Animal Studies in James Joyce’s “The Dead”
Animal Studies is a fairly new concept and doesn’t
have as much traction within certain academic institutions, which makes this
somewhat of a difficult subject to tackle. However, I will be attempting to use
examples from Jame’s Joyce’s “The Dead,” to share my take on an up and coming
trend in analyzing literature. Animal Studies sheds light on how similar humans
and non-human animals are and how we need to have a strong grasp of animals to
ultimately understand ourselves better and vice versa. My overall goal is to
show the importance of analyzing texts through Animal Studies to prove that
although traditional analytical methods are useful, this theory broadens the
conversation in a way that doesn’t exclusively deal with our own kind.
Joyce’s story takes place through main character
Gabriel’s eyes as he navigates around his social limitations at a party, set in
Ireland. The scene I have chosen to analyze from Joyce’s story is when Gabriel
is entertaining party guests with an anecdote about his grandfather, Patrick,
and Patrick’s horse, Johnny. While out on a walk, Johnny is distracted by a
statue and walks around in circles to the dismay of his owner. This scene holds
a lot of potential for critical analysis: it shows the extent Gabriel values
animals, how his and his grandfather’s lack of understanding Johnny inhibits
them from examining their biological structure and what makes them tick, and
lastly how when Gabriel reenacts Johnny’s meandering, he briefly takes on the
identity of an animal without even realizing what is happening.
In
addition to Joyce’s shot story, I have utilized two additional sources to help
me flesh out my analysis in relation to the theory. DePauw University’s
published journal, “Humanimalia” and Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s “Animal
Relatives, Difficult Relations” will help me pull examples out of the primary
text and grasp how it relates to Animal Theory and later, whether I think this
approach is especially useful. Both scholars conclude that essentially, we are animals and then highlight the ways
we are connected and how that may contrast with our initial beliefs on how to
treat animals. Although I refer to both authors, the ideas mentioned in my
essay allow me to draw from their ideas and form opinions of my own based on
“The Dead.”
Part
I.
Analysis
It is impossible to understand humans without also
having a clear perception of animals. The author of “Humanimalia” writes that because humans and animals
have developed with each other, neither can be understood indirectly nor
primarily with out the other. The main objective of animal studies is to
evaluate our relationship with animals. Through studying interactions and
biological connections, it becomes easier to acknowledge the overwhelming
evidence that humans have more in common with their non -human counterparts than
what our society would have accepted centuries ago. In Jame’s Joyces “The
Dead,” his protagonist, Gabriel, entertains guests at a party by telling a
story poking fun at his grandfather’s horse, Johnny. While telling his tale,
Gabriel inadvertently portrays Johnny as human-like while also revealing
himself and his grandfather as animalistic, blurring the dissimilarities
between the intelligence levels of humans and non-human animals.
The irony surrounding Gabriel’s story about his
grandfather, Patrick Morkan, and Johnny begins with Gabriel’s lack of attention
to the details of the anecdote he is sharing. Immediately, Gabriel acknowledges
to the reader and his audience that he is unsure whether Patrick is a
glue-boiler or if he runs a starch mill: “Well, glue or starch, said Gabriel…
Johnny used to work in [Patrick’s] mill, walking round and round in order to
drive the mill” (Joyce 27). Even after his aunt corrects him that Patrick
worked in a starch mill, Gabriel diminishes the importance and continues on
with his story. As glue was previously created from horse parts, Gabriel misses
the irony as he tells the account about a horse. Gabriel fails to grasp that if
Patrick had worked as a glue-boiler, he could have possibly been boiling down
the parts of his beloved horse’s family. Gabriel’s ignorance makes him appear
foolish and exemplifies that he sometimes falls short of being a part of the
“intellectually superior” species. His oversight and apathy towards this detail
indicates that not only does he believe Johnny would not realize this
likelihood, but he does not either. Gabriel’s oversight creates a link between
his cognitive abilities at that moment and those he assumes Johnny possess.
Through applying the main principles of animal studies, it is evident that
Gabriel’s lack of recognizing crucial details inhibits his ability to truly
appreciate the horse’s cognitive abilities, thus not understanding Johnny. Without
realizing it, Gabriel lessens the gap between the intelligence levels of animals
and humans.
