1

11098318

Human-animal relationships are not purely

practical in quality, but can also be understood in
broader symbolic terms. To what extent do you
agree with this statement and why?
All animals are symbolic but some are more symbolic than others- Sillar

Human-animal relationships can be understood in both practical and symbolic

terms inside a cultural context, often simultaneously. Using animals for utility

purposes through ecological resources such as traction, milk, fertilizer and

transport is fundamental to human survival. Symbols can provide an explanation

to why certain animals are revered over others, whether it is through kinship,

control or archaic mythology. Examples from the pig, wolf and bear will be used

to provide evidence as to why human-animal relationships are not purely

functional but also symbolic to decide to what extent the title question is true.

Examples have been drawn from anthropologists, fables in folklore and popular

media.

Knight (2006) argues that we must not forget how humans psychologically

perceive animals and how we divide them into a classified space. Space can be

physical boundaries or taxonomic categories therefore when studying the

symbolism behind pig taboo; anomalous classifications need to be considered.

According to the biblical text Leviticus, the pig is viewed as abominable because

it is a cloven hoofed animal that does not chew the cud (Douglas, 1966). Cattle

criteria require a cloven hoof that chews the cud and the failure to meet these

necessary criteria has placed the pig in an ambiguous space that considers it

impure (Douglas, 1966). The pigs abominable symbolic status has served to

maintain an enclosed Jewish community, for what is forbidden to the Jewish

community is forbidden only to protect them from heathen outsiders (Douglas,

1966, p.48). The symbolic status of the pig plays a practical role or social

cohesion by defining who is inside the Jewish community.

Harris (1975) argues that pig taboo is not purely symbolic but based on

ecological reasoning, since pigs in the Middle East were too expensive to keep

with little utilitarian use. Pigs could not survive the Middle Eastern climate and

were a major competitor for human food resource. The 1989 discovery of

trichinosis, caused by eating undercooked pork also served as a justification in

pig taboo. However Harris argues that far worse epidemics like Anthrax are

spread through cattle, sheep and horses but not pigs and that trichinosis can

also be avoided if pork is cooked thoroughly. There appears to be a contradiction

in the Jewish community whereby advances in medical science and factory

farmed pigs provide an option to consume pork inexpensively and without

getting ill. It appears more likely that because pigs were not functional in pre-

modern times and have ultimately become a contentious symbol used for control

in religious purposes. The pig stands as a timeless example in the power of

symbols and how they exorcize over human-animal relationships

Pigs have been associated with greed, sinners and fleshly lust in ecclesial art. A

sculpture in a Norwich cathedral depicts Anger riding on a boar symbolizing

unbridled passion (Sillar, 1961). In Orwells (1945) Animal Farm, the pigs

symbolize the greedy, cruel masters of all the other farm animals. The

anthropomorphism in Orwells fable extends to the pigs becoming bipedal, by

walking on their hind legs carrying a whip; they march slowly round the yard,

giving orders to the rest of the farm animals. Orwell could have chosen any

animal to symbolize the dictatorship but instead he chose the pig. Within

semantics, a person who is greedy or filthy is considered a hog. An assumption

that the pig is greedy and gluttonous is perceived in their socially constructed
environment where the pig grubs for corn and rolls in its own faeces (Bennett,

1970). Even in modern media, such as the film Pulp Fiction (1994), Jules states

why he does not eat pork They're filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals. As

Harris (1975) construes, pigs must compensate for their lack of hair and ability to

sweat by wallowing in anything damp, be it fresh mud or its own faeces.

Christian idolatry, books and films have perpetuated the mythology that pigs are

greedy and dirty, identifying the versatility of symbols in everyday practice.

Animal symbolism is evident in every avenue of social discourse.

Pigs are not just demonized in Leviticus as unholy but are also mentioned in

Psalm 80:13 the wild boar out of the wood doth root it up and the wild beasts

of the field devour it (Sillar, 1961, p.18). The boar is continually seen as

destroying the tree of knowledge and acting in accordance with malevolent

forces. The pigs instinctual behaviour is to seek food underground in the form of

roots (Bennett, 1970). Arluke (1996) mentions how animals are brought into

civilization and manipulated accordingly, because their meaning is socially

constructed. This meaning has been imposed on the physical appearance of the

pig, whereby the small hole found underneath the hair on a pigs trotter has six

circles surrounding the opening, which is said to have been where the devil

entered and left a scar. Not only is the pigs impure and dirty behaviour

susceptible to social construction but so are its physical characteristics.

Wolves have been subjected in the West to human victimization by being

symbolically understood as conniving and malicious in their behaviour. Human-

wolf interaction began 6000 years ago, when domestication of sheep and goats

were being protected from predatory carnivores (Marvin, 2012). Since then,

wolves have appeared in folklore, fables and horror films in the form of binary

oppositions such as civilized/uncivilized man in the form of werewolf and

domesticated/wild dog. Like the pig, the wolf has been scrutinized as a threat to

Christianity as a metaphor for false prophets and is a detriment to the Lamb of

God, Jesuss symbolic representation (Marvin, 2012). The pig blurs symbolic

category boundaries in Leviticus whereas the wolf crosses physical boundaries.

Boundary crossing appears to be disfavoured in human-animal interaction as

what is out of place cannot be controlled and utilized for human purposes.

Wolves have limited practical use and are therefore utilized as symbols more

conveniently. In some cases the animals functional qualities can transform into

benign symbols. In Japan the wolf has been seen as a form of pest control in

protecting farms from wild boar (Knight, 2006). For the peasants the wolf has

become a symbolic saviour god through its functional practices of pest control

and has become the centre of the annual ritual rite kuyo. Just as pig taboo unites

the Jewish community, so the wolf unites communities through its abhorrence.

