DB Androids

When I first began reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, I admittedly had a hard time concentrating. Due to time restraints, I always get to my seminar class about thirty minutes early, and I decided that that would be a good time to start reading. But that day there were some students practicing calculus in the room, and I had a hard time concentrating over their questions and confusions. I began to get frustrated because I felt that there was something—although I wasn’t sure what it was yet—that was going to be very valuable in this book, and I couldn’t isolate my mind enough to think about it. The pseudo-post-apocalyptic world I was reading about in Dick’s book was interesting, and I began to glean some meaning from it, but not enough. When I got back to my room later that night, I tried to read the book more seriously, and I began to have more in depth thoughts.

I felt that this book deserved my complete attention.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35910460@N03/3328045998/

The book has only begun, and the section we were asked to read thus far has really only served as an introduction to the world of 2021. Humans have been forced to emigrate to other planets after a devastating nuclear world war. Those who remain on Earth do so at enormous risk, braving fallout forecasts and general loneliness. Emigrants to other planets were given androids upon their arrival, robots that are impossibly difficult to distinguish from humans. Because the government is afraid of what they may be capable of on Earth, Rick Deckard, one of the main characters, is a bounty hunter whose job is to kill or at least to destroy—to “retire”—the androids on Earth. Rick sets out to distinguish androids and humans by administering an empathy test. This is what I believe will be the heart of the ethical questions raised by this book and the questions we will look to answer in class.

The introduction to Blade Runner, the movie which is based off of this book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5x3J_cHqe8

What makes a human human? Is it empathy? The government seems to think so as it administers the Voigt-Kampff test which measures a subject’s reaction to emotionally stimulating descriptions. Those androids which do not respond appropriately to emotional stimuli are to be retired. The government’s reasoning for this may be that the androids would behave as human sociopaths do, who are “incapable of empathy.” (Anthology, 275E) While this may have some reasonable backing, my empathetic mind kicked in—I still felt that it would be wrong for any androids to be killed, regardless of their emotional intelligence. This also reminded me of our class reading about the “man with no feeling.” Although I do not believe it is possible for androids to honestly change their empathetic approach (correct me if I’m wrong), humans have the ability to change how they empathize and also vary in empathy levels. Although some people “seem to lack feelings altogether,” they may only be lacking an understanding of their feelings or “lack word[s]” for them. (Anthology, 275A) When approaching these types of people, I think it is best to try to understand their situation. The fact that they appear cold or harsh is not by choice but by nature. We may try to change their outlook, but we could also just simply try to deal with their level of emotional intelligence.

Empathy, the ability to feel for others.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/15053821@N06/3097776254/

I would also call into question whether lack of emotional intelligence is enough to deem someone, or something even, unworthy. I think this cannot possibly be the case. While the level of emotion being tested by Rick’s test is distinctly human that does not necessarily mean that it is the most valuable human criteria. I am not yet sure what is, but I feel that this book may help us understand that humanity is a multifaceted and intrinsically complex identity. What is it about us that even the most advanced computers and technology couldn’t capture?

This book will cause us to question the role of emotion.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/274762112/

I believe we might be able to relate this question of empathy to the idea of speciesism and proper treatment for animals. Although I am not positive of my stance on other animals’ capacity for empathy—I believe that they probably exhibit it at some level—they may be compared by some to the androids, creatures whose levels of compassion are “below” our own. If I felt that androids deserved their lives, by the same logic animals definitely do. It is precisely because of our emotional intelligence that we have the responsibility to honor all other lives. To say that things must be “retired” because they are lacking empathy is an ironic disregard of empathy and compassion. I will be interested to see how this issue plays out in the rest of the book.

Perhaps unrelated, I also noticed the role animals played in Dick’s fictional world. Rick and the other humans remaining on Earth desperately want to take care of animals, even though they serve no real purpose. It is interesting (and highly positive) to me that animals play such an important role in the culture of these people. One might think that in a world where even humans are struggling to exist, humans may attempt to take as much land and as many resources as they can and kick the animals out. In actuality, the opposite occurs. This supports my belief that people need animals to feel whole. Rick relates the grief he felt as he read the “perpetual animal obits,” (Dick, 42) until he couldn’t take it anymore and stopped reading them entirely. He also mentions how taking care of animals was once part of the law. Rick’s desire to become connected with an animal is evidenced through talking to his neighbor, Barbour, (Dick, 12) about his electric sheep and the bribe the Rosen Company made with the owl (Dick, 56). The relationship presented is not an ideal one as the motives behind keeping animals—perhaps as a sign of social status—are related, but it is still evidence that animals play a crucial role in human existence.

People needed animals so badly that they took care of electric ones.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hermic/3301689783/

Reaction to the Liberation Display

I always react the same whenever I’m exposed to shocking images and facts such as PETA’s liberation display this morning. I feel nauseous, stare wide-eyed at the pictures and wonder if at some point even my body won’t be able to take it. I become impassioned. I feel wronged and disgusted and disgusting and know that somehow I’m going to have to do something about it. Today I felt the same. The problem is that I never seem to remember these feelings for very long.