As Gabriel progresses into his tale, he involuntarily
manages to form a stronger connection between animals and humans when describing
Patrick’s confusion by Johnny’s actions while on a walk with him. While out on
their walk, Patrick leads Johnny up to King Billy’s statue of himself on a
horse and Johnny begins to walk around the monument in circles. In Gabriel’s
retelling of the story, he is not sure whether Johnny’s distraction is the
result of him being in love with the horse or if the statue deceives Johnny into
thinking he is at the mill (28). Gabriel completely glosses over the fact that
Johnny could be experiencing complex emotions that he himself has felt for
someone else. He downplays Johnny’s intelligence, but then fails to realize how
his emotions for the horse convey his ability to feel similar multifaceted
emotions as humans. Gabriel does not fully acknowledge the importance of his
own suggestions as to why Johnny was preoccupied and does not pay the horse
much attention. The author of “Humaimalia” explains Philosopher Jacques
Derrida’s beliefs that animals, even pets, are not fully acknowledged (Csicsery-Ronay 2). Gabriel
focuses on the way Johnny is walking in a circle around the statue, while he
completely misses the point of the horse’s actions. Gabriel explains in
concrete detail what Patrick is wearing on his ride with his horse. He does not
bother to spend time on Johnny’s physical appearance or characteristics that
could help him and his audience get a better sense of why Johnny is enthralled
with the statue. The only time Gabriel directs his full attention onto Johnny
is when he is making the horse the punch line of a joke.
It is not just Gabriel who does not understand the
animal’s motives, Patrick is also mystified by his horse’s meandering path. Patrick
attempts to steer Johnny away from the statue but he suddenly loses the ability
to fully express himself and take command of his horse. He is flustered and
even admits that he “can’t understand the horse” (Joyce 28). Johnny’s own owner
cannot seem to understand him enough to even guess what is happening because
Johnny cannot speak directly to him. Despite Johnny’s inability to speak
English, it is evident that if Patrick better understood his horse, then he
would also know how to handle the situation. Derrida states that language does
not have to be a strong indicator of animal’s lack of intelligence when compared
to human’s own dialect:…
Acknowledging the philosophical
significance of animals would not be a matter of ‘giving speech back’ to them, ‘but
perhaps acceding to a thinking, however fabulous and chimerical it might be,
that thinks the absence of the name and the word otherwise, as something other
than a privation” (Csicsery-Ronay 4).
Derrida
continues on to explain that this method of thinking will not seem extreme for
those who do not exclusively derive meaning from language and text (Csicsery-Ronay 4). Derrida
seems to be inferring about his desire to recognize animals for their
differences, but not inferior due to their lack of language. Even with
Patrick’s ability to utilize speech, it is not clear to him that he
communicates about as well as he thinks Johnny does when he is trying to get
him to walk away from the statue. Patrick’s utter loss at identifying Johnny’s
motives only lessens his ability to express his own thoughts because he is
unsure how to react. “Humanimalia” likens animals to a mirror allows human
consciousness and life to appear in animals making these ideals “observable and
manageable” (Csicsery-Ronay 2). The irony of this statement in
relation to “The Dead” is that even with an “animal-mirror” reflecting similar
qualities, Patrick still cannot manage to comprehend what his horse is doing so
he can manipulate Johnny into continuing their stroll. Patrick is portrayed as
less superiorly intelligent in this situation because he loses his ability to
communicate effectively, while Johnny seems more human-like in his complex
emotions and infatuation with the statue.
This role reversal places Patrick and Johnny on par with one another
because there is little evidence in this moment that he has developed greater
cognitive skills than horse.
