Animals Erased: Discourse, Ecology, and Reconnection with the Natural World

10. Conclusion

189 Conclusion This book has examined destructive discourses that objectify animals and justify intensive farming systems, with negative consequences for both animals and the ecological systems that support life. It has explored counter-discourses of environmentalism and animal rights that attempt to deal with those consequences , but often fail to break free from the assumptions of destructive discourses . And it has considered discourses from lyrical science writing and traditional Japanese culture as examples of alternatives that could potentially inspire reconnection with animals and the natural world. The significance of the book lies in the detailed linguistic analysis of the discourses, which reveals the cluster of discursive features that makes them “work.” This means that the conclusion can go beyond a primitive suggestion that we simply dispose of destructive discourses and replace them wholesale with alternative discourses. It would be absurd, for example, to write an instruction manual for pork farming in lyrical prose or an environmental textbook in haiku. Instead, the conclusion is that it is possible to draw from the cluster of discursive features that make up alternative discourses and apply them creatively in writing, photographing, filming, or otherwise representing the world. The spirit of haiku, for example, could infuse a wide range of texts from biology textbooks to nature documentaries. The book has focused primarily on written text, but that is certainly not to deny the importance of oral discourses. In fact, as Abram (1996) points out, oral discourses are often far more embedded in place than written discourses and provide a promising avenue in the search for alternative discourses. Another 190 conclusion important dimension, which was only touched on in chapters 8 and 9, is visual communication (Franklin 2007; Baker 2001). If we are to overcome the erasure of animals we will have to transcend the symbolic and look at them directly. While photographs and films are always representations, they can model ways of looking at the world that viewers can apply to their own lives, and do so more directly than writing. A photograph of an animal places the viewer in the same physical orientation to the subject as the photographer was when the picture was taken, and this can convey something of the relationship between the photographer and subject. Berger (1980) entitled his influential essay “Why look at animals?” but is accused by Burt (2005: 206) of not answering this question. The ecosophy that evolved throughout the course of this book could answer it in this way: “Why look at animals?”—because in doing so we realize our commonality with other animals. We realize that we too are embodied beings who depend for our continued existence on interrelationships with other organisms and the physical environment around us. “Why look at animals?”—because if we do not we might overlook the fact that we are violating their nature, something that inevitably leads to their suffering as well as ecological damage. “Why look at animals?”—because we can improve our mental health by contact with the nature around us, and find ways to fulfil higher human needs without excess consumption . “Why look at animals?”—because in their natural state animals fit seamlessly into ecosystems that absorb energy only from the sun and produce no waste, and we could gain inspiration for designing sustainable human systems in similar ways. And ultimately “Why look at animals?”—to discover who we are, because the alternative is to carve out a sense of self through searching for commonality and contrast with a set of signs and symbolic representations of animals rather than the animals themselves. It was within this ecological philosophy—ecosophy—that discourses were analyzed. Detailed linguistic analysis was carried out to reveal the models of the world that discourses are based on, and these models were compared with the ecosophy. The key aspect was the power of discourse to erase animals and replace them with simulacra—copies without an original. In both destructive conclusion 191 discourses and counter-discourses, individual animals were seen to be replaced by machines, objects, and resources and viewed only en mass as species or as part of the “environment” that surrounds humans. On the other hand, alternative discourses were shown to come closer to providing a “reflection of a profound reality” (Baudrillard 1994: 6). These reflections, although still representations , model direct relationships with animals. There are many other possible ecosophies that discourses could be measured against, and each analyst will have their...