Sometimes I wonder about the effectiveness of these shocking displays.

http://www.mad-monsters.com/images/shock.jpg

Take today for example. I ate pepperonis for lunch, an hour and a half after I saw the display! I hate to say it. How easy it would have been to reach over to the other tray at Littlefield Café this afternoon and grab a cheese slice instead? I see myself heading toward a vegetarian lifestyle—possibly in the near future—but I am still…protected, almost, by my excuses: “I have enough trouble eating right as it is,” “I like meat too much,” “I don’t have enough money or time.” And the big one: “I don’t know if going vegetarian would really do anything, except maybe appease my guilt.” I know that I can’t make excuses like this much longer. When I’m reminded of these images in the future, perhaps my transition will become easier.

I hope one day I'll become vegetarian.

http://www.vegetarians-cooking.com/media/vegetarian-food.jpg

Perhaps displays such as this one are a bit too overwhelming. I know about injustice to animals, believe me. I know that there’s a lot that needs to be done. But seeing all the issues together and the underlying and overwhelming product of human de-sensitivity made it all too much. I felt like no matter what I did or tried to do, there would be so much more left. We should be inspired to take action, not feel like no action we could take would make a difference. I think PETA does an excellent job of eliciting emotional responses, a necessary step, but I feel like more emphasis should be placed on viable or plausible solutions. Maybe there could have been petitions at the tables today which addressed animal cruelty issues. If PETA wants to reach out and inspire action from all people, they should make solutions more easily visible. I know we could have spoken with the women there to learn more, but that didn’t seem to be the project’s focus. Going vegetarian is not the only thing we can do to help lessen animal cruelty. I think other options could have been made clearer.

I think they could have had petitions or some other form of active involvement there.

http://www.wizardsofaz.com/waco/petition.jpg

I look forward to the attention we will be paying these issues in class. I think we will not only have our minds changed but will be given more of an idea of what we may actually do. Through learning about the root and importance of empathy, we can understand the importance of considering others in our lives. Additionally, I think time and reiteration of these issues will hammer them into our consciousnesses and bring these issues more to the forefront.

Discussion Outline

LEADERSHIP

Alice is thrust into a world over which she has little control and can hardly understand. How she responds is evidence of her leadership qualities.

A lot of us had difficulty in describing Alice as a leader, at least initially. What traits of leadership does Alice lack?

And, on a related note, what examples of bad leadership does Carroll present in the book? Why are many of the characters in the books “bad” leaders?

Lauren: “In contrast, the various kings and queens we meet in these stories are in many ways decisively NOT leaders, despite their titles.”
Chris: “The Queen of Hearts is representative of the cruel leadership in the first novel.”
Molly: “To paraphrase Dr. Woodruff’s lecture on “How to Spot a Tyrant,” tyrants use fear to control others while being controlled by fear themselves. Because Carroll gives us little insight into the Queen’s emotions, we cannot know for sure if the Queen of Hearts lives in fear of those she terrorizes; nonetheless, one can surely label her rule tyrannical.”
“In earning their trust, the Walrus takes on a kind of leadership role. He exerts his influence on them with the understanding that if they follow his directions, they will find something good.”
“So far, it seems that Carroll introduces Alice mainly to “bad” characters, or at least those who, in our world, would not be considered good or ethical leaders.”
Maysie: “Throughout her journey, Alice meets some supposed “leaders”, those counterfeit influential’s that disguise and deceive away from true leadership.”
“His only concern was making himself appear spotless, and appealing to the superintendant. Like the White Rabbit, he ignored those who truly needed his help, and lead not with concern for the town, but with concern for his own head, for his job. Athletics suffered as a result.”

Alex: "She obviously lacks the essential skill of a leader to put oneself in other person's position."

"A leader must possess the ability to keep calm, but Alice fails to do so."

To sum up many of everyone’s viewpoints concerning Alice’s leadership qualities…

She is a successful leader because she is adaptable, compassionate, self-assured and self-aware, quick to respond to problems and willing to learn.

Most of these traits are personal. Why is it necessary that a good leader must learn to first govern themselves?

At the end of Alice’s journey, many feel that Alice has been changed. How has she changed as a leader (if at all)? How much does growth factor in to leadership in general?

Lauren: “Alice does not go about her quest to become a queen by herself: first she asks the Red Queen for advice, which allows her to become a white pawn, one step closer to being a queen.”
Helen: “More importantly, through her curiosity, Alice becomes more aware of her identity, reminding herself at the end of the wood, “I know my name now…Alice—Alice—I won’t forget it again” (Carroll 178). Alice is a leader in this way, always constantly seeking to gain greater knowledge and insight.”
Jade: “Effective leadership requires this self-knowledge, which Alice identifies through constant introspection. Her ability to articulate her strengths and weaknesses enable her to navigate these fantasy worlds more easily and satiate her inquisitive nature.”
“Instead of pretending that she knew the difference or getting riled up about Humpty’s derisive remark, Alice admits her ignorance on this subject. Her decision in this situation emphasizes not only her courage in facing her flaws, but also her consciousness of what she knows and doesn’t know.”
Chris: “The book is not so much a troubled world saved by Alice the grand leader, but a chaotic world that acts as the setting in which Alice grows as a young leader.”
Emily: “By keeping a calm countenance in a desperate situation, Alice shows excellent leadership skills. A leader who loses their head in a crisis cannot hope to help others, as they are supposed to.”
Spin: “What Alice quickly discovered, though, is one very important key to surviving in almost any situation: she learned how to adapt.”
“Alice has taught me that there is more than just one type of leader – and that the definition of a leader in the pool doesn’t have to be the fastest swimmer.”
Callie: “Her adventures support the idea that leadership is a process, not a destination. Because there is no such thing as a perfect leader, each individual always has more to learn.”
“In order to be effective leader, a leader must lead. It sounds simple enough, but so often people are so afraid of making a wrong decision that they fail to make any decisions at all. By fearlessly jumping into the rabbit hole, Alice not only exhibits her unique ability to follow a course of action but also proves herself as a leader in training because she soon realizes that every decision has its consequences.”
Thuyen: “How does Alice demonstrate leadership? The answer is through growth.”
“In the gradual process, she becomes more and more of a leader by exhibiting four essential leadership traits: curiosity, courtesy and compassion, transformation, and self-awareness.”
“To the very end when Alice is crowned Queen, she remains true to herself. Her nobility as Queen does not signify her divinity or superiority over a nation (Wonderland, nonetheless); it signifies her own nobility in reaching her goal of becoming a leader.”

COLLEGE

A stained glass panel at Oxford College, a tribute to Charles Dodgson.

I know most of us didn’t compare Alice and her journeys to our college experiences, but I think it is a very valuable point to make, especially when considered with Alice’s self-awareness and growth.

Because the lessons in the Alice books are so subtle, Carroll’s works probably best lead by example. How do the Alice compare to our journeys through “Wonderland”—college?

Helen: “If, in the face of Wonderland’s and the Looking Glass’ madness, Alice can be a leader, surely I, in the face of college and the unknown, can be a leader just as well.”

How have we become more self-aware already by our journeys in “Wonderland”? Through our classes? Through our newfound independence? Experiential learning? What else?

ETHICS

Alice has a strong sense of justice and compassion.

Alice’s connections to ethics have a lot to do with her leadership qualities—compassion, consideration and a careful attention to justice. How do these seemingly minute characteristics make a big difference?

Thuyen: “By interacting with the creatures in her dreams, Alice learns much about courtesy and compassion. It says a lot about her compassionate personality when she rescues the Duchess’ baby.”
“Meanwhile, in the story, Alice also learns to lend an ear when others talk, as demonstrated by her response to the Duchess’ closeness. Although the Duchess is hideous and has a sharp chin that digs into her shoulder, Alice “did not like to be rude: so she bore it as well as she could” (Alice, 120)”
Spin: “Most memorable of these instances is when she responds to the Red Queen’s instructions to “speak when you’re spoken to!” with the well-thought out and logical remark of, “But if everybody obeyed that rule […], you see nobody would ever say anything!” (Through the Looking Glass, 251).”
Emily: “Alice displays her compassionate side once again when she encounters the puppy. Although Alice was “terribly frightened” (Carroll 45) because of the puppy’s abnormal size, she is still kind to it and tries to play with it.”
Helen: “Alice seems to be a leader in her consideration for others, for as Stephen Covey reveals, “to learn to give and take, to live selflessly, to be sensitive, to be considerate, is our challenge” (Covey 88).”
Lauren: “However, Alice is only able to accomplish this bringing together of different types of animals through her provocativeness that comes from an ethnical concern for all members of society."

Alex: "What is ethical and what is not seemingly depends on the environment, which the person grew up in. The definition of what is ethical changes depending on the conditioning--the same reason why slavery seemed ethical at the time."

Alice, Animals and Ethics

Didn't playing croquet hurt the flamingoes and hedgehogs?

ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/figmentsimagination/2983102597/

I remember the first time I saw the walrus and the carpenter scene in Disney’s Alice and Wonderland. I was horrified. I remember uneasily watching the sweet and excited baby oysters follow the walrus to their death. Wide-eyed, I willed my mind to shut out this memory, but it stayed with me throughout the night. As this vignette unapologetically switched back to Alice and the rest of the story, I searched for a moral or explanation but none came. More instances of animal cruelty followed, flamingoes and hedgehogs as croquet equipment and a cute drunken mouse being shoved into a teapot. Finally, I resolved that I “just didn’t like that movie. It was too scary.” And that was pretty much it. I didn’t want to watch it again until I decided to show my sister, and she had the same conclusion. I guess at the time we were both too young to discern any arguments Lewis Carroll could have been making in regard to animals and ethics.

