Sonny

I needed this tonight. I’m tired, still recovering from being sick, ready to go home for Thanksgiving, and was really not looking forward to doing work this evening. I read Marjorie Spiegel’s The Dreaded Comparison with interest, but was not particularly moved by anything I read – not because it was not compelling, but because after a while, the vague historical references and thinly veiled pointed jabs at various trends in humanity over the years has become tiring (and also because I felt that much of what was said, at least in the first three chapters I read, I had already read about in Joan Dunayer’s “Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots” last week).

However, when I sat down to read Alice Walker’s “Am I Blue?”, all my resentment at homework and impatience with my own life melted away. Perhaps it is because the story is just that – a story, that I enjoyed it so much. It was nice, I admit, to read something fictional and, though it holds a strong message, a piece of literature that is not a strong argumentative analytical tirade against humanity or animals or whatever. But I think the real reason this tale resonated with me is because of the relationship I myself have with horses.

At age 6, I rode my first horse. His name was Sonny and he lived on my grandfather’s farm in East Texas. I will never forget the feeling of his soft hide under my right hand as I gently cradled the reins in the other, my tiny fingers drawing lines on his sweaty, brown coat. I started riding with my family around the farm – in a pen, occasionally across to a meadow, and soon I found myself riding horseback almost every weekend. My favorite times were when it was just me and Sonny, alone, cantering through a field, the wind whipping through both of our manes. (Me and Sonny!) I had never felt so close to animal in my life than in those moments, nor have I since. Then, one day, much like Walker describes in this story, I was stung by a bee while riding Sonny. Panicking, I began to yank on the reins and dig my heels into his side. Confused and scared, Sonny bucked and reared until I went flying off of him onto the gravel road beneath him. I was fine, a couple of bruises here and there, but my family and I agreed, like Walker said, “that perhaps horseback riding was not the safest sport for me,” (Course Anthology, 316). I stopped riding for several years, but never stopped visiting Sonny. Feeding him carrots and apples and just standing next to him, looking into his eyes and pressing my nose against his were the times when I honestly felt happiest and the most at peace. Unlike Walker, I have never forgotten “the depth of feeling one could see in horses’ eyes,” (Course Anthology, 316).

Upon reading about Blue’s sadness after losing his friend and mate, and reading about the look in his eyes, how it was “so full of grief, so human,” took me instantly back to my younger days with Sonny (Course Anthology, 317). ‘Of course!’ I realized, ‘all this time I’ve been trying to analyze what I think with regards to whether or not animals have the capacity to feel pain (and to what extent) and I’ve never considered Sonny!’ Though I cannot remember a time when I saw Sonny in pain necessarily, I can relate to that wonderment at gazing into his eyes and feeling like he could see right through me. Whenever I would rest my hand on his chin and press my nose to his, it felt more like I was talking to a big brother than a horse. The idea of inflicting pain on someone (yes, I said ‘someone’, a human term, sue me) I was so close to is something I cannot imagine, even now. Though Marjorie Spiegel might disapprove of even my riding Sonny, as she writes that “when we tame a horse, we actually do break her,”(Dreaded Comparison, 38) I have to disagree with this. Would Sonny have been happier in the wild? Perhaps, I cannot be sure. But his life on my grandfather’s farm was one of mostly freedom – he spent the majority of her days running, eating, and playing with the other horses on many acrage of fields. And, I’d like to think of the times when I rode him – just me and Sonny – as ones of happiness for both myself and him. Am I being naieve? Perhaps. But one thing is certain, had I never gotten the experience to ride, play with, and become close to Sonny – a “broken” horse by Spiegel’s terms – I would never be able to look down upon out and out cruelty to animals like that shown to Blue when his lover was taken from him.(Taking Blue away from his mate was cruel and unnecessary treatment, something I do not condone. image courtesy of: http://ngbc.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/horsesinsunset.jpg) Without Sonny, I would not be able to relate to animals the way that I can, nor would I be able to someday advocate for them like I hope I will.

