Celia Gurney

10/26/13
HONORS 210 A: The Human Animal
Essay #1


While Aristotle and Melville each use a specific group of humans as a control
group against which animals can be compared, they understand the relationship
between humans and animals very differently. Aristotle understands the
relationship to be like that of a detached, scientifically minded father and his
children. Melville understands the relationship to be like that of two opposing
armies, one of the armies being comprised of humans and their animal allies, and
the other army being comprised of animals that are staunchly against humans.
Aristotle understands the relationship between humans and animals to be
like that of a detached, scientifically minded father and his children. He even directly
likens animals to children, writing The truth of this statement will be the more
clearly apprehended if we have regard to the phenomena of childhood: for in
children may be observed the traces and seeds of what will one day be settled
psychological habits (5). He judges the best-behaved children to be the species of
animals that, when in groups, structure themselves most closely to a polis. Some
animals, like plants, simply procreate their own species at definite seasons; other
animals busy themselves also in procuring food for their young, and after they are
reared quit them and have no further dealings with them; other animals are more
intelligent and endowed with memory, and they live with their offspring for a longer
period and on a more social footing (6). Aristotle judges animals behavior when on
their own, rather than when in contact with humans as Melville does. This gives
Aristotle the scientific edge over Melville, although neither mans method is
completely empirical. Just as in man we find knowledge, wisdom, and sagacity, so in
certain animals there exists some other natural potentiality akin to these (5). In
measuring animals by human standards, he adds bias to his conclusions.
Melville understands the relationship between humans and animals to be
like that of two opposing armies, one of the armies being comprised of humans and
their allied animals, and the other army being comprised of animals that are firmly
against humans. (two armies, one human and one animal, but the humans actually
like some of the animals? animals that humans dont find offensive). He speaks of
the elusive negative quality of whiteness, which heightens the terror one feels when
confronted with any object terrible in itself (255), such as the white bear of the
poles, and the white shark of the tropics (255). Yet the White Dog of the Iroquois is
referred to as a spotless, faithful creature (254), and the white albatross gets
almost half a page of raving, complimentary descriptions (256). Talking about
whiteness is giving the white man ideal mastership over every dusky tribe (253).
Melville hypothesizes that the irresponsible ferociousness of the creature stands
invested in the fleece of celestial innocence and love; and hence, by bringing
together two such opposite emotions in our minds, the Polar bear frightens us with
so unnatural a contrast (255).