Canadian Journal of Sociology Online May-June 2006
The field of human-animal studies has grown rapidly within sociology over the last decade, with a proliferation of books and articles, many universities adding courses in this field, and the American Sociological Association opening a section at its annual meetings. Among Canadian scholars, Rod Preece has been an early and important contributor to the field. This book continues and extends some of his previous work, including Animals and Nature (1999 [reviewed in CJS Online]), and particularly his Awe for the Tiger, Love for the Lamb (2002). The latter book served as a compendium of his research findings on views of animals on the part of a large number of Western writers. In Brute Souls, Preece has shaped these findings into a very interesting and stimulating argument about the need to re-evaluate some widespread views on the historical status of animals within Western culture. Acknowledging his debt to the work of George Boas and Arthur O. Lovejoy, Preece offers a broad examination of the history of ideas about animals from Classical Greek to contemporary writers. He argues that contemporary writing on animal ethics has "gotten history wrong" and identifies four major errors among recent theoreticians within what can be broadly identified as the animal rights literature. First, he suggests that there is a mistaken view of Christian thinkers, which presents Christian doctrine as unvaryingly opposed to ethical consideration of animals because of a belief that they do not have souls. Second, he rejects the notion that Western societies have universally seen animals as mere objects for human use and disregarded ethical considerations. Third, Preece challenges the idea that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution resulted in positive changes in the treatment of animals. Fourth, he argues that the idea of the "happy beast" was not simply a literary trope used to critique human society but was actually intended to improve the status of animals.
A substantial part of the book is devoted to an examination of Christian thought about animals, immortality and souls. Preece challenges the standard view that Christian ideology has legitimized the exploitation of animals through a story about the supernatural granting of "dominion" over animals. He argues that many Christian thinkers have conceptualized dominion not as ruthless domination but as stewardship and that Christianity has demonstrated an ethical concern for animals. For those who seldom think about the existence of souls and do so even less frequently about those of animals, the topic may seem rather arcane. However, Preece provides quite an interesting discussion about these speculations. He draws on a great variety of sources, skillfully placing various arguments in their historical context. He does an excellent job in excavating overlooked traditions of concern for animals and assembles convincing evidence for his claims.
Preece challenges some of the claims made in the animal rights literature. For example, anyone who has considered the status of animals in Western thought will have encountered Descartes' infamous characterization of them as mere machines, insensitive to pain, whose screams under the vivisectors' knives were only the sounds of springs and levers being touched. Many who have written about the exploitation of animals have emphasized the influence of Descartes' ideas and linked them to present-day laboratory atrocities. Preece argues that the animal rights literature has overestimated the influence of Cartesian views of animals and shows that Descartes' views were challenged by a number of his contemporaries. Certainly Preece makes a valid point that Western thinking about animals has been far more nuanced and complex than is often recognized. However, the fact that many people rejected Descartes' views does not mean that they were not influential. Even today, some scientists still insist that animals do not feel pain.
While Preece may be substantially correct in his argument that the animal rights literature has overlooked these more sympathetic views and focused on expressions of antipathy or philosophical and theological justification for exploitation, his own characterization of that literature seems (as he himself allows) "unduly harsh." Preece states that animal rights literature is more interested in ideology than truth, self-indulgent and unfairly critical of Western traditions, because of a need for cultural self-flagellation inspired by "political correctness." A less sinister explanation may be that while several writers in the animal rights literature have acknowledged the existence of these animal-sympathetic views as alternative traditions, they simply have not made the same extensive efforts of unearthing them that Preece has. While Preece correctly points out that a number of well-known Western philosophers and writers have expressed ethical concerns for animals, it is also true that many of those authors cited by Preece are not so widely-known. Furthermore, it seems doubtful that animal rights advocates are motivated by a need to disown Western culture. On the contrary, one typical feature of most writing on animal advocacy is the inclusion of a list of intellectuals, artists, philosophers, humanitarians and celebrities who have expressed concern for animals or embraced vegetarianism. For example, a brief glance at the website of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals will reveal that organization's readiness to welcome anyone from "the Western tradition" into the fold, as exemplified by Pamela Anderson's opposition to the slaughter of seals in Canada and the claim that "Jesus Was a Vegetarian." Finally, faced with the almost limitless cruelties that animals have been forced to suffer as human beings have used them for food, as experimental objects and in entertainment, it is not very surprising that the animal rights literature has inquired into those arguments that have been offered as justifications for these horrors. Despite this, I do not see this book so much as a challenge to the animal rights literature as a very important addition to it and, despite his criticism of some of its important contributors, Preece readily places himself within that tradition. In fact, rather than being a challenge to the animal rights literature, Preece's work is a very powerful refutation of those who would dismiss consideration of animals as a valid ethical or social justice issue.
The book concludes with a chapter that brings these historical concerns to bear on a discussion of our current understanding of the moral status of animals. Arguing that there has been no orthodoxy in our ethical ideas about animals, Preece maintains that we have overlooked a much more nuanced and heterodox history. He also questions the sufficiency of recent major theories of animal advocacy, such as Peter Singer's utilitarian ethics or Tom Regan's subject-of-a-life basis for rights. In their place, he argues for a better understanding of animals based on empirical ethological study and suggests that rather than thinking of animal rights in general, we would be better advised to look at the needs of particular species and to draw on those ethical traditions he illuminates in the preceding chapters so that we could be better equipped to show compassion, goodwill and benevolence towards our fellow creatures and to cultivate those qualities that would provide the foundations of an ethical life. Recognizing that we cannot simply rely on altruism to express itself, Preece advocates education to raise awareness and legislation to enforce compliance with higher standards of animal welfare.
Overall, this is a very interesting, well-researched book, impressive in scope and full of stimulating ideas. I recommend it to anyone concerned about the status of animals in society and about the development of ethical ideas and social justice in general.
Professor John Sorenson
Department of Sociology
Brock University
http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/brutesouls.html
May 2006
© Canadian Journal of Sociology Online
