We Are Hers

“We are hers.” These words were said by Deborah Fouts during an interview a former student and I conducted with Roger and Deborah Fouts. We had asked them when they thought Project Washoe had really become theirs by choice and they knew this would be their life’s work. Deborah said, “It started in Oklahoma, but wasn’t really ours until we came to Ellensburg.” Then she said, “I don’t know if it’s really ever been ‘ours.’ It’s not that it’s ours, we are hers.” These words say a lot.

Their commitment to Washoe, Moja, Tatu, Dar, and Loulis has never been about fame, career advancement, or money. In fact, their approach to the chimpanzees places them well outside the norm in their own discipline of experimental psychology and academia in general. When my student and I conducted the interview, we were interested in finding out what kinds of philosophical commitments (metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical) framed their position. My belief was (and is) that the Fouts hold many views in common with American pragmatism. While they work with people like Peter Singer to try to improve the lives of apes, they are clearly not utilitarian. While they argue for the abolition of zoos and the use of apes in biomedical research, they do eat humanely raised animals and so are not consistent with Tom Regan’s deontological approach. (In fact, their discussion of what they eat matches Steve Fesmire’s position in his chapter in Animal Pragmatism, “Dewey and Animal Ethics.”) They do speak often about the importance of developing compassion, tempting me to lean toward the ethic of care. But there are differences here as well. Here, in brief, is what I have found:

• • They share a pragmatist/feminist epistemology—rejecting dualisms, embracing a social self, seeing the self as more than rational and self-interested, embracing a critical relativism, understanding all knowledge is perspectival in nature—knowledge and truth are partial, perspectival, and tentative.

• • They share a pragmatist/ecofeminist metaphysics—this position is rooted in the fact that human beings are a kind of animal being and that all animal beings share a great deal in common. Following Peirce’s point that animal beings exist in a continuum without sharp and definitive breaks, we need to learn to see the things we share and the ways in which we differ from one another. There is, however, no human exceptionalism.

• • They live by a pragmatist/feminist ethic—it suggests an approach to understanding and improving relationships that is rooted in humility, caution, and respect. It is an ethic that can take us on the next stage of “our journey towards a non-oppressive form of the mixed-community and a liveable future respectfully shared with animals.” (Plumwood 166)

For those who know something about American pragmatism (or neo-pragmatism) it may seem an odd place to develop a discussion of respectful relationships between human beings and other animal beings. There are some reasons for this possible confusion. First, some of the leading figures of pragmatism (James and Dewey) said some things about other animal beings that demonstrate a lack of understanding and respect for these beings.¹ However, they each also said things that argue for greater respect and understanding, and their overall views demand an approach of respect and understanding. Second, the more “public” perception of pragmatism is often one of a mechanistic, problem-solving approach that uncritically endorses science and technology as a “solution.” This is a very limited, and incorrect, understanding of pragmatism. Pragmatism understands human embeddedness in a variety of transformative relationships with the rest of nature. It also acknowledges the complex ways these interactions can be understood and improved. And finally, if all one knows of pragmatism is the work of Richard Rorty and other neo-pragmatists, the discussion here may come as a surprise. Pragmatism is not all about language and communities of interpretation. The other animal beings in our lives are flesh-and-blood beings with whom we interact; they affect our lives. They have changed us as much (or more) than we have changed them—not just conceptually but...