Animal Studies and James Joyce's "The Dead" by Maggie Campbell

            This is a disclaimer before you begin reading this post… This material is complex, interpretive, and ultimately serves as a guinea pig in the realm of literary theory. This essay will interpret James Joyce’s “The Dead” through the critical lens of Animal Studies. For those of you who don’t know what “The Dead” is, it is a canonical short story written by James Joyce, published in his collection Dubliners; it is written in third person narration, and it follows the main character Gabriel through his experiences at a dinner party during a winter in Ireland. And for those of you who don’t know what Animal Studies is… it is an interdisciplinary approach that can be applied to literature, and because it is so new, there is a need for texts to be explored through its lens. That is why I am taking the time to develop this essay—to give this current trend a foundation.

Animal Studies is an interdisciplinary field: a movement that is becoming increasingly popular in education. But, what exactly is Animal Studies? What does it mean to approach a literary text from an Animal Studies perspective? Due to its new emergence in the field of literary study, scholars seem to each have their own focuses within the approach; however, they all seek to understand the relationships between animals and humans. Some Animal Studies scholars look at animals as separate entities from humans, as a being in their own right. However, some scholars also consider the animalistic qualities present in humans. Thus, my approach, analysis, and interpretation will prove no different than the already existing Animal Studies scholars: it will be entirely my own (however I will explore “The Dead” through the qualities of the approach I learned from reading other scholars theories).

            As I begin to practice Animal Studies in relation to Jocye’s “The Dead” I will lay out the way in which I plan to discuss this material. My aim is to analyze the scene where Gabriel tells the story about “The never-to-be-forgotten Johnny”(46).  I will begin the analysis of this scene as I explore the distinction between a glue and starch mill. I then will expose the human qualities given to Johnny, and also the qualities taken away from him. Finally, I will look at the final scene of the story, Johnny’s action, and attempt to uncover the various meanings of his actions, and the old gentleman’s reaction.  My reasoning for looking at this scene in the story, and revealing its meanings stem from two principle literary theorist essays, Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s essay “Animal Relatives, Difficult Relations,” and Istvan Csicsery-Ronay’s essay “The Purpose of Humanimalia.”  These two works have provided me with a solid set of principles within the realm of Animal Studies that I feel are applicable in the case of Joyce’s short story.

However, before beginning my analysis, I feel it is important to expose the fluidity of Animal Studies. Csicsery-Ronay cites When Species Meet and states authority figures of Animal Studies share the vision that: “we are in a knot of species co-creating each other in layers of reciprocating complexity all the way down. Response and respect are possible only in those knots, with actual animals and people looking back at each other, sticky with all their muddled histories” (Csicsery-Ronay). The great chain of being is a twisted knot that includes human and non-human species. Scholars are encouraged to appreciate this complexity; however, “more is required, too” (Csicsery-Ronay). It is determining this “more” that proves to be the aim of Animal Studies. Scholars may each have their own questions, and look to uncover different meanings in regard to various human-animal relationships; however, ultimately they each are looking to uncover complexities.

Now it is time to take a look the human-animal relationships in Joyce’s short story. Gabriel, the main character, provides comic relief as the dinner party is coming to an end when he shares the story of “The never-to-be-forgotten Johnny” (46). Johnny is a horse who worked in a starch mill, and was taken out for a drive to see a military review in the park by Patrick Morkan, Gabriel’s grandfather. The first complexity present in the story is the ambiguity as to where Johnny was used as a workhorse—a glue or starch mill. Gabriel first claims that the old gentleman (his grandfather) “was a glue-boiler” (46). If Gabriel’s grandfather were a glue boiler, then Johnny’s work within the factory would be barbarous. Glue is produced from horse’s hooves; thus Johnny’s role in the factory would contribute to the maltreatment of his own kind. If Gabriel were correct, if his grandfather “was a glue-boiler,” then his grandfather would show a lack of concern for the maltreatment of Johnny. However, Aunt Kate corrects Gabriel when she says laughing, “O, now, Gabriel, he had a starch mill” (46). Johnny’s work in a starch mill would prove entirely different from his work in a glue-boiling factory. Gabriel is either ignorant to this distinction, or he could potentially be conscious of the element that glue boiling adds to the story. If he were conscious of this element, his character would appear cruel. For he would view animals as subordinate to humans, because of the implied maltreatment in glue-boiling factories that Johnny would have been forced to contribute to with his role as a workhorse. 

The questioning of the morality of Gabriel’s character hints to Barbara Herrnstein Smith notion of morality. In her essay “Animal Relatives, Difficult Relations” she discusses the notion of human’s moral obligation to treat animals and other beings with the same care, attention, and respect that we treat fellow humans with. Herrnstein Smith believes that humans have “a moral imperative to extend our regard for the welfare of fellow human beings to other animals, other living beings, and, in some arguments, to all other beings, living and sentient or otherwise” (Smith 13). Gabriel’s lack of concern about the distinction between the glue and starch mill proves that Gabriel is not extending a “regard for the welfare of fellow human beings to other animals.” By showing a lack of concern for Johnny, Gabriel is exposing his sense of humanistic authority over animals.

As Gabriel continues the story, and the distinction between starch and glue ceases to be a topic of conversation; he then introduces the fact that Johnny is a horse: “Well, glue or starch, the old Gentleman had a horse by the name of Johnny. And Johnny used to work in the old gentleman’s mill, walking round and round in order to drive the mill” (46). This detail adds yet another layer to the interpretation of this story, for the audience of Gabriel’s story is unaware of the fact that Johnny is not a human, until Gabriel states that he is a horse. As he continues to address Johnny by his name (a name assigned to him by humans, and a very human name at that) he addresses his grandfather, Patrick Morkan, as “old gentleman.” By addressing Johnny by a name, and his grandfather by “old gentleman” Gabriel is personalizing Johnny more so than his grandfather in the story. Does this prove that Gabriel is showing a concern for Johnny, because he is addressing him by name over his own grandfather? There is a sense of irony present, for while Johnny is given human qualities (his name), human qualities are also being taken away from him as well.

In the story, Johnny is subjected to scrutiny and humiliation. For, as he is taken out of the mill and used for transportation, his actions are the source of entertainment in Gabriel’s story.  The old gentleman harnesses Johnny and begins the drive out as Gabriel recounts, “And everything went on beautifully until Johnny came in sight of King Billy’s statue: and whether he fell in love with the hose King Billy sits on or whether he thought he was back in the mill, anyhow he began to walk round the statue” (47). That line appeared to be the punch line of the story as “Gabriel paced in a circle round the hall in his galoshes amid the laughter of others” (47).  This aspect of the story is one of the more complex elements in regard to Johnny’s animality. For, as Johnny encountered the statue of King Billy he began to walk around it continuously, similarly to how he would circle the starch mill. This action could be interpreted as simply as that: Johnny is conditioned to walk around a fixed point, so he was practicing what he had been trained to do. Or, Gabriel’s claim that “he fell in love with the horse King Billy sits on” would attribute a human quality to Johnny, the ability to love. A third possibility could be that Johnny walked round the statue to make a spectacle of the old gentleman—that he was conscious of his action and the response it would receive.

If Johnny consciously chose to walk around the statue, in order to humiliate the old gentlemen, then Joyce is implying that animals are capable of anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human characteristics to nonhumans. Smith claims that animals are capable of higher mental processes: “with the ascendance of positivism in psychology and behaviorism in the study of animals, claims that animals can think, have consciousness, or are self-aware have elicited routine charges of ‘anthropomorphism,’ meaning, in these instances, the gratuitous attribution to members of other species of so-called higher mental processes (reasoning, deliberation, calculation, and so forth)” (Smith 8). With Smith’s theory in mind, Johnny would be practicing “higher mental processes” as he purposely sought out to embarrass the old gentleman. If this were the case, then the relationship between animals and humans would appear closer, as the gap in their mental capabilities lessened.

