Throughout his novels, J. M. Coetzee has been and still is an advocate for proper and fair human rights. Coetzee has dedicated his writing to portray the numerous qualities, both positive and negative, of human beings. Coetzee uses his protagonists to bear witness to the elements of Apartheid and the brutality of whites towards non-white human beings. To describe the rash conditions and the wrongdoings of many South Africans, Coetzee uses animals to show the relation of animal rights to human rights. Whether they glide, slither, crawl, walk, jump, fly, or swim, all living creatures on this earth deserve respect. Coetzee discreetly portrays the rights that encompass humanity and at the same time portraying a need for animal rights through the use of Elizabeth Costello who is for animal rights, the “Others” who are treated as animals, protagonists who are complicit, and protagonists who imagine animal consciousness through suffering and death.
Why is critical animal studies so important? In literature, critical animal studies is a way to discuss how the lives of human beings and the lives of animals are not so different. In fact the lives of human beings and the lives of animals are connected in many ways. Using literature to express this connection allows animals to have a voice in order to show critics that animals are just as important as human beings. This voice that literature gives to animals is a metaphor to show how animals need to be taken into consideration just as much as human beings do. Animals cannot communicate with the same language as human beings. If authors never write about animals, readers will never see the struggle animals are going through that is caused by human beings. In a way, by speaking for animals can be argued that this is just another way to control animals. Animal rights advocates would argue that by speaking for animals, animals can be saved. Coetzee uses instances of animals as metaphors, to compare human activities and experiences, and to show that if it is wrong to treat the others as animals then it is wrong to treat animals differently than human beings. The use of animals in postcolonial literature is sometimes associated with racism. Clearly Coetzee portrays this with his use of other and animal comparisons to be discussed later. According to Terry Tempest Williams in Finding Beauty in a Broken World, critical animal studies is important because:
most people are not comfortable making a connection between racism and
specism or the ill treatment of human beings and the mistreatment of
animals. We want to keep our boundaries clean and separate. But isn’t that
the point, to separate, isolate, and discriminate? We create hierarchies,
viewing life from the top down, top being, of course, God, then a ranking of
human races, and so our judgments move down ‘the Great chain of Being’ until
we touch rocks. This is the attitude of power, and it hinges on who is in
control. Who has power over whom? (Williams 90).
Williams explains that human beings are treating animals in ways that are related to how human beings treat other human beings of a different race. For instance, during the Apartheid, the black South Africans were forced to be separated from the white South Africans. Human beings need to be aware of this in order for all creatures to live humanely. No matter what they look like or what their economic status is, no one creature should be treated differently than another. Hierarchal status should not be an excuse to treat an animal or another human being with disrespect.
Do to his clever ways of introducing and discussing many controversial topics, many critics have taken an interest into J. M. Coetzee’s works. In the article, “‘Like a dog… like a lamb:’ Becoming Sacrificial Animal in Kafka and Coetzee,” Chris Danta explains, “my aim in following Costello’s often attenuated musings on the lives of animals is thus to clarify how the writer is able to identify him or herself as humanity’s scapegoat” (Danta 726). Basically, Danta is saying that Coetzee is implying that when things go wrong, animals are the scapegoat, the ones to blame because they are the easy target. Danta believes Coetzee writes Elizabeth Costello in The Lives of Animals and David Lurie in Disgrace to identify with animals because they are older and have become wounded as animals are wounded. The critic poses an interesting argument in favor of the scapegoat. In rebuttal, a scapegoat is the one that bears the blame for others. It is clear as to how in writing the animals are the scapegoats for the problems facing the colonizers or the oppressors. In The Lives of Animals, Costello argues that according to meat eaters, we eat animals because we need to survive. Eating animals is wrong in Costello’s eyes but carnivores make it right and use animals as their scapegoat for survival. In reality, the colonizers have been the problem for the others. When Coetzee writes from a white colonizer’s perspective, it is best to keep the domination alive by saying animals and the non-whites are the problems.
In the article, “Sympathy with Animals and Salvation of the Soul,” Jonathan Lamb quotes Locke’s idea of personal identity: “for when we attribute identity, in an improper sense, to variable or interrupted objects, our mistake is not confined to the expression, but is commonly attended with a fiction” (Lamb 76). Lamb is using Locke to express how difficult it is to identify with an animal because they are not on the same hierarchal status as human beings are; they are at the bottom of the food chain. Just because the barbarians and the Hottentots are at a lower status and considered as “others,” it does not make it right to treat them as animals. Lamb is one of the many critics who view Coetzee’s work as pieces of fiction and non-fiction combined to show the unethical treatment of animals.