Communities stand in their resistance to pests by claiming that livestock loss and

declining game stocks is the consequence of carnivores (Skogen and Krange,

2003). The rural community shares an economic conflict that separates them

from urban outsiders. The community as a social interaction is a symbol,

expressing many perspectives for different purposes. The community uses

symbols as a tool to pursue their own interests while maintaining a boundary

between who is inside with the problem and who is outside (Skogen and Krange,

2003). Instead of the animal, the community becomes a symbol in human-animal

relationships through socially constructed boundaries, sustained by the people-

wildlife problem.

Bears played a functional role in bear-baiting, originally used to train dogs in the

act of attacking humans to protect their homes, evolving into a blood sport by

the Renaissance (Kalof, 2007). Characteristics ascribed to the bear when baiting
were anthropomorphised into either endurance or clumsiness whilst winning

bears were elevated to fame by claiming titles like Harry Hunks and Tom of

Lincoln (Kalof, 2007). It has been argued by Kalof (2007) that bear baiting was

similar to other dominating practices at the time such as colonialism and wife

beating. In one instance, a woman embodied the form of the bear and was

beaten, ridiculed with a scrap piece of her clothing being paraded round the

street (Kalof, 2007). Animals were not just considered low status but included

other groups of people such as women and indigenous people, who were

compared and exhibited in juxtaposition with the animal. The idea that bears

were a symbol of Western male dominance is a metaphor for wider ideologies

such as colonialism and slavery.

Bears have been symbols of spiritual and shamanic practices. In North American

Navaho folklore, the bear assumed the role of a teacher, telling the Navaho what

plants to use for an anaesthetic and antibacterial medicine (Hurn, 2012). Hurn

(2012) also suggests that the bear is used as symbol to explain how the Navaho

medicate themselves and how they discovered these phytomedicinal benefits. In

the Yenisei Valley in Russia, the bear is perceived by the Yet people as a mediator

which crosses boundaries into human and spirit worlds. When the Yet people

hunt bears, they perceive the animal as sacrificing itself to the people as a gift,

whereby a ritual is conducted to thank the bear for its offering (Black, 1998).The

human perception that animals have agency and personhood justifies the actions

of hunting for subsistence. For the practical purpose of dietary consumption,

human characteristics of free-will and determination has been employed to

justify the act of killing. Sacrifice when performed as a ritual overlooks the

slaughter that has been enacted.

This negative symbolism has caused extinction in the population of bears and

wolves in various parts of the world. Wolves became extinct in England as early

as 1509 under the reign of Henry VII after mass lupicide (Marvin, 2012).

Currently the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has a target quota for

2013 in hunting and trapping 220 wolves even though their population has

declined by 25% (Howling for Wolves, 2013). Animals have to be understood in

broader symbol terms for their own preservation. Acknowledging why groups of

people fear these carnivores will produce a deeper understanding that will

provide a solution for practices in conservation and animal welfare.

Levi Strauss states that nature is a source for social thinking (Leach, 1964,).

When nature is transformed into symbols, animals provide us with the reasoning

to form social relationships, as seen with pig taboo forming a bond within Jewish

communities via Christianity. The pig as a symbol of impurity has stood the test

of time and has overruled all values of being practical within the context of this

group of people. The media has reinforced perceptions of the pig and wolf being

negative symbols of distorted social constructions rooted in historical myths. Not

only are behavioural characteristics anthropomorphised but also the physical

characteristics are subjected to scrutiny.

Boundary crossing is a theme among the three examples: the pig is categorical,

wolf is physical and the bear is spiritual. These boundaries are socially

constructed with a diversity of meanings for different groups of people. The pig

and wolf were competing against human resources and viewed as rivals in the

way they foraged. Animals reflect social events in history by how they are

symbolized in power relationships. The animals selected throughout this essay

are not just functional but have to be understood in symbolic terms to the fullest

extent in order to identify the complexities of human-animal relationships.

Arluke, A., Sanders, C. (1996). Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press

Bennett, M. (1970). Aspects of the Pig. Agricultural History. 44(2), pp. 223-236.
JSTOR. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741675 Accessed
07/11/13

Black, L. (1998). The Bear in Human Imagination and in Ritual. Ursus. 10, pp.
343-347. JSTOR. [Online]. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3873145
Accessed 07/11/13

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and

taboo. London: Routledge

Harris, M. (1975). Cows, Pigs, Wars & Witches. London: Hutchinson & Co. Ltd

Hurn, S. (2012). Humans and Other Animals. London: Pluto Press

HowlingforWolves. (2013). Minnesota Wolf Season Quota Announced Following

25% Population Decline . Available at: http://www.howlingforwolves.org/
Accessed 08/11/13

Kalof, L. (2007). Looking at Animals in Human History. London: Reaktion Books

Ltd

Knight, J. (2006). Waiting For Wolves In Japan: An Anthropological Study of

People-Wildlife Relations. USA: University of HawaiI Press

Leach, E. (1964). Anthropological aspects of Language. London: MIT Press

Marvin, G. (2012). Wolf. London: Reaktion Books Ltd

Pulp Fiction. (1994). Directed by Quentin Tarantino. London: Touchstone

Sillar, F., Meyler,R. (1961). The Symbolic Pig. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd Ltd
Skogen, L., Krange, O. (2003). A Wolf at the Gate: The Anti-Carnivore Alliance and
the Symbolic Construction of the Community. Sociologia Ruralis. 43(3), pp. 309-
325. [Online] Available at:
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/15199/wolf_at_the_gate.pdf
%3Fsequence%3D1 Accessed 07/11/13