The old gentleman’s response to Johnny’s actions shines light on Smith’s argument of the animality within humans. Gabriel concludes the story: “Round and round he went, and the old gentleman who was a very pompous old gentleman, was highly indignant. Go on, sir! What do you mean, sir? Johnny! Johnny! Most extraordinary conduct! Can’t understand the horse!”(47). The old man’s reaction to Johnny walking around the statue appears to be somewhat animalistic. He is upset at the unfairness of Johnny’s actions, he doesn’t understand, and ultimately gets very flustered. Smith states, “some of our most profoundly intuitive responses to other animals, in this regard as others, reflect (for better or worse, ethically measured) our own animality” (Smith 4). The old gentleman’s reaction reveals his own animality because he reacts without thinking and just follows his instincts, there is no process of reasoning. Again, the gap between human and animal mental processes seems to narrow as the old gentleman acts more animalistic, and does not practice “higher mental processes.”

Initially I never would have considered the story with Johnny as even remotely important. However, being forced to examine Joyce’s story through the eyes of an Animal Studies theorists, I obviously gravitated towards the scenes with animals in them. This story jumped out at me. Yes, there are other scenes with animals present, but this instance seemed to provide the greatest insight into animals, humans, and the relation between the two. First, the issue of the starch mill, or the glue-boiling factory reveals quite an interesting layer to the animal and human relationship. It begs readers to question why Joyce would include glue boiling, something that exposes the harsh treatment of horses? Secondly, Johnny being introduced as Johnny rather than simply a horse offers insight into the way that Joyce looks at animals, why does he attribute a human name to a horse? Couldn’t Johnny exist in the story without a name, and be addressed solely as ‘horse’?

I hope that my exploration of Animal Studies in regards to Joyce’s short story “The Dead” exposed you to some of the questions Animal Studies theorists seek to answer. But more importantly, I hope this essay has prompted you to think about humans and animals differently; their relationship to one another, the animalistic qualities humans’ hold, but also the humanistic qualities animals hold.

After all of that, even though I hope I was convincing in my presentation, I feel it is my purpose to examine the effectiveness of my approach. First, I have already established that Animal Studies is a new approach in the literary field, but how did this approach differ from other conventional approaches that have a preexisting foundation in the world of literature? I would say that this approach differs in its fluidity. Animal Studies is fluid in the sense that it does not have a large body of literature supporting it; however, the aim of scholars is to seek and discover the complex relationships between animals and humans. As mentioned previously, some focus on animals as separate entities from humans and discuss them as beings in their own right, some scholars consider the animalistic qualities present in humans or the humanistic qualities present in animals, and some consider the relationships between animals and humans.

I believe that the fluidity of Animal Studies provides both benefits and weaknesses. Due to its wide range of questions, more aspects of a story can be analyzed and interpreted because there are more questions to consider. For example, in my own analysis I was able to look at the glue or starch question, the humanistic characteristics given to Johnny and the qualities taken away from him, the old gentleman’s reaction to Johnny’s circling of the statue, and the cause for Johnny’s circling. Thus, a multifaceted set of interpretations was available due to the theories mutability in relation to questions about animal-human relationships.

The variability in Animal Studies could also be argued the opposite way, that because of the vastness of its questions, the theory lacks specificity; therefore, it lacks value (however what determines value? Haha). This argument would claim that the theory does not have enough foundation that it is still a work in progress, but that is the case! It does not have a large basis or frame of reference, and it will continue to lack this until it becomes a conventional approach. So, it will remain flexible until it becomes a more common place in the literary world.

How well did this approach due on the basic critical litmus test? If I had to determine this I would say that it all depends on how much you buy into the interpretation. If you buy into the analysis and allow yourself to think in the way of an Animal Studies theorist, I would say this approach helped me see the story in a new way. This new way is largely surrounded by the questions that arose as I examined Johnny and his presence in “The Dead.” It is unclear as to whether or not Joyce was interested in Johnny in relation to Gabriel, or if he was interested in Johnny in his own self? What does Johnny’s presence in the story ultimately add? It is asking questions such as these that prove Animal’s Studies caused me to think about Joyce’s work in a different way. 

Works Cited

Csicsery-Ronay, Istvan. “The Purpose of Humanimalia.” A Journal of Human/Animal

Interface Studies. DePauw University. Web.

Joyce, James. "The Dead." Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism. Ed. Daniel R.

Schwarz. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1994. 21-59. Print.

Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. “Animal Relatives, Difficult Relations.” A Journal of

Feminist Cultural Studies. University of Duke Press, 2004. 1-23. Project Muse. Web.