The Lives of Animals

Determining the value of a life is a subset of The Distinction Between Animals and Humans. By diminishing the distinction between humans and animals, Elizabeth argues that animal lives hold equal value to human lives. To develop this argument, Elizabeth relies heavily on the capacity of humans to experience sympathy toward animals and to envision the perspectives of others. Her argument suggests that, if people would imagine themselves as animals, they would understand that animal life is as valuable as human life. The debate between O’Hearne and Elizabeth explores this theme in depth, as O’Hearne presents claims supporting the exploitation of animals because he believes their lives are worth less. He first argues that only Western arrogance assigns equal value to human and animal lives, which Elizabeth negates by addressing the historical prevalence of vegetarianism and maintaining that the West is responsible for correcting the cruelty in industrial animal processing. O’Hearne is shown to be historically ignorant as well as biased towards the recent history of the West and extrapolating that to the history of the world. Elizabeth is offended by O’Hearne’s final remark that animals don’t value their own lives, so humans do not need to value them. O’Hearne’s statement is shocking polemic that, unlike Elizabeth’s Holocaust metaphor, does not serve a rhetorical purpose in argument beyond shock. By portraying O’Hearne’s opinion as willfully ignorant and corrupt, Coetzee solidifies the argument that animal lives hold intrinsic value.

While Elizabeth’s views are held as extremist by Singer, Doniger and Smuts both defend the idea that animal and human lives are of equal value. To defend her position, Doniger builds her argument through citing religious history and demonstrates that multiple cultures value animal life. One example she uses is that, in early Hinduism, humans were classified as a sacrificial beast alongside several other animals. Her presentation of the equal valuation of animal and human lives comes from an opposing perspective; where Elizabeth argues animal lives are as valuable as human lives, Doniger’s argument places humans at the same level as animals. This is both a subtle nuance and a substantial difference in perspectives, and it reflects Stern’s reaction to the Holocaust analogy. Smuts further develops the theme by sharing her professional and personal experiences with animals, which have culminated in the realization that human life is not more valuable. Smuts practices her belief in the equal value of humans and nonhumans by fostering meaningful relationships with animals. Her call to action is designed to inspire readers to form similar relationships so they can learn firsthand the value of an animal’s life. Smuts’ call to action undermines logic-based thinking by valuing sympathy as the vehicle for meaningful change.

Science versus literature is both an explicit and implicit theme in the text. The theme is directly addressed by the names and the content within Elizabeth’s lectures. “The Philosophers and the Animals” is named for and explores scientific views which are based on reason-based thinking. “The Poets and the Animals” is named for the use of animals in poetry, which Elizabeth uses to guide her lecture. The lecture is intended to express the importance of literature, which often uses sympathy-based thinking patterns, to create sympathy for animals. By organizing her lectures in this way, Elizabeth correlates science with reason-based thinking and cruelty and correlates literature with sympathy-based thinking and compassion. The fact that Elizabeth uses reasoning to make her arguments suggests that she does not completely reject science but rather sees an overreliance on science and rational reasoning as a neglect of other human faculties.

Science versus literature also becomes an implicit theme when the text is interpreted as an allegory about the value of literature. Garber devotes her reflection to this method of interpretation and to unraveling the implicit threads of the allegory. Science versus literature is supported by the distinct disciplines of each character. As an author, Elizabeth represents the value of literature, while the other characters portray various scientific disciplines—John teaches physics and astronomy, Norma and O’Hearne are scientific philosophers—and these characters contradict Elizabeth and work to diminish or refute her arguments for compassion toward animals. This is further depicted in the tense relationships between the family members and in Norma’s desire to reduce Elizabeth’s impact on Norma and John’s children. Norma’s attempt to block Elizabeth from teaching the children about animal rights is a symbolic repression of the value of literature in society. When interpreted as an allegory, animals become another symbol for literature, while humans become a symbol of science. The allegory, in turn, reflects common real-world opinions about the division between science and literature. Some individuals, often those who believe science to be objective, place higher value on the sciences and degrade the importance of literature. A real-world example is the overt devaluing and defunding of liberal arts studies. Through his depiction of Elizabeth, Coetzee argues against this evaluation of the worth of science versus literature. The theme is made more complex by the metafiction genre, which often relies on authorial self-reflection. Implicitly, the theme of science versus literature makes the novella an appraisal and defense of Coetzee’s literary career field.