An Argument About Animals

There are people in my life – in my classes, among my friends, within my family – with whom I disagree occasionally. Then there are people with whom I can’t even fathom agreeing with about everything from basic to complex issues, but who are willing to listen to an argument and perhaps even re-evaluate their own thoughts as a result. Then there are those with whom I disagree and yet don’t even bother attempting argue with, because they refuse to change their mindsets, no matter what. I find that, as I get older, I have less and less patience for these types of people. I have less patience for people who think they know everything, who don’t trust that they can learn anything from people around them. Why bother, I ask myself? Tonight I asked myself the same question. After spending a weekend with my brother recently – one of those select few who maintains the point of view that I am losing patience with – and after reading over another student’s blog this evening I wondered, why am I even bothering? Those who do not want to change their set of beliefs….they simply won’t. That’s why this discussion board entry is for me; to calm my tired brain, to allow my fingers a rest from twitching with the desire to type out the words I so desperately need to stop banging around in my head. Consider it a diary entry, a personal argument within myself, whatever. (image courtesy of: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/diaries/pics/diary_open_520.jpg)

I have less patience for those who think it is acceptable to put a species through pain for reasons outside of anything absolutely necessary to maintaining our livelihood. To put it succinctly, I have no patience for people who claim an “I’m better than [insert human or other species here]” attitude. As I read through Joan Dunayer’s “Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots,” my entire understanding of animals and humans and sadism in general broadened drastically. Until now, I had never given a second thought to derogatory terms given to women such as “cow, bitch, crow” in terms relating those words to their animal namesakes. Now I understand those words to not only be hurtful to humans, but to animals as well. Why is this? Because, “every negative image of another species helps keep that species oppressed,” (Course Anthology, 391). Take, for example, the use of the word “bitch” when describing a female pregnant dog. Dogs are usually considered to be gentile, the kinder and friendlier of many animal species, and pregnant dogs are no different – if anything there should be a level of respect in place for any species while it is carrying live within it (but that’s my semi-feminist alter-ego talking!). (What exactly is so wrong with female, pregnant dogs that their name, "bitch", has turned into such an insult? image courtesy of: http://www.muttshack.org/uploaded_images/Mom_and_Puppies_at_MuttShack_Animal_Rescue_In_New_Orleans-775630.JPG) And yet, as Dunayer notes, “Breeders, however, have always treated the female dog with contempt,” (Course Anthology, 390). Of course, people will argue against this due to the fact that certain species of animals may not have the mental capacities or, obviously, the understanding of human language to comprehend these insults. However, “this contempt legitimizes [animals’] oppression (Course Anthology, 391)” for, as feminist philosopher Stephanie Ross once explained, “oppression does not require the awareness or co-operation of its victims (Course Anthology, 391).”

Learning from Dunayer’s excerpt completely opened up a new way for me to look at things. Being a woman, I have never really been fond of using many of the derogatory “animal” words used to belittle women, but my little brother is. He has entered a phase in his teenage life (and I have to hope it is just that – a phase and nothing permanent) where he believes himself – as a human, as a man, as a white man, as an heir to a successful company, as an [insert some made-up and useless qualification here] – to be better than those around him. We have had many an argument – usually about his views of men with regards to women – that ended in tears on my part and smug contentment with the soundness of his views on his part. After watching Earthlings in class, I called home to my parents and spoke with them about possibly watching the film as a family when I came home for Thanksgiving. My mom and dad agreed, but were hesitant about showing the film to my brother, for my sake, as they believe that nothing will change his mind about his “I’m better than you” personality and don’t want to upset me when we all watch the film and my brother will possibly burst into laughter at the images before us. They’re probably right in this assumption, and because I don’t want to view my brother forever as an empathy-lacking psychopath, I will probably not force him to watch the film nor will I speak to him about my beliefs regarding animals. To be frank for a moment, I wonder sometimes how my little brother would fare if placed in an experiment like the Stanford prison experiment, and whether or not researchers would find his actions and reactions, “frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature,” (Sadism website, 1), but I digress. Again, this is not a “giving up” thing for me; it is rather a further (possible flaw) continuation of my lack of patience with his set of views and inability to alter them.

My brother and I have broached the subject of animal cruelty before, and he explained to me an argument that I see in this class and that I see in the world around me – namely that animals are, by definition, not equal to us as humans and therefore, we have the right to treat them in whatever way we wish. We are dominant; therefore we have full privileges in every arena involving animals. My primary argument to this is: SO WHAT?! So what if animals are on a “lower level” than us in terms of intelligence, so what if they don’t share our exact chromosomes?! It has been PROVEN for a majority of animal species that they have the capacity to feel pain, just like us. So what, because my dog cannot do my calculus homework or speak my language that gives me the right to beat him to a bloody pulp and skin him alive? It is just as the famous philosopher Jeremy Bentham believed, summarized by Jacques Derrida, that “the question is not to know whether the animal can think, reason, or talk, [….] but the first and decisive question will rather be to know whether animals can suffer,”(Course Anthology, 405-406). I thought about this to a great extent when I read about derogatory words like “bitch” and how they relate to this oppression. I would imagine that my brother’s argument (if I may speculate, I’ve know the kid for 16 years so I have a little bit of an idea about how he might typically react to such a topic) would be that the word “bitch” or “cow” does not have an affect on the animal involved, due to the fact that that word is actually “true” in describing that animal. If you call a woman a cow, it is to denote that you deem her dumb. As our leader himself said in his discussion board entry this evening, “Exactly. A cow is not as intelligent, does not have the same moral capacity, and does not have the same propensity to think in abstract manners, which is why this insult is so gross and debasing. But to argue that this somehow stems from a cruel lack of empathy is rather ill-founded in my opinion,” (Jose’s blog entry). I disagree with this statement. Some animals possess the human-like qualities of, “a highly developed brain, the capacity for abstract reasoning, and the ability to communicate by means of organized speech,” (Course Anthology, 393). If I am allowed to be somewhat frank for the moment, some mentally retarded people do not have these abilities. It is considered extremely inappropriate (at least in my world!) to call someone “retarded” when they are acting dumb, confused, or momentary lacking one of the typically human qualities mentioned above because it displays a cruelty and lack of empathy for those with mental retardation. Why, then, does it not display a similar lack of empathy and cruelty to a cow to call a person such? Just because it is considered true (cows = dumb, retarded people = lack everyday “human” skills) does NOT make it okay.(The message of "The Office" TV show's completely un-self aware boss Michael Scott's words shows the ignorance of those who claim that it is in no way hurtful to the animal to call a human by its name derogatorily simply because a human is acting like that animal. Just because it may seem true, or at least to apply, does not make it right. Video courtesy of:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFejNW1HiKY). The only argument against this is that there is the barrier of “different species” between the two analogies, I think that is ridiculous, for all reasons mentioned above.

Maybe someday I will gain the strength, will, and knowledge required to attempt to argue with people like my brother about issues like this that I care so deeply about. Until then, I will continue to research my opinion, listen to those of others, and fight the battles that I think I have a chance of winning (or at least of having my voice go in one ear without going straight out the other) dealing with animals and my beliefs regarding them.

Anything but Silence

“Do you really believe, Mother, that poetry classes are going to close down the slaughterhouses?”

“No.”

“Then why do it? […] What is it that you want to cure humankind of?”

“John, I don’t know what I want to do. I just don’t want to sit silent.” (Elizabeth Costello, 103, 104).(image courtesy of: http://www.onenewsnow.com/uploadedImages/Media/Images/duct_tape_over_mouth.jpg)These words spoken by Elizabeth Costello in J.M. Coetzee’s novel rang incredibly true for me, even as I struggled to understand the rest of the book or even the specific points Elizabeth was trying to prove. I feel that my thoughts on the novel and especially on animal treatment discussed therein will be somewhat repetitive from what I wrote about in my last discussion board entry. Mostly, the overwhelming sensation I have is a feeling of needing to do SOMETHING. Anything, really, to support this cause of treating animals better than we do, to not let the injustices performed upon all kinds of animals daily continue.

The issues I have had the most difficulty swallowing are new in my mind – basically I’ve only just found this new passion to sort of “protect” the animals of the world since watching Earthlings in class, and I therefore don’t know all of the facets of the widespread topic of animal cruelty. However, I learned of a new one tonight when reading the novel and also Kafka’s “A Report for an Academy.” I had rarely before considered what life for an ape like that in Kafka’s story would be like – encaged, forced to perform tricks and tasks that the animal itself deems demeaning (if we are to subscribe to the theory that animals, or at least apes, have the mental capacity to perform actions that phrases like “deems demeaning” connote) all to please nothing more than human curiosity. Reads the report from the ape’s perspective, “No, I didn’t want freedom. Only a way out – to the right or left or anywhere at all. I made no other demands, even if the way out should be only an illusion,” (Course Anthology, 367). What a terrible, depressing existence.

Of course, Elizabeth feels the heat for her remarks, especially when they regard Kafka’s story and her outright comparison of treatment of animals like that ape to the Holocaust. The famous poet in Coetzee’s story, Abraham Stern fairly summed up the argument against Costello when he wrote to her, “the [comparison of jews in the Holocaust and cattle] insults the memory of the dead. It also trades on the horrors of the camp in a cheap way,” (Elizabeth Costello, 94). About this issue, I truly do not know how I feel. Like Maysie explained in her discussion board this evening, I am torn!

This is what I do know. I want to help. Tonight, in reading Kafka’s story, I learned about another issue I want to help with. I don’t think it’s right for tests and experiments to be performed on animals like the ones in Kafka’s report. I don’t think it’s right that the distinction between whether or not animals have equal intelligence as us has to be made for us to decide whether or not to cause them pain. They can feel. Period! I don’t know what I want to do: maybe I can give money, maybe I can tour a slaughterhouse, shelters, start a facebook group against animal cruelty, start a petition, walk to the capital and stand there screaming at the top of my lungs for someone to listen to me.

(Can I protest, will that help? Image courtesy of:http://dlproj.library.ucla.edu/derivatives/bennett/uclamss_686_b6_f9_2_k.jpg) I don’t even know how I feel about so many issues. But, like Elizabeth, I know this: I don’t want to sit silent.

Presentation is Everything

Today, still reeling from our class’ back-to-back viewings of Earthlings, I delved into E.M. Coetzee’s Elizabeth Costello with unease, unsure of what I would find there. I knew I couldn’t take any more images or descriptions like I had seen in Earthlings, couldn’t handle much more talk of animals of any kind, really. It was too painful. Needless to say, I found myself confused, albeit pleased, when I found the book to be a story of a gifted female writer (though not-so-gifted a mother, to be sure) struggling to stay relevant in a world where her ideas and books are considered old fashioned. I enjoyed very much what I have read so far and have found myself captivated by Elizabeth as a character, especially when it comes to the discrepancies between the personality she apparently puts into her books and lack thereof in the “real world.” But my enjoyment of the book is not the point I wanted to discuss in this blog entry!

Though there were many pieces of Costello’s speech about animals and animal rights that I did not understand (this is a book that I feel like I will probably want to read several times, over and over, savoring every word and rolling its main ideas around in my head until I can make some shape of the lump of clay they represent to me now – it’s a challenge), I did certainly appreciate and understand her stance on animals. She speaks almost exactly about facts and statistics regarding animals and their rights as Earthlings did, yet she (and Coetzee, if you break the fourth wall for a moment) seems to be farther ahead of her time than Earthlings.

Early on, it is established that Costello has an incredible talent for creating characters, for putting words to a page, to bringing an entire country fame with her books. However, that talent with words does not translate into oratory skills. She doesn’t think she needs to posess this talent as she tells Emmanuel Egudu, “From the beginning the novel has made a virtue of not being performed. You can’t have both live performance and cheap, hardy distribution,” (Elizabeth Costello, 50). However, I felt myself pained when reading her speech(es) regarding her beliefs on animal treatment. While her ideas might be valid and even understandable normally, under these circumstances with these people and with her rather condescending way of presenting her information, it just comes off terribly. Her son remembers a time when his wife would ask Costello how she could make a choice to be a vegetarian and she responds with the condescending, “You ask me why I refuse to eat flesh. I, for my part, am astonished that you can put in your mouth the corpse of a dead animal, swallow the juices of death wounds,” (Elizabeth Costello, 83).

I feel much the same way as Elizabeth after watching Earthlings and learning about animals via other outlets in this class like Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. When on the phone with my parents, I try to convince them to watch Earthlings with me, try to convince my friends of the same thing. Though I do not know exactly what my stance on every minute issue of animal rights and animal cruelty is, I do know that I believe animals absolutely do NOT deserve to be caged, beaten, unnecessarily starved, and put in pain that is not warranted. Animals will always be slaughtered, that is a fact I have come to accept. But do I have to support the inhumane (pardon the irony, I cannot think of a more effective word at 11:30 at night) treatment of treatment they go through in the process? Is it really that difficult to put an animal out of pain before you kill it?Is it really too much to ask that a fox be killed before its skin is ripped from its body like wrapping paper?(image courtesy of: http://www.canadianvoiceforanimals.org/files/SkinnedFox.jpg). I also thought about attempting vegetarianism, but was met with statements from my family and peers like what is essentially summed up in Wendy Doniger’s “Reflections”, “[to] refrain from killing and eating animals is to protect [my] own soul from pollution,” (Course Anthology, 350). And it is true, for what good will it do for me to become a vegetarian other than make myself feel happy? It certainly won’t save animals from pain. (This video confirms, in part, what Doniger says when she writes that we "refrain from eating animals to protect....our bodies from social pollution" [Course Anthology, 50] courtesy of:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgUgj9xZO7E). The jury is still out for me, on the issue of vegetarianism, but that is beside my point. These are the things I feel passionate about, and these are the things that, like Elizabeth, I have tried explaining to my parents and friends. However, like Ms. Costello, I have been met with disinterest, with glazed over looks and condescending nods. Sometimes, in the case of my extremely self-centered little brother, I am met with a laugh in my face and the phrase “Animals are worthless. We can do what we want with them.” As infuriated as I am, I can only imagine the frustration Elizabeth felt. Here is this woman who was given the gift of an extremely intelligent brain (or “mind” as Elizabeth would insist on calling it due to “it seeming gratuitously insulting to call it just a brain” (Elizabeth Costello, 68)) but has not harnessed the ability to convey what her mind knows through her speech. One cannot help but wonder if Egudu was giving this speech, with his winning smile and confident yet not overbearing attitude, would people respond better? In this case, presentation is everything. I found myself wishing, as I read through instances of her being challenged by everyone from her audience to her own son, that she would write a book about her feelings, one that didn’t offend others or make them uneasy the way her spoken words do. Though, I suppose that’s what E.M. Coetzee is doing, after all.

(An effective speaker can sell an audience pretty much anything. How I wished for Elizabeth to have the gift of motivation in her speaking when she spoke about such an important issue as animal cruelty! image courtesy of:http://api.ning.com/files/cjhSEEQnSUDxAZLqbh5JiDz6-NHr6nDDGMEOwixb*wQZFgNYfaE8RGxXKw0llm6ahDH*IvVdN7KxMd7jS7cSWO9S3x77FxJl/CustomizedPicture.jpg)

I am looking forward to continuing with this book and to learning more not only from Elizabeth Costello’s great mind and how she applies this to her beliefs about animals but also how I can apply not only what she does right but what she does WRONG in her presentation of her beliefs so that I can apply it to my own life.

11-3 Androids Discussion Leading

I want to start with a quick go-around the room of what YOU think defines being human. I know we attempted this last time - many of us didn't know and I know I still don't! But Callie brings up a great point in her DB when she says: Similarly, in our class discussion, we never clearly defined the term “human”, therefore our conversation was circular because we each had different ideas as to the meaning of the word. “Rather than connecting,” we were “like two trains passing in the night, each with only a fleeting glimpse of what is going on on the other train” (Abstractions Website). Therefore, I think it would be wise of us to try to come up with some concrete distinctions between humans and non-humans, if we can.

A lot of us had misconceptions and confusion regarding sympathy, empathy, compassion prior to reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and the Course Anthology excerpts. What did you find to be the main differences between the emotions? What did you learn about these emotions that you didn’t consider before?

Alice: What is the difference between the “specific talent(s)”(Dick, 124) of empathy, sympathy, and compassion? When I read the anthology definitions and the abstractions website, and then applied them to what I was reading in Androids, I was faced with numerous contradictions. It seems that one thing they all have in common is that they are unquantifiable – and rightly so

Helen: For instance, “compassion” is a feeling for someone’s suffering, “accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.”[1] “Sympathy” refers to feeling the same feelings along with another person and being able to feel sorry for their problems, and “empathy” is what you feel for someone when you have experienced a similar situation.

Maysie: In comparison, I view compassion as the bright lights of the colorful stage from a children’s show rather than a gloomy and stuffy candle-lit room. In compassion their must be joy

Alice: and so the constructs of empathy, sympathy, and compassion are essentially the same, despite their differences in application – they come from a selfish desire, or perhaps even a need, to experience the emotions of others – to remind ourselves that we are among other living, feeling beings, that we are not alone in our suffering or our joy.

Katherine: Our pain is only ours to feel; it is highly and completely individualized. But the knowledge that others are there for us or are feeling pain then too or are happy can make a world of difference. Humans are social creatures, and the feeling that you are the only person who is going through something, especially if it is painful, is a highly discomforting situation. Empathy dissolves this feeling.

Thuyen: Empathy, sympathy, and compassion, as mentioned earlier, are a few humane qualities that set a civilization on the same track. Through mindful expression of these abstracted virtues, we have determined the doctrine for all that is civilized – how we should live, how we should think and feel, and what kind of person we should emulate. Empathy, sympathy, and compassion, “which are achieved through the imagination, characterize the highest moral and aesthetic exertion”

Callie: Our ultimate goal should be compassion, sympathy, and empathy because only by exhibiting these three qualities can we make a change in the world. Only through compassion, sympathy, and empathy can we leave the world a little bit better than we found it.

How did you feel about the gap between androids and humans in terms of ability and natural rights? Do you consider androids to deserve the same rights that we as humans do, or are the two simply too different to warrant equality?

Jade: When reading this novel, I continue to question the true identity of the humans in Dick’s world. What makes these human different from an android?

Lauren: I think that androids should have human rights purely for the selfish reason that I could very easily become emotionally attached to... any of them

Jose: Androids on the other hand, have no such ability and will never have such an ability. They are machines created by mankind and their emotions and behaviors have been prescribed by humans, whether intentional or not.

Karisma: We are becoming more like androids everyday! Our minds are being molded and shaped according to this giant master narrative: that the Internet is all knowing

Molly: And if androids show the beginning signs of empathy and developing understanding of others, why shouldn’t they be treated as complete humans?

Jade: To me, the remaining humans on Earth seems to evolve towards an android-like identity rather than a more human-like identity.

Sharad: I hope that androids don’t dream of electric sheep. Rather, androids ought to dream of liberation, primarily from bounty hunters like Deckard.

Did you take the android species to be a metaphor for any particular species or people in our world's present or past?

Molly: If engineers perfected their “ignoring their owner” module, an electric cat would be truly indistinguishable from the real thing. At that point, could you just call it a cat?

