Elizabeth Costello’s morality when it comes to the treatment of animals seems to be based on her desire to save her soul (89). What does saving the soul mean, and does she believe that through kindness to animals and vegetarianism she could really save her soul?
Elizabeth Costello believes that humans have the ability to imagine themselves (infinitely) into the ‘being’ of another. It is this ability that should allow humans to ‘feel’ for others and therefore make them refrain from causing others pain. Yet, she is surrounded by people who don’t believe that imagining oneself into the being of a bat, for example, is the same as being on the same level as the bat. In other words, the fact that humans could imagine what a bat must ‘feel’ doesn’t make humans and bats creatures of equal importance. If anything, this fact puts humans higher than any other creatures, because no other creature is capable of this act. A bat, then, remains a lower creature, one whose death has just as little importance, if any, as its life.
Elizabeth dismisses the ability to reason (i.e. imagine) as a deciding factor in this dilemma. She focuses on the soul instead. Even if scientists can prove that non-human animals can’t imagine (or reason), no one can prove that they don’t feel. Kant says that we can only understand things through our own facilities. If this is true, then humans can only understand what we humans ‘feel’, which means that we can’t prove that other animals don’t feel (the same or something similar). If we can’t prove the absence of something, then we can’t ignore the possibility of its existence.
It is the acknowledgement of this possibility that gives Elizabeth Costello the “desire to save [her] soul”, for to keep eating meat (to focus on her vegetarianism, for example) would mean reinforcing the killing of animals, who potentially feel what we humans would feel as we were being killed. By ‘separating’ herself from the killers, she is attempting to save her soul, but even she realizes that this isn’t enough, because knowing about them and their actions makes her an accomplice for as long as she doesn’t have a way to stop them. It is the knowledge of the truth that makes her feel ‘guilty’ of a crime she doesn’t commit.
Animals killed in Ohio
Photo by Trish J. Louis
Hudit, I think you hit the nail on the head about Elizabeth's character with your last comment that "It is the knowledge of the truth that makes her feel ‘guilty’ of a crime she doesn’t commit." Which raises the question, does knowledge lead to guilt? Does knowing a truth exists, but not actively participating in that knowledge (either good or evil), does that make you an accomplice to the action? I agree with you, that because Elizabeth believes it does make one an accomplice to the action, her very knowledge of the atrocities happening to animals makes her feel guilty; not because she is participating, but because she is human and the humans around her are choosing to ignore what is going on.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find Elizabeth to be a great contradiction: on the one hand she wants us to imagine what it means to "be" the other, but then she tries to separate that idea by saying, with regards to humans and acts of humanity, that "Acts like that are not available to animals, who cannot uncover themselves because they do not cover themselves" (150). Basically, with animals, you get what you get, they are open and uncovered. But, with humans, they have layers, that need to be revealed; really, I wonder if Elizabeth just wants to reveal her true self, her deeper layers, but doesn't know how to do that, so she self-projects that desire onto us, asking us to try to "be" the other, but really she just wants us to "know" what it feels like to "be" her.
Thanks for your blog post; very interesting and thoughtful.
Hudit, you got me thinking about this notion of a “soul.” Do you think that Costello believes in a literal soul, or is this metaphorical for something like the true nature of man? I would have to lean towards the latter idea because of the section entitled, “The Humanities in Africa.” I think it is made clear that she doesn't really believe in a Judeo-Christian God when the narrator says, “she is not a believer” (126). She also thinks that literature is enough for men to satisfy their “quest for salvation” (127), rather than finding the potential of man in the bible. She says that the present-day humanities worship the “dark gods” (127). Who are these “dark gods?” She says that students in the humanities have a “craving for guidance” (127), but if we study deeply flawed characters for such “guidance” then what are we searching for? I think all of this is pointing to something about the capacity of man for evil. If we can find out the extent to which man is capable of evil (in various forms), this would be very telling about the nature of man in general. It seems like she sees a natural evil streak in man, and the more we learn about it, through literature or whatever, the more satisfied we will feel—our craving can be fulfilled. She uses her imagination (like trying to relate to the bat) and literature to uncover the depths of the human “spirit”, so I think that “saving her soul” is a way of suppressing her evil streak. She has uncovered a truth about the “evil” associated with consuming meat, and she wants to overcome this inherent evil that, because she is human, she can never fully escape. Like you point out, she feels complicit just in knowing the truth. If a group of humans are capable of something evil, perhaps we are all capable, as we are all human. This is a very thought provoking blog, Hudit!
ReplyDeleteHi Hudit,
ReplyDeleteYou have asked some really interesting questions: “what does saving the soul mean, and does she believe that through kindness to animals and vegetarianism she could really save her soul?” I agree with your analysis of these two questions. I think that if a person truly believes it is wrong to kill animals, their soul can never be saved. Basically, the person is living in a world in which animals are dying all around them in slaughterhouses. It is very difficult for just one person to stop it from happening. But on the other hand, all it takes is for one person to stand up for what is right. Hopefully others will listen and actually hear the message that individual is spreading and a chain reaction can happen. Although that is highly unlikely because so many people eat meat, but that would just be the ideal. I also think Elizabeth Costello is trying to spread her message the best way she possibly can, even if others totally disagree or think she is crazy. Maybe her soul is saved by her actions she takes to spread the message about the animals. But if she feels so strongly, I don’t think her soul can be saved until a change is made in society because innocent animals are being killed.
Hey Hudit
ReplyDeletedamn!! stupid thing deleted my post:( I'm going to try to summerize what I had said since I have class soon lol.
I don't believe the book really shows that she can "save" her soul. As you get towards the end of your blog, I believe it more about the knowledge and not being able to unknow the evil. She can not be saved as long as she is tormented by what she knows. Just like the Magistrate in "Waiting for Barbarians"
Further, like the MAgistrate, even after knowing the evil, Elizabeth can not completely remove herself from participating/contributing to the evil. She still buys and uses leather purses. Just as the Magistrate still sees/treats the barbarian woman as beneath him, even though he knows it's wrong.
Also, I would agree that just because someone is able to see themselves into another being, doens't mean that they see themselves as equal. One could easily feel the wrongs done to a cat, without seeing themselves as completely equal. However, even if humans are arguable "higher" creature to bats and other animals, that doesn't mean that their live is worth more. I think it doens't really matter whose higher, lower, smarter, more evolved, etc. The point is a life is a life and is worth the same. Everything has some importance. Even the small spider that eats flies and the tiny bacteria at the bottom of the sea contribute to the ecosystems of the world. And even if they didn't, it still wouldn't mean their life means less to them.
Anways, I don't think Elizabeth isn't able to save herself because she can't unknow or unsee the evil. Nor can she sit around and do nothing. She will be tormented as long as the evil exists and she knows about it. Even if the evil is corrected, I don't believe she will be comepletely "saved". She will still live with the memory of the wrong done. Just as holocausts, genocides, and slavery still haunt the memories and histories of many cultures.