivisection; but from a genetic perspective we are all kin.
Well, I was arguing against such ideas of superiority and concomitant
exploitation, especially since, as I pointed out earlier, women have
often been counted with the cattle. However, language and the
abstractions which go with it have been adaptively very advantageous for
human beings - and at the great expense of thousands of other species,
and ultimately our own. And our capacity for certain kinds of
consciousness, and the extent of our linguistic facility, does
distinguish us from other animals, although all animals communicate.
>I have always
>>felt language is not just a symptom of alienation but the constructor of it.
This is a bit of a chicken and egg question, maybe - but I tend to think
the alienation comes first, a consciousness of separation, out of which
emerges the necessity of language. Although of course language then
reinforces the alienation, and may also be a way to combat it (that great
passage in An Imaginary Life where Ovid finds the poppy, for example).
Best
Alison
|