Molly: We treat murderers and rapists as subhuman, just as 2021ers do rogue androids. In the end, what’s the difference?

Jose: One of these situations is in the form of the difficult issue of people with certain defects that can render them virtually lifeless vegetables, completely dependent on others to survive. Is it fair to consider these people "human"?

Callie: For example, we do not think of the heartless slaughtering of animals as we sink our teeth into delicious Wendy’s hamburgers. We don’t think of the poor skinned animal as we slip into our warm fur coats.

Sharad: I believe that through the representations of androids and of humans Dick is portraying the very idea of a patent or copyright

Sharad: In my view, the androids are the slaves of humans Post-World War Terminus, and I would declare Polokov as the Nat Turner of this fictional San Francisco.

Finally, to HAMMER INTO UNITY:

Many of us changed our minds about the androids in terms of the empathy, sympathy, and compassion they deserved by books end. Did our exploration (through Course Anthology reading) of empathy, sympathy, and compassion and their distinctions help to change your mind about androids? Similarly, do you think it changed some of the human characters’ minds?

Chris: Even after Luba reveals her thoughts on mankind, I still remained uncertain about mankind’s “superiority.” The deterioration of human emotion and the hypocritical killings performed by humans on androids. Even Deckard sees the cruelty in his job. During this revelation he uncovers new truths and perspectives.

Lauren: But if we “suspend theory in order to focus on what the person of object in front of us might teach us”, we might realize that androids, despite all of their un-human flaws, may be able to teach us a higher form of empathy. I mean, it's easy to feel empathetic towards something that is like you. But with androids, I feel like we have to search more, and find that small sliver of likeness that connects us in order to be empathetic and emotional towards them.

Maysie: When Rick is “ ‘able of feeling empathy for at least specific, certain androids’”, “for Luba’s voice, in fact her career as a whole” (Dick), he is expressing sympathetic imagination. As he ponders the waste the world has experienced in its loss, he is placing himself completely in her shoes.

Emily: To empathize means “to treat something or someone with empathy” (Course Anthology 274L). The something in there is what caught my eye. So what about androids? To me, treating androids with empathy is more humane than not. However, Rick does not do this, except in the case of certain ones.

Sympathy, Empathy, and Compassion

When I began the reading in the Course Anthology for this discussion board, I’ll admit it: I was confused. Reading the definitions for compassion, sympathy, and empathy left me with three extremely similar definitions of what seemed to me to be the same type of emotion – feeling sorry for someone. I decided to finish Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep to see if I could get a better understanding of these three emotions and find their basic differences through Deckard and Isidore’s experiences.

The most impactful moment in the whole book, for me, occurred when the android Pris decided to cut off a spider’s legs because, as she said, “I think it doesn’t need all those legs…maybe four are enough (Dick, 81).” The scene caused Isidore to “experience a strange sense of terror” and caused me, as the reader, to feel a similar way (Dick, 81). ‘What,’ I wondered, ‘should I categorize the emotion that Isidore (and myself) was feeling as a result of the spider’s pain?’ After re-reading the Oxford definition of sympathy, empathy, and compassion, I realized that Isidore felt sympathy for the creature; defined as “an affinity between certain things, by virtue of which they are similarly or correspondingly affected by the same influence […] attract or tend towards each other (Course Anthology, 274M)” Isidore has never had his legs cut off physically, but metaphorically speaking he has been made, in his life, to feel like the spider does when Pris mutiliates it. He is a special, a chickenhead, is treated as a nuisance upon society, and is made to feel as if he has no worth. When Pris says of the spider, “is it worth something? It’ll die anyway” before testing to cut off its legs, one can draw almost an exact parallel to the way she and her friends viewed Isidore when they first moved into the apartments and debated killing him immediately. Isidore, though he himself may only make the connection between himself and the spider subconsciously, feels sympathy for the spider because they are experiencing like circumstances.

