Comments from Chronicle.com about "Creature Consciousness" by Jennifer Howard (The Chronicle Review, October 23):

If the boundary between "animal" and "human" is to be eliminated (as appears to be a basic tenet of current animal theory), then ultimately, shouldn't a universal ethic apply to all living creatures? If so, what is the ethical difference between, say, a lobster in a tank at a restaurant and a fly trapped in a spider's web? Do we murder each time a white blood cell destroys a bacterium in our bodies? What about the wholesale removal of the genitalia of asparagus plants?

Do sentience and consciousness play a role in the ethical obligations of a species? Can a rabbit kill its young and not be ethically impacted, but the same not apply to a human due to differing levels of consciousness?

Ultimately, though, my question is, What will the impact of this field be on society? Will it actually increase our knowledge of the world, or will it simply be another exercise in paying highly educated people to determine how many angels (or in this case protozoa) can dance on the head of a pin?

jesor

As someone who is interested in incorporating articles written from a more animal-inclusive perspective in my writing classes, I sometimes wonder if it's going to be viewed by the administrative powers that be as somehow pushing forward some agenda, and the ready-to-go response I have in the event I get called to task is that the majority of the topics that currently populate our writing texts (e.g., feminism, the environment) were once considered as pushing forward someone's agenda, as well. I've decided to stop treating animal-inclusive topics as off limits. … As long as advocacy is accompanied by a healthy engagement in scholarly inquiry, there is nothing wrong with it. That has been the stance academia's historically taken on a number of topics—why should animal-inclusive studies be any different?

pturner

As an educator, I'm not at all sure that the notion of introducing animal studies to curricula involves or even implies a disregard of apparent differences between children and animals.

As for distinguishing between advocacy and inquiry, the complex intermingling of these in some fields, in my experience, results in their being rarely, if ever, teased apart; in many fields, they are one and the same. That said, as animal studies as a field develops, it would appear that its tendency to be self-reflective with regard to the boundaries between advocacy and inquiry is one of its strengths.

simple123456