Gabriel never addresses the paradox of
Patrick’s confusion and further displays his own ignorance when he reenacts
Johnny’s circular path. As Gabriel is pacing around his guests in an effort to
entertain them, he embodies Johnny’s persona. Ironically, Gabriel does not
realize the close ties they ultimately share, as humans and animals have
developed with each other. Gabriel’s joke highlights how little he values the
horse for anything except a punch line. In reenacting the scene, he downplays
Johnny’s intelligence and does not recognize the connection between Johnny’s
love for the horse statue and his feelings for his wife. Gabriel’s ability to
joke about Johnny stems from Johnny’s label as “the never to be forgotten
Johnny” (Joyce 27). This description portrays Johnny not as a wild beast but
utterly harmless and enables Gabriel to make light of story by reenacting the
scenes for amusement. Barbara Herrnstein Smith’s article “Animal Relatives,
Difficult Relations” explains that categorizing animals allows humans to
decipher their actions towards that animal: “Thus, in distinguishing a being as
a ‘wild beast,’ ‘domestic pet,’ ‘livestock,’ or ‘fellow creature,’ we tap into
a set of attitudes and expectations that are also bodily inclinations:… to
approach or flee, capture or rescue, eat or feed it” (Smith 3). In Gabriel’s
case, labeling the horse as harmless enables him to mock Johnny and physically
take on his character traits. Gabriel’s label for Johnny as a harmless pet
points to his ideals that animals are clearly not on the same intellectual
level as humans. In the process of proving his point, Gabriel becomes the joke
himself when he fails to identify the intellectual abilities Johnny displays.
Smith explains that since the beginning of the twentieth century, scholars have
slowly accepted animals’ ability to think in complex ways such as experiencing
guilt, remorse, revenge etc. and are conscious of their abilities. While
attempting to make Johnny appear foolish, Gabriel also strips himself of
thinking in these complex ways because he downplays his own intelligence.
In reality, Gabriel really does become
“animalistic.” Smith affirms that “human’s biological kinship with other
animals shapes and shadows some of our most compelling appetites and anxieties,
exalting and destructive impulses” (Smith 15). Gabriel clearly envisions
himself as intellectually superior, but he does not comprehend that humans and
animals are very closely related. Gabriel attempts to exaggerate his behavior
as out of character, when in fact his actions are somewhat natural. He does not
consider that there have probably been moments in his own life—such as when he
was a developing his cognitive skills as a baby—where he seemed just as
confused in certain situations and acted just as “mindless” as Johnny.
So
why is realizing the irony that neither Gabriel nor Patrick comprehend how
similar they are to Johnny? Animal Studies’ focus is to use animals as a
reflection device
in
order to understand how our emotions, urges and actions have developed. While
there is certainly merit in examining human characters in relation to one
another, animal studies works to show the reader another way to better
understand ourselves through the perspective of a species closely related, but
not exactly the same. Animal Studies has shed light on all sorts of questions
regarding animal equality. In turn, these questions have spun the conversation
around to how we, as humans, treat other humans who are the same fundamentally
but different in other complex ways. Essentially by studying animals, we learn
a lot more about ourselves and how we developed biologically in comparison to non-human
animals, so we can understand them better too.
Part
II.
My attempt to analyze “The Dead” through Animal
Studies has differed from more conventional approaches in a number of ways. During
our first discussion of Joyce’s work, we talked about the literal and
figurative meaning of the title. The class came up with a list of meanings
derived explicitly from story that relate to the title such as the death of
characters in various contexts throughout. Our figurative list was more
extensive and touched on topics such as the death of overarching themes such as
hospitality, humanity and humor. We also mentioned how the physical
descriptions of characters appearing pale and grey also contribute to our
understanding of the title. Most of the ideas we discussed as a class focused
on relating human characters to one another in the context of major themes in the
short story: cycles of life, class differences, Irish Politics, isolation and
mortality. Through my approach, I focused less on the meaning of the title and
the specific themes I listed (although they are probably a lot more themes I
didn’t mention) and more on how understanding the biologically constructed
similarities between animals and humans can help both species gain a better
perception of ourselves.
Instead of taking multiple scenes and relating it to
a larger idea, I took one passage I believe is important for forming a more
concrete guide to understanding Animal Studies. I paid close attention to
Julian and spent a lot of time placing myself in his position so I could relate
his actions back to Gabriel and see how they were similar at the very core.