(A song covered by Marillion about sympathy that I think captures the word's true definition along with pictures that portray how important sympathy is in OUR world, especially at this present time. video courtesy of:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utsl2YeADZk&feature=related)

Another instance in the novel where these emotions play a key part is when Deckard believes himself to be Mercer. Though I was very confused as I read about Deckard climbing the hill and being hit by a rock, when he explained, “I am Wilbur Mercer; I’ve become one with him, and I’ve lost myself,” I recognized his experience to be a very literal example of empathy. We spoke a lot about what empathy is, exactly, during our last discussion of the novel in class, but we did not work so much do define what exactly it is. Again, according to the Oxford definition, empathy is “the power of projecting one’s personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation (Course Anthology, 274L).” Deckard is an emotional wreck after killing six androids in one day, he is angry with himself for following Mercer’s allowance of those murders, and he ends up literally putting himself in Mercer’s shoes. He ends up living out the empathy box experience in real life, and experiences in turn real empathy, not empathy box-manufactured empathy. Whereas before the experience he found himself “withdrawn, removed, and separate” from the pain of Mercer as he walked up the hill, Deckard loses his abstract sense of Mercer’s journey when he himself is being pelted with rocks, living it (“Abstractions” website, 1). After the experience, he finds himself grateful for his unintentional empathy for Mercer because he realizes “I found the toad because I see through Mercer’s eyes (Dick, 100).” He also touches on the importance of empathy when he says, “Now that I’ve seen through Mercer’s eyes once, I probably won’t stop (Dick, 100). For, once we have true empathy for someone or something, it is hard to view any circumstances similar to our own without empathy. (To take a walk in someone else's shoes is a very important piece in achieving empathy. image courtesy of:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/118/250786988_936b94a8d9.jpg?v=0)

So, having identified instances of sympathy and empathy in the book – and defining their differences more clearly in my own mind – I had only to find a moment of compassion in the novel. I struggled with this definition the most, mostly because the definitions in the course anthology were extremely similar to those of sympathy. Then, I came across this defining: “the feeling when a person is moved by the suffering or distress of another, and by the desire to relieve it (Course Anthology, 274J).” That was it! Compassion, I realized, has a quality to it that the other two emotions I was analyzing did not – power. Many of my classmates may remember a day this semester when a lot had gone wrong for me. I came to class exhausted, crying, and fifteen minutes late. I knew my chances of actually walking into the classroom were slim, due to the fact that our Course Anthology clearly states that, “after six weeks have passed, the door will be closed for good when class starts […] and if anyone chooses to oen the door for someone who comes late, they will receive [points lost] (Course Anthology, 20).” However, after being initially turned away and sinking to the ground next to class in dismay at yet another thing that had gone wrong that day, I saw Katherine’s head peek around the now open door. “Spin, it’s okay, you can come in,” she said to me with a smile. I couldn’t believe it! Had she really opened the door for me, even knowing she would lose points as a result? In this instance, Katherine utilized compassion in that she felt sympathy for my experience and had the power to relieve it. (This late pass is an example of compassion a held by a teacher for a student - compassion is normally utilized in situations like the teacher-student relationship because it involves power. image courtesy of: http://parenting.leehansen.com/Printables/School/teacher-coupons.htm) In the novel, I had to look no further than the scene where Deckard decides against shooting Rachel, even after he finds that her reasons for sleeping with him were not genuine and sees that she is not with him to give help in the least. Though there are a lot of reasons to kill her, Deckard is stopped by her submission and acceptance of his shooting her and uses the power he has over her to save her life, rather than kill her.

Though I am not entirely sure what Dick’s novel was meant to prove symbolically and metaphorically in terms of applying it to our life, I did find myself extremely well-versed in the definitions of emotions like sympathy, empathy, and compassion and very in tune to my own experiences with these same emotions. I can only hope that we as a class continue to explore these themes, especially with regard to important events and issues in not-so-futuristic but equally complicated world in which we live.