From Michael Pollan’s essay, “An Animal’s Place“:
A deep Puritan streak pervades animal rights activists, an abiding discomfort not only with our animality, but with animal’s animality too.
This is offered, I think, as a critique–the point being made by a “literary journalist” is often rather obscure, notwithstanding the rather plain prose. The problem, however, is that insofar as it is a critique in the context of his essay (as I understand it), it is completely senseless. Earlier, discussing Matthew Scully’s Dominion, he pointed out how religion can act as a check on “unfettered capitalism,” recognizing, it seems, that there are worthy considerations other than unfettered accumulation. Later, he points to animal sacrifices as rituals bringing together humans and animals. However, now, a religious streak is something to be criticized. Secondly, he points to a “discomfort” with both the animality of humans as well as the animality of animals. Fine. Discomfort, of course, implies awareness: if you weren’t aware of it, it wouldn’t make you uncomfortable. Rather than being a fault, it would seem that this “Puritan streak” is in actuality a blessing.
Later,
Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity–our own animality.
This is puzzling: will humans not still shit and fuck? be born and die?
5 Comments
Hi Craig,
Thanks for posting.
Criticizing Pollan for his often mind-bogglingly off-base positions is not unlike falling off a log.
The problem is, most readers of Pollan have trouble even seeing the log.
Pollan is also known for discounting vegetarianism by virtue of the fact that “our” mouths still water when we see meat. …
Pollan is doing more harm than good in so far as his work “is” animal studies.
Kevin
My reason for re-reading Pollan tonight has to do with the fact that I decided to assign this essay (actually, a chapter from The Omnivore’s Dilemma, but it didn’t fit into the scanner very well, and so this is a reasonable substitute) for my class on factory farming. They’re also reading from Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation and watching the documentary “Death on a Factory Farm.” Part of my reason for selecting these pieces was to illustrate that it isn’t just animal rights activists or even moderately sophisticated animal welfare activists (e.g., Singer) who find factory farming troublesome, but also regular, “common-sense” mainstream journalists.
I made the post, largely, to avoid letting these snide comments slip into my lecture notes!
I assigned the same Pollan piece when I taught my animal ethics course, for basically the same reason. I had trouble really doing anything positive with the piece. The first time I had an interesting class discussion. But the second time I taught it I basically spent the whole class on why he frustrates me completely. Not one of my finest pedagogical moments.
Do you intend to read JSF’s Eating Animals?
I intend to, but I’m not sure when I’ll get a chance.
I read it over the holidays, and was pretty impressed. I keep meaning to write some sort of review of it. In many ways it is the popular antidote to Pollan, but it will certainly rub traditional vegan abolitionists the wrong way.
Post a Comment