My reactions to the trapping of mice in my apartment, detailed in Mice, Part 1, got me wondering why they were relatively strong for something so minor. People and other animals are dying equally unpleasant deaths nearby and around the world all the time, and I don't feel the revulsion that I did at the mice with crushed skulls directly in front of me. Is it a failure of the imagination? Are we unable to care about what we don't experience directly? If this is the case, how will we ever have collective action on extreme crises like genocides, much less on the probably more widely relevant issues of worker rights, fair trade, and environmental preservation?
Even my reaction to the mice makes no sense in itself, at least in terms of concern for the mice. They probably died with very little suffering, and the amount of their suffering is not obviously correlated with how gruesome I find them. Did the mouse that sprayed blood on the wall suffer more than the mouse that appeared to have simply paused at the edge of the trap? Apparently, we are not horrified so much by the suffering of cute mice as by the implicit reminder that this sort of thing could happen to us. We're repelled by the prospect of our own pain and deaths, not by the actual pain and deaths of other creatures or people. So how do we proceed to strive for justice on a footing different than individual, personal fear? That fear of "it could happen to me" seems a quite inadequate basis for action, individual or collective. Whatever that magnanimous spirit is, how do we nurture it within ourselves and within society? What do we do in the meanwhile?
This question sounds very familiar to me, almost trite. I'm sure others have run up against it and formulated the question much like this. So.... any thoughts?
1 comment:
I have a different take on this, perhaps trite. I found that my reaction to reading the gruesome details got me "in touch" once again with my growing (particularly of late) concern for animals who suffer at the hands of humans, in part because they have no "voice". Granted, it had more to do with the surprise and concern I've felt recently by an otherwise politically progressive friend's apparant lack of concern for animal welfare (even specific dogs and cats she has known) as well as a growing love I have for a cat (now safe) who shows occasional signs of post-traumatic stress. These things, in part, led me to make a contribution to an animal welfare non-profit.
You said "Apparently, we are not horrified so much by the suffering of cute mice as by the implicit reminder that this sort of thing could happen to us." Isn't that empathy? And that which drives compassion? Maybe that's instead a hopeful point about the human condition? In fact, it is a useful tool for "social marketing" of progressive causes. Think of ads for relief & charitable agencies that present suffering humans & animals.
Sorry to go on so long...I guess my point is that we take note of what motivates people, and use it for "the good fight".
Post a Comment