The Fawn runs away from Alice, the human.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/krougeau/3824584289/

The “Walrus and the Carpenter” still comes to mind first when considering the books. When I read through the passage, I was ready to be redeemed. But Alice’s compassion did not go far enough, commenting that she liked “the Walrus best,” (Carroll, 187) and later the Carpenter because “he didn’t eat so many as the Walrus.” (Carroll, 188) Alice’s identification with the perpetrators demonstrates how far people still have to go. Alice still shows a modicum of compassion for the oysters as she tolerates their consumption in moderation, but she still doesn’t respond to their deaths or the pain they must have felt. In this way Carroll shows that people may recognize animal cruelty but not do enough about it. Additionally, Carroll demonstrates the tentative and unhealed relationship between humans and animals in the fawn episode. When Alice met the Fawn, he “gave a sudden bound into the air, and shook itself free from Alice’s arm. “I’m a Fawn!” It cried out in a voice of delight. “And, dear me! You’re a human child!” A sudden look of alarm came into its beautiful brown eyes, and in another moment it had darted away at full speed.” (178) The Fawn is clearly afraid to be around humans. And why wouldn’t he, when humans hunt them for sport? Carroll also demonstrates an animal’s worth by showing the deer’s sense of identity. “I’m a Fawn!” and, possibly, “And, dear me!” are statements where the Fawn identifies himself. Carroll wants his readers to notice that animals clearly have their own worth outside of the lives of humans.

All sorts of animals coexisted in Wonderland.

http://www.tshirtscentral.com/item745.htm

While Carroll writes about an animal’s individual worth, he also demonstrates how humans and animals may coexist. In Wonderland, animals and people live together. While the King and Queen of Hearts, as humans, rule the kingdom, the differences among other humans and animals are not mentioned. The March Hare and the Mat Hatter, for example, have tea together, and the Walrus and the Carpenter both set out together to lure in the oysters. Carroll presents humans and animals on the same level in his books, evidence that he wants animals to be granted more respect. In this sort of society, presumably, connections between animals and people such as Jude the Obscure when felt a “magic thread of fellow-feeling [which] united his own life with [the group of crows].” (Anthology, 320) may become more common. Furthermore, as David says in his essay, “The humanization of the animals in the story does not serve to water down their impact […] Carroll does not invite Alice (and us) to learn human lessons from animal mouths, but rather to consider that animals might ALWAYS have had a voice that we have neglected to hear.” (Daniel) The lessons Alice learns from the animals are universal and are not meant to apply solely to the human condition.

Alice loved her cat, Dinah. Perhaps she could have shown more compassion to the creatures of Wonderland?

www.dogwoodpatch.com/catalogindex.php?cPath=22

Even so. Alice, as a human from our reality, has a hard time relating to animals and being considerate of them and their differences. When Alice speaks with the mouse for instance, in the pool of tears, she constantly insults him by forgetting that he would naturally not like dogs and cats like she does. Similarly, when Alice’s neck grows after her meeting with the Caterpillar, she tactlessly speaks to the Pigeon about eggs. When the Pigeon mentions that he is afraid Alice is a serpent who will eat her eggs, Alice says that she has “tasted eggs certainly,” (Carroll, 55) and mentions that she would not eat the Pigeon’s eggs because she doesn’t “like them raw.” (Carroll, 56) Alice demonstrates here, as the symbol of humanity, that people often do not try hard enough to understand animals and their differences. Furthermore, because of this lack of understanding, people will often cause animals discomfort as Alice did. Carroll seems to present a possible solution, however, through Alice’s strong association to her cat Dinah. Alice seems to have a very strong connection and friendship with her cat and does not treat her like she does the animals in Wonderland. Perhaps Carroll is suggesting that if we could see all animals as we see our pets, we might treat them all much better. It’s hypocritical when people remark on the intelligence of their dogs to discredit animal intelligence in other, wilder species. Carroll is attempting to show this disparity through Alice’s biased judgment of animals.
After considering the evidence of animal ethics in Carroll’s works, I realized that he truly was making a powerful argument. I now could go back to my past self and tell her that the movie wasn’t really that bad; it was actually making a very nice point!

The Horrific Walrus and the Carpenter Scene!

Alice, Leadership, and Ethics

When I first read this DB assignment, to write about Alice and leadership, I was a bit confused. How was Alice a leader at all? Throughout Wonderland, she is constantly put in situations outside her control—in one minute speaking with the White Queen, the next rowing in a boat with a sheep, the next speaking with Humpty Dumpty on a wall. At first thought, I felt that Alice was anything but a leader, but I then realized something very valuable. Alice is a leader in progress. Through attempting to find herself, she may teach others—us included—how we may navigate through the seemingly nonsensical world of college and even of our lives beyond.

"Who are you? "To become effective leaders, we must ask ourselves the same question.
http://www.stickerchick.com/D/sdis0116.jpg

What struck me most about Alice is how distanced she is throughout the book. Understandingly, she has a difficult time relating to the creatures and characters of Wonderland, but throughout—and this is most important—Alice is unquestionably herself. Her journey through Wonderland is a highly contemplative one: the caterpillar asks her to “explain [her]self!” (Carroll, 47), and the Cheshire Cat causes Alice to question where she is going (Carroll, 65) perhaps a metaphor for Alice’s life journey. Covey speaks about the need for leaders to have self-knowledge and a balanced understanding of oneself, paying equal attention to our mental, physical, emotional and spiritual intelligences. (Covey, 232-233) Alice’s time spent in Wonderland is ultimately transformative not because she attempts to conform to the mixed standards of the characters she meets but because she is able to evaluate herself, to measure her own self-worth and assess her self-awareness. What we are doing in this class—what we are doing in college—that is more important than simple schoolwork is the same task as Alice’s: a careful consideration of the self. Hopefully, we may follow Alice’s example. Faced with a world run by backwards logic (if any logic at all), Alice emerged triumphant. Alice’s crowning at the end of Through the Looking Glass is the culmination of Alice’s journey. Alice doesn’t rule over the creatures of Wonderland, she rules over herself. It is this self-control and self-awareness which is necessary for effective leadership.

Ask questions. This is how ethical problems may be brought to justice.

http://sleepapneafaq.wikispaces.com/file/view/Questions.JPG

Alice is also an ethical leader. While she is oftentimes tactless, offending the creature’s of Wonderland by, for example, bringing up the sensitive subject of dogs and cats to the mouse in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (Carroll 26), she is a fierce defender of logic and justice. Carroll, an expert logician, included many instances of logic and word play in his books. Entertaining, they might serve the additional and deeper purpose of emphasizing the importance of questioning that which we don’t understand. Alice constantly questions the world of Wonderland, growing “curiouser and curiouser” (Carroll 20) about what she encounters. Sometimes she is merely interested such as when she questions the White Night in Through the Looking-Glass: “Everybody that hears me sing [my song],” says the White Knight, “either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else—“ “Or else what?” said Alice. In other instances Alice reasserts her opinion such as the occasion when she questions the validity of the Cheshire Cat’s logic. The cat argues that he is mad because he growls when he’s pleased and wags his tail when he’s angry. Alice counterargues that she calls a cat’s behavior, “purring, not growling.” (Carroll 66) Regardless, Alice constantly questions the statements of those around her, something anyone must e able to do to recognize justice. Alice’s commitment to justice is realized in the climactic court scene at the end of Adventures in Wonderland when she attempts to reveal the injustice of the trial. When the Queen commands Alice to “Hold [her] tongue!,” Alice replies that she “wo’n’t!” (Carroll 124) Alice commands us to stand up for justice, to question the rationality and ethics of situations, even when the world around us is agreeing. Alice has demonstrated, as the popular phrase says, that “doing what’s right is not always popular.” In one annotation, I learned that Carroll meant for Alice to be a story without the blatant morals of the “nice little stories,” (Carroll 17) typical of his day. Incidentally, Alice is an important ethical story—one which emphasizes the importance of questioning and logic in carrying out justice.

The Court Scene, a dramatic example of justice

Another way Alice may lead is by example. Through reading Carroll’s books and the testimonies of other students in the Anthology, I was able to make comparisons to my own life and my experience in college thus far. As Dougill writes in his essay “Rites and Wrongs,” even Dodgson himself was uncomfortable with and related to the adjustments and rigor of college life. There is an “emotional distance” from home where one may feel “distraught and disoriented” and “lonely.” (Dougill, 203) I have made considerable adjustments to college life. One connection I drew related to the differences between what we are asked of in college and in high school. In high school, we are told to know very specific information (think AP class style), but in college we are forced to learn more about how we may push ourselves and learn about ourselves than anything else. We are thrown into a world where we are expected to be altered beyond return. I have felt the confusion Alice felt when she tried to recite a well-known poem, “How Doth the little—“and says something completely different instead, a poem about a crafty crocodile! I feel that most of the information I learned in high school is largely nontransferable. College expects different knowledge out of us. What we knew then is not what we are asked to learn now. By relating Alice’s experience to my own I am able to find something familiar. We are all in Wonderland—college—but unlike Alice, I’m happy I haven’t found my way back out yet.

Oxford College. Even the structure itself is intimidating!

http://www.travel-snaps.co.uk/images/England/Oxford/Oxford-69.jpg

Wierd Formatting...oh computers!