Animal Studies allowed me to gain a unique
perspective of human characters Gabriel and Patrick through the lens of their
misunderstanding their animal counterpart. I found this method useful because
it narrowed my focus from trying to relate a bunch of themes together, to
closely examining how Johnny’s cognitive abilities were reflected in human
characters. It was then easier to see how their misunderstandings of Johnny led
to their own character flaws and impacted their personalities and actions. I
enjoyed analyzing humans through the perspective of animals because I felt I
was pushing myself to examine a point of view (an animal who does not talk,
much less make any noise) through my research and close reading of “The Dead.”
The most challenging aspect of practicing this method
lies in the fact that Animal Studies is an up and coming approach and there
isn’t a whole lot of additional sources and opinions to create more of a solid
foundation for my ideas. I felt I had a limited amount of sources to consult as
opposed to a more grounded approach like Deconstructionism. Analyzing ”The Dead” through a newer
trending concept was challenging in that I relied heavily on my interpretation
of the sources I included so I could then construct an understanding of the
short story. In parts of
“Humanimalia” and Smith’s article, I found the content a bit convoluted at
times and that hindered my ability to pull out crucial elements of Animal
Studies and then apply my understandings. I feel it would have been helpful to
see examples of Animal Studies applied to multiple novels in order for me to
see the approach on a wider spectrum. Another limitation I experienced is in my
lack of experiencing biology and psychology in depth. I took introduction
courses in both subjects, but ultimately decided they were not for me. While
relating Animal Studies to other works, it would have been helpful for me to
have a better understanding of our biological structures and how humans have
evolved together with animals. I feel this would have helped me more fully
understand the extent to which humans have divulged cognitively from animals
and when we started to assume humans are intellectually superior.
I think the question of how well this approach does
on the basic critical litmus test is relatively easy answer for me. My first
inclination is to list the ways that it has helped me see the story in a new
and meaningful way (and it has!). I was able to use the approach and steer
myself away from slightly more obvious themes that are portrayed in the title
and through examinations of class, heritage and isolation topics. If I solely
consider whether I fulfilled the main goal of animal studies than I believe
analyzing “The Dead” through this approach was helpful. I think a larger part
of the answer to how well the approach does is ultimately up to the reader to
decide. I may have been successful in explaining why Animal Studies is
important and how the approach can benefit our understanding of classic
literature, or I could have rattled on for four pages about an approach that
doesn’t seem at all useful.
My thoughts are, through Gabriel’s inability to focus
on the important details of the story, I didn’t find it was a stretch for me to
conclude that he appears animalistic as well, especially when he is reenacting
Johnny’s path around the statue. I am not sure that I would have been able to
pull this much about Gabriel’s character before reading about Animal Studies,
nor would it have necessarily occurred to me to find aspects of Johnny’s
character and relate it back to Gabriel and Patrick. I think this approach
helped me expand my understanding of Gabriel a great deal and relate my
findings to our discussion from the first day of class. For example, we talked
about how Gabriel initially appears condescending, especially as the issue of
class comes up, but then we realized that he actually marred with anxiety and
insecurity about his place in society and in his relationship with his wife. I
used this information about his character and then tried to expand on his
character ticks as he retold the story of his grandfather and Johnny. From his
sudden reenactment, I saw that he was overcompensating for wanting to appear
intellectually superior compared to the horse. As Gabriel often comes across as
somewhat clueless, I wasn’t stunned when he did not understand his own comment
about the horse potentially being in love and experiencing the same complex
emotions a lot of other humans have felt. I think if the reader is willing to
buy into this approach then it is fairly reasonable to conclude the ways in
which examining Johnny also helps to better understand the human characters.
Works Cited
Csicsery-Ronay, Istvan. “The Purpose of Humanimalia.” A Journal of
Human/Animal
Interface Studies. DePauw University.
Web.
Joyce, James. N.p.: Harper Collins Canada, n.d. Barnes
and Noble. Harper Collins, 29
Jan. 2013. Web.
29 May 2013.
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. “Animal Relatives, Difficult
Relations.” A Journal of
Feminist Cultural
Studies. University of Duke Press, 2004.
1-23. Project Muse. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment