It is better to be a dog than a black sub-Saharan child. Or is it? I have lately been critical on Facebook of people who have dogs as pets. I made some statements that could have been possibly unfair and uncalled for towards some of my dog owner friends. However, my intentions were pure and not aimed at hurting anyone. Facebook has become a tool where I preserve my thoughts, to which I can return to at any point. As a tool it helps me not to lose any of my thoughts I had around a particular subject matter. The subject matter I am currently grappling with is humanity and it started off with me rejecting it when I became aware that some people treat their dogs better than their own family members. Ironically, some of these people are also staunch human rights supporters and the notion of humanism.
Dog lovers and dog owners are found across class and racial boundaries. For me, this became apparent when I saw a group of homeless people in the Bellville CBD owning a dog. Ironically the dog is better cared for than most of them. I also recently saw my brother also acquiring himself a dog, and yet he is not in the position to afford a dog. Funny enough these dogs are better kept and cared for than them in both cases. Thus, I do not contribute this phenomenon to class or race.
It was on this basis that I rejected the notion of humanity. It did not and still does not make sense, to me, that people treat their dogs better than human beings. However, I have made some progress regarding my investigation into this phenomenon. The scholarly work of Julia Kristeva, Judith Butler and Michel Foucault has helped me in this regard.
Kristeva argued that we can only desire objects. An object is either something physically or abstract. Abstract concepts have to be objectified to be desired. This means that we objectify abstract concepts such as love and humanity. Objectification here would entail embedding notions such as standards, norms and goals to abstract concepts such as love humanity. This enables us to develop a mental picture of love and humanity and once the picture is created we can desire it.
I have to note that any object (eg. dog, cup, or flag) can be used as a symbol for something. It is my argument that a dog becomes the symbol of one’s notion of humanity. Therefore, it can be true that when you are unable to obtain your notion of humanity, the treatment of your dog represents your notion of humanity. How you would like to have been treated or how you would make amends if you were a perpetrator. The wellbeing of your dog becomes your symbol of humanity and it is explicitly expressed towards the dog. In this case the treatment of your dog might be the reflection of your guilt. For example, if you actively participated in the humiliation of black people during apartheid, the humane treatment of the dog would be a way of cleansing your conscience of what you did in the past. Or, if you are a drug addict or a homeless person the treatment of your dog is how you would like to be treated by society; a society which pushed you to the periphery.
However, you might point out that some children at a very young age want dogs. My response would be that what you observed is the effect of the culture industry and societal norms. In my last blog post I explained how the culture industry alters our desires from a very young age. It is no different in this case. Children from a very young age see how dogs are treated in society and this is repeated on television. Through this they develop the desire to own a dog. In some countries the desire would be to eat dogs. Given this, I have to conclude that it is not innately human to desire or treat dogs better than human beings. More importantly, it raises a question as to what it means to be a human in this day and age. For me it means that certain humans (in particular black children) would be better off if they were dogs.
#1/Jan2016
No comments:
Post a Comment