An Outpouring

“For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings, they are other Nations […]”

—Henry Beston, 1928 [1]

I have a confession to make. I’ve written this paper before. In elementary school it might have gone something like this, “I really really really [2] like animals. I want to help them when I grow up. I want to be a zookeeper and feed them.” Throughout our childhoods, we were asked the same scary question, “what do you want to be when you grow up?” And, at least when we were children, our answers stemmed from our passions: girls who loved ballet were destined to become ballerinas and anybody who loved to sing was going to be a rock star. Today, my answer is even less coherent than it was in elementary school. What do I want to be? I know, or I hope I know, that my future still lies with my passions.

There are my passions and my Passion [3]. I have a passion for theater and musicals, for reading good books, for volunteering and learning and excelling. If passion may be defined as a “strong or extravagant fondness, enthusiasm, or desire for anything [4],” I suppose I am passionate about laughing and having fun, about eating Mexican food, watching The Office and getting a good night’s sleep. When asked what my true Passion is, I know it, too: animals. But then I’m forced to stop and ask my audience, “Do you want the short story or the long?” Short story: I love animals, and I think they deserve more respect. Long story? Well buckle up, kids, I’ve got a lot I want to tell you.

I have always loved my pets. Here's Lady.

I have always loved animals. An only child the first seven years of my life, nature was a constant source of companionship. I knew the optimal toad-catching conditions [5] from an early age and took off invariably whenever I heard their distinctive peep peeps. Occasionally, I liked to keep one in my purple critter keeper for a night or so, serving as a hyper-vigilant concierge, making sure that every bit of dirt, every rock, each carefully placed leaf was to her [6] satisfaction. My neighborhood was teeming with other potential playmates, too: roly-poly’s on the front lawn, an enormous anole, Betty, whom I greeted each morning as she basked on the gate, dogs going for walks. I tried to form a connection with every animal I met, even bringing a feral cat into the house one New Year’s Eve! As I grew older, however, animals played a different yet equally important role in my life. I began to feel a deeply emotional, perhaps even spiritual, association with animals and the natural world.

I remember one such subtle connection I felt with my schnauzer, Annie. I see it now as though I were outside myself, witnessing a moment at once so inconsequential yet profoundly fundamental to my ideas. It was late spring and already hot gusts of air blew through the open windows of our van as we sped down the highway. My dad drove, unperturbed, as Annie pushed her way between the two front seats, claiming her traditional spot. I started to laugh as my hair waved tumultuously in strands like an octupus’ tentacles, covering my eyes and face. Annie seemed to enjoy the breeze too, her face upturned and eyes closed. This pure and uncomplicated coexistence is how I want animals and people to be. Annie and I were both happy, for similar reasons but I suspect in different ways: I could both connect with her and still wonder. I remain passionate about these moments.

I want to believe—no, I do believe—that I have formed emotional connections with animals, that I’m not simply projecting anthropomorphic tendencies onto my experiences. But, as an extreme rational [7], I have always demanded proof of animal intelligence and emotion. Opening Jane Goodall’s Through a Window in sixth grade introduced me to a world of proof. I remember reading it one night, soon after I had started. My mom had taken my sister and me to a park further away from home, one which we rarely got to visit. Yet I kept finding my mind being pulled away: I wanted to play, but I needed to know. I remember reading it then, struggling to see under the dim industrial lamplight, soaking in as much as I could before my mom could stop me, protesting, “Katherine, you can’t read anymore or you’ll ruin your eyes!”

A video showing how chimpanzees make spears used to hunt bush babies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT4WiMrzByg&feature=related

If you want evidence of animal intelligence and reason, it’s in this book. Chimpanzees are able to make and use tools premeditatedly walking hundreds of miles to create the perfect tool for luring termites out of their mounds. They have even developed primitive cultures—geographically distinct groups of chimpanzees differ in some behaviors and tool use.[8] Chimpanzees and other great apes who have been taught sign language have exhibited an understanding of complex and abstract meaning, creating their own signs and even teaching others.[9] I have no doubt that animals possess rational capabilities far beyond what we credit them—that in this way, humans and other animals are inextricably connected. Claims that humans are the only thinking beings in this universe are ludicrous.

Why should we even measure worth by intelligence? While man evolved to depend on the intellect, other species developed different and equally impressive adaptations. Can we live deep underground without sunlight, hold our breath for longer than a minute underwater, carry 850 times our body weight [10] or fly? Each animal’s world is so different than any other’s. Our senses and capabilities are functionally incompatible, and we possess highly “different criteria of health and happiness.[11]” How can we assert that we have the “apparatus to understand all others, [12]” to condemn ways of life as inferior, when we cannot even understand their worlds? We are successful in a specialized, human way, and that is all we can be certain of. There is no contest to be won, we are not the best. The only game we can play is that of survival.

Animals have such interesting adaptations, such as this pelican's bill.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/manu-claude/309587314/

When dog owners buy expensive dinners for their pets or chase after their dogs as they run, carefree, in a park, people often ask, “Now, who’s the real master here?” Working at the zoo, we joked about that, too. There were times when I hastily reached up to brush aside my hair with marmoset-jelly [13] covered fingers, trying to cut the pygmies’ meal supplements just so or spilled entire bowls of water down my shirt as I reached for Succotash the sloth’s favorite perch. By the end of the day, my shoes and socks were generally drenched, and I never really wanted to know the nature of all the questionable mud and scratches on my legs. But it was all done to help the animals of Natural Encounters have a better life. Animals need our care—in large part due to hardships we have placed upon them. But this doesn’t mean we are given license to subordinate them. I believe we are all equal. We are all here. We are all just trying to exist. Isn’t that enough? Desiring world superiority, humans have created an extreme hierarchical system, a mindset I believe is unjust. My anthropology textbook even acknowledges that human chauvinism is a hurdle that colors how humans are classified. [14] We are not as unusual as we would like to think. I wish to see myself as less entitled, as simply a co-occupant in this world. In this way I believe we may become less selfish, less self-centered and more focused on pure living. Moreover, if all living things are equal, how much easier does it become to accept all people and attempt to understand different viewpoints and ways of life? “We [must] stop and face what’s right before us. We [must] look at what is.” [15]

Who needs hierarchies?

http://www.closereach.com/sir/talk/hierarchy.jpg

This all sounds pretty out there, right? Communion with nature? Humans as nothing more than animals? People have told me I’m too radical and ridiculous. But what is ever wrong with respect? The answer is clear from all angles. Even if man “has dominion over all things in the world,[16]” as Covey and many others suggest, doesn’t that give us the responsibility to treat the Earth appropriately? Humanity is one trait that is definitively ours—why don’t we use it? Why do we feel the need to qualify our accomplishments and dismiss others’? Understanding animals and their proper place in nature is my passion. I believe that animals cannot be treated better until they are respected and cannot be respected until they are understood. I am a Witness to their lives. I choose to be receptive to their worth, “to remain quiet and open, [17]” to their needs.

This is my truth that sets me free—free from hierarchies, from unreasoned judgments, from boundaries. Impassioned, I hope to teach others my views about animals and initiate respect.

Word count: 1,562

(Without quotes) 1, 538

---

[1] Kelly Stewart, “Other Nations,” in Kinship with Animals, ed. Kate Solisti and Michael Tobias (San Fransico: Council Oak Books, 2006), 47.

[2] I really liked ‘really’ when I was little. My first grade journal entry written the day after my sister was born said, “my sister is really, really…cute.” Really to the 26^th power! Sounds like something straight out of an exorcism to me, but apparently it was my rhetoric strategy of choice.

[3] I read Locke’s Treatises of Government for my seminar class a few weeks ago, and he constantly used capitals while he spoke of “Nature” and “Government” and “Man.” I’m sure it was a standard of his time, but it gave me the sense that he meant business. I am just as serious about my Passion.

[4] Ask.com. “Passion.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/passion

[5] From experience I’ve learned that toads abound whenever it first gets dark the evening after a storm.

[6] My toads were always girls (of course!)

[7] My personality type, INTJ, was indeed described as “the Rational.”

[8] Jane Goodall, Through a Window: My Thirty Years with the Chimpanzees of Gombe (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990), 19.

[9]One chimp Lucy creatively combined signs when she asked for a “listen drink” in place of an Alka-seltzer and invented her own sign for “leash” by hooking her index finger next to her neck, indicating that she wanted to go for a walk. Another chimpanzee who knew sign language, Washoe, was given an infant, Lousli, to raise who was never taught by humans. By the time Lousli was eight, he knew fifty-eight signs! Washoe had been observed teaching Lousli, sometimes by repetition and sometimes by forming Lousli’s hands into the motions. (Goodall, 20-21)

[10] (Like the rhinoceros beetle) Planet Ozkids, “Weird & Amazing Animal Facts,” http://www.planetozkids.com/oban/animals/weird.htm

[11] Stephen R. L. Clarke, “Understanding Animals,” in Kinship with Animals, ed. Kate Solisti and Michael Tobias (San Francisco: Council Oak Books, 2006), 104.

[12] Clarke, 110

[13] Marmoset jelly is a supplement used for the pygmy marmosets in Natural Encounters. It’s an odd, gelatinous and messy substance (and it smells really good!)

[14] Robert Boyd and Joan B. Silk. How Humans Evolved: Fifth Edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009), 111.

[15] Ram Dass and Paul Gorman, “How Can I Help? Stories and Reflections on Service,” in Composition and Reading in World Literature, ed. Jerome Bump (Austin: Jenn’s Copies & Binding, 2009), 67.

[16] Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change (New York: Free Press, 2004), 66.

[17] Dass and Gorman, 187.

Left-handers are the only people in their right mind!

Leadership

While reading through last night’s assignment, I was struck by how much of our class’ goals were involved. A leader must not only be passionate, but compassionate. She must be empathetic, a good listener, ethical, considerate, cooperative. It gave me the sense that leadership is a collaborative process, at least effectively—that leaders can’t sit in a vacuum contemplating and emerge hours later to boss around their people, that they need others to function appropriately.

Leadership is more than cheesy inspirational posters--although those principles are true.

http://www.poster.net/anonymous/anonymous-leadership-5000373.jpg

I have never seen myself as a “true leader.” Sure, I can take charge in class assignments, and I usually want to. I can (and do) boss around my little sister. But you couldn’t force me to make a decision about dinner if you threatened my life. I suppose I want “classic” leadership to be a bigger role in my life. Covey’s philosophy showed me how much of leadership isn’t actually taking charge—something I’m honestly afraid of—but understanding and responding to people’s needs. I believe I could do well under this revised form of leadership as I love helping others, and I think it’s very important for all leaders to understand the role of empathy and compassion in leadership.

Apparently leadership stretches to all parts of life and behavior, even mannerisms.

I still feel that my natural role is to lead by example. I’ve talked about this in my Nam Le discussion, but I am my sister’s role model, no question. She looks up to me, and I constantly hope that I am making a good example. My friend told me just this weekend how alike my sister and I are in ways that I never realized. He said we get excited about new ideas in the same way, argue the same way, get grossed out the same way, point out an equally absurd number of random things whenever we watch movies (like when I watched Godzilla this weekend and noticed that the way the characters were standing looked like the Last Supper!) I thought my range of influence was just teaching her superficial things, like to appreciate the Strokes. I had led her truly by the fact that we lived together for eleven years. I am both nervous and excited about this fact.

My theater director told me that I lead others simply because I am always myself. I felt so honored when I heard that. I suppose this is due to the fact that, like Covey wrote, “90 percent of all leadership failures are character failures.” (Anthology, 240) Where he gets this statistic I’m not sure, but his point is a very valid and interesting one. How can you lead someone effectively when they cannot respect you? And, more importantly, how can you lead someone else if you don’t even understand yourself? “Emotional self-awareness” and “accurate self-assessment” are listed as key leadership competencies in the emotional intelligence appendix. (Anthology 246B) This is further evidence that leadership is a two-way street, that in order to be an effective leader of others you have to effectively ‘lead’ and govern yourself.

Emphasis on the right brain in conjunction with the left is becoming greater.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/

features/brain/img/brainscans.jpg

While my understanding of the word “leadership” has changed somewhat during my readings, the role of leadership is changing due to the emergence of the “Conceptual Age.” (Anthology 158) As Pink wrote, we have traditionally focused on the left hemisphere of the brain, where success in “school, work and business” came about by proficiency in left hemisphere capabilities: “sequence, literalness and analysis.” (Anthology 157) The Conceptual Age is requiring different, more complete standards, and placing more emphasis on the right brain specialties of “artistry, empathy, seeing the big picture and pursuing the transcendent.” (Anthology 158) In tying this discussion board to our last—and hammering our thoughts into unity!—I believe Plan II will enable us to become more competent in this growing, conceptual world. Through the Plan II program we are asked to become Renaissance men and women and become proficient in so many areas. We are still exposed to left brain rigor—my logic class is as left brain as it can come—but we are also entitled to so much more creativity than most of us probably experienced in high school. We are encouraged to carry out things our own way and become independent. To accept and look to all fields and disciplines for guidance. To even become empathetic through UT’s emphasis on becoming global contributors. As the world requires flexibility and creativity, Plan II provides!

My mission statement "becomes [my] personal constitution." (Covey, 129)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/

barclayapgov/3090705972

As I’ve said before, leadership requires an understanding of the self. During my senior year retreat, we were asked to write promises to ourselves, the equivalent of Covey’s mission statement I suppose. My “mission statement” was simple. It had no roles or goals, but I believe it still adequately captures the essence of what Covey wanted his readers to express. I can only “answer for my own life,” but reading through my mission statements again caused me to reevaluate my “priorities deeply, carefully, and to align [my] behavior to [my] beliefs.” (Covey 129) I will copy my statements here:
I Promise…
· To make myself happy
· To always try to make others happy. To care for them even if it interferes with my own interests
· To be successful in whatever way that carries itself out, even if money is not a factor. (Happiness = success)
· To love my family unconditionally and constantly
· To commit myself to friendships
· To have confidence in myself around others
· To make a major positive difference in the world
· To use my abilities and talents to their fullest and for the benefit of myself and others
· That in whatever relationship I am in, I love not only the person but myself
· To always be completely and unforgivably myself
· To never compromise my beliefs and to accept new ones
· To constantly learn and think
· To understand or try to
· That who I am is who I want to be.

These promises are not complete. They really only talk about my relationships, and there are few if any that relate to my professional future. That’s not truly important. What is is that I may never compromise these promises. These rules for my life should be constant and can help me in leading not only my own life but how I treat and lead others. I would suggest that everyone follow Covey’s instruction and at least think about what their mission statements might be.

Michael Scott's take on Covey's funeral exercise from the Office:

(Michael is often an ineffective leader because he is not self-aware and does not always listen well to his colleagues.)