Far Out Ecocriticism

I was skeptical as I read Greg Gerrard's chapter on Eco-criticism and animals. There were varying themes of domination, cruelty, bestial metaphors, environmentalism, anthropomorphism, theriomorphism, androids, insensitivity, spectacles, biodiversity and many other problematic analogies drawn. I felt this author made some clever points. The approach was one of the more bizarre readings I have come across simply because it doesn't flow well, yet he manages to make some fantastic points at the same time if you're patient enough to read it. He uses many elements of rhetoric that make good arguments, but combined, it's really hard to comprehend his point. The premises of the argument are sometimes too abstract and riddled with social theories. In the end, we have great ideas strung together without much logical order. But let's take a look at Gerrard and compare his writing's with Philip K. Dick's. Both authors have a complicated and clever style. Perhaps the burden should be left upon the reader's short-term or long-tem response to the reading. Maybe if I read this again, it would seem more coherent. I guess, as of now, I'd say it's clever, yet inconsistent. But I'll try to make some concrete sense of it all.

I found most of the analogies to be strong semantical arguments which left me asking, what conclusions are to be drawn from the arguments in this chapter? There seems to be a lot of open-ended social theory that doesn't provide much insight. In both readings I noticed an underlying rhetorically-driven theme that implies lack of sensitivity resulting in the break down of the ecology, thus predicting [subliminally] our demise. Perhaps because it's from only part of Gerrard's book? And so I must be missing some important underlying theme.... But I thought he was a little over the top by applying so many banters about a wide array of analogies, drawing from a grab bag including Silence of the Lambs; heightening the sensational element by quoting the story of Clarice who tries to save a lamb. Gerrard also notes Lecter is also referred to as "Buffalo Bill",

Clarice grows up and accepts the killing of the lambs . . . but not the screaming that some associate with the mushy, childish, and effeminate side of her constitution. The screaming inside her head must be stopped. She attempts this through metaphor -- Christian lambs and women in need - for screaming lambs. If she rescues Catherine Martin, Clarice might also save herself. (280)

In Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal Lecter draws on Clarice's sensitivity to screaming of the lambs as she recalled witnessing their slaughtering on a farm where she once lived as a young girl. This portion of the movie and novel has a very dramatic affect. But when you think about the analogy made by Gerrard (that this is themed around our perceptions of animals), and when you consider Clarice's character, how else could you create such drama without involving her sentiments or memories about the murder of some other person? If that were part of the plot, it would detract from Hanibal Lecter's role as the focal point of a movie based on murder and horror. But I digress as I disagree with Gerrard's animal theme. Lecter probes the memories of Clarice and derives a certain pleasure from psychoanalyzing her. In my opinion, where this analogy falls flat is because the emphasis, I think, is on the psychological element, rather than any sort of ecological pseudo-significance implied by the lamb. Below is a scene from the movie, Silence of the Lambs.

Further, I think the author of Silence of the Lambs meant for the lamb's symoblism to be more of a Biblical allusion, implying the evil, murderous character of Lecter delving into the innocence of Clarice, rather than appealing to any underlying animal theme.

Though Gerrard makes a strong semantic argument, he really provides no coherent conclusion. Is there really a connection between Silence of the Lambs and the ecology? I don't think so. I'm not sure how that relates altogether. Of course, lambs are part of the ecology and there were some theriopomorphic qualities added to Buffalo Bill... but how this movie actually affects the ecosystem doesn't seem apparent. He proceeds to speak of animals and biodiversity and uses the example of Flipper, a dolphin, "credited with creating a constituency of young dolphin admirers who, as adults, joined the tuna boycott that transformed fishing practices that are lethal to marine mammals."(284) He provides no evidence that the influx of people boycotting were influenced by Flipper, whatsoever.

Gerrard goes on about The Blue Planet analyzing, "with a contextualizing overview of oceanic ecology that interrelates wind, tides and currents, and stresses movements of nutrients as well as massive migration of species. This contrasts with documentaries that isolate events or individual species, reducing the significance of ecological connections and processes. "(280) Philip K. Dick styles a similar analogy in fictional prose, "I'm not an android. My name is Mercer. I inhabit this building because of Mr. Isidore. The special who had the spider; you talked briefly to him outside." (220) Both texts have an underlying theme of human progress misperceiving nature as an object, which I think is the strongest analogy made in both texts. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep an analogy is made by drawing a parallel between human misperception of the importance of non-human life. Dick's novel takes place in the future, but points out how "progress" could sort of be the catalyst for the big bang that would spark the loss of human compassion and emotion,

For what we meant to each other,"the android said as it approached him, its arms reaching as if to clutch at him. The clothes, he thought, are wrong. But the eyes, the same eyes. And there are more like this; there can be a legion of her, each with its own name, but all Rachael Rosen--Rachael, the prototype, used by the manufacturer to protect the others. (221)

Dick's novel points out insensitivity and lack of compassion for certain aspects of life that makes up earth's biodiversity and has resulted in creating androids to fulfill our human desires. Instead of giving back to nature, we have taken from it and in the novel androids have replaced animals, similar to the way someday androids may replace humans. Our capacity to deny reality is huge. I think that we don't want to know what we really know--our sense of compassion and deep insight into nature is depleting and we are learning to ways to fulfill our human needs--through the creation of false intelligence and false emotions, animated by the life like movements of androids. Will these androids soon change the ways and the laws of the land? Will the public ever rise out of it's apathetic state and awake from the illusion to realize that without using our sympathetic imagination, androids will be in our future catering to human desires which grow shallower and shallower as technology advances and we "progress". The story of "us" is becoming one of pilgrams to androids, which involves a certain level of narcissism. We want to satisfy our needs, because we're in love with our needs. Androids have become part of the solution to the problem of solving our needs. Out with the old and in with the new habits of heart. We're stripping away our sense of reality in exchange for illusion.

Androids are already among us. It's interesting to speculate how many there will be in the near future. But to subvert Gerrard's analogy for my own purposes, I think with the introduction of androids as a substitute for love and human relationships, and a substitute for the roles we have developed in society for humans. Like with hunting where Gerrard writes," There could be no 'sport' in bear-baiting or fox-hunting if the participants are insentient. "(280)I think an analogy can also be drawn that there would be no 'sport' left in life the day we start relying on androids to accomplish human tasks. The underlying theme in both of these texts is that insensitivity to other sentient beings is taking over society's perception in the favor of developing our own progress and our own human perception, whether in tune with reality or not. We tend to forget, that when we use animals that they are part of our ecosystem and when we build infrastructure and drill in the ocean we are advancing mankind's interest without thinking of the future biodiversity that will be affected by the insensitivity that is bread into humans, not from movies, but from social values that end up being depicted in movies. Sure, there are concrete connections to some of these abstract ideas. But knowing where these are derived from is important to distinguish. If we blame it on the movies, we're denying the greed instilled in mankind and we're pretending the issue is Hollywood, when in fact it is human nature and our sense of morality that allows for this perception. In that regard, I disagree with Gerrard, yet I find Dick's novel interestingly abstract and compelling.