Many critics ponder and discuss the reasoning behind Coetzee’s themes. Some critics appear to be completely amazed at the way Coetzee structures his arguments. Other critics believe the author has posed some thought provoking cultural experiences. One critic, for example, is David H. Lynn who studies Coetzee’s works as a whole and discusses how the novels are allegorical. In the article, “Love and Death, and Animals Too,” David H. Lynn describes, “Coetzee’s art. Vivid, moving, disturbing, hard to put down, hard to bear. To what degree are we complicit in the evil depicted so dramatically here? Are we changed by it, improved by it – how could that be? – or perhaps titillated? Why do we read it? You see, Coetzee’s ideas and his dramas don’t simply matter. They are dangerous” (Lynn 133). This passage absolutely sums up all of Coetzee’s work. Coetzee has very much so cleverly written about the ways in which human beings horribly treat other human beings and animals. Although they could be read for leisure and pleasure, the novels can also be read at a deeper level. Lynn says the ideas in the novels are “dangerous” dangerous because throughout his entire collection, Coetzee has embarked upon a never ending journey for justice. Along the way, this journey has parodied the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, showed the point of view of the oppressors, showed that the white oppressors are now the victims, and the others are seen as evil. By portraying these ideas, that appear to be absurd from the outside, Coetzee has truly shown how the concept of humanity needs to change. Humanity needs to change because human beings cannot treat other human beings and animals with brutality. Hopefully readers are changed for the better. One of Coetzee’s goals is to spread awareness of human and animal rights. It is more likely that a person will pick up a novel than read a history book. By depicting the truth through literature, Coetzee can show more and more people that things need to start changing.
Elizabeth Costello
Coetzee’s use of the character of Elizabeth Costello is quite intriguing. This mysterious, bazaar, and strong willed woman first appears in Coetzee’s Tanner Lecture, The Lives of Animals at Princeton University. During this lecture, Coetzee spoke about the way in which human beings have treated and are treating animals. The author accomplishes this lecture by telling a story about a son, John, and his mother, Elizabeth Costello. In this text within a text, Elizabeth Costello is also giving a speech about animal rights. Only her speech is one that compares the Holocaust to slaughter houses. Elizabeth Costello raises many interesting points on reason, self-consciousness, and soul saving.
The big question: why does Coetzee use Elizabeth Costello as a voice to promote animal rights awareness? In “Elizabeth Costello, Embodiment, and the Limits of Rights,” one critic, Elizabeth Susan Anker writes:
those qualities that set humans apart from animals, and her [Elizabeth Costello] reflections on ‘humanity’ open up contradictions that equally infect her account of ethics. Namely, she asserts that an embodied consciousness is induced by encounters with animals and that it prefigures an ethical comportment toward life; however, at the same time, such ethical acts testify to a condition of ‘humanity’ that is unavailable to animals (Anker 181).
Anker is completely correct in her observation. Elizabeth Costello says she is a wounded animal. She has witnessed the horrid events that are taking place in slaughterhouses. She has witnessed the cruelty and abuse done to animals who are breed for human being consumption. She has witnessed the way in which human beings are not affected by the treatment of the animals before they were processed as raw meat. All of these experiences have scared Elizabeth Costello for life. Mainly, she is concerned for the animals because they are not protected under human rights and humanity. The laws that govern humanity need to include the treatment and protection of animals. Even with this description on Elizabeth Costello’s point of view, this still does not answer the question as to why Coetzee uses Elizabeth Costello as a voice to promote animal rights awareness. Maybe Coetzee did not want to be judged or criticized for standing up for what he truly believes in. Maybe Coetzee was simply being clever, as a way to spark a conversation on his lecture. Maybe Coetzee thought readers and listeners would relate or understand an elderly woman’s voice much better than a man’s. Whatever the case may be, this is a question that may forever go unanswered because Coetzee never explains himself. What really matters is the fact that Coetzee has taken a stand. He has firmly stepped foot through an unopened door and has expressed a need for diverse humanity rights.
Elizabeth Costello argues that reason cannot be a just cause to treat animals poorly. In the article, “Situating Ecology in Recent South African Fiction: J. M. Coetzee’s ‘The Lives of Animals’ and Zakes Mda’s ‘The Heart of Redness,’” Anthony Vital explains, “the words she [Elizabeth Costello] speaks from her ‘opened heart,’ from her identification with what is animal, convey awareness of what the text suggests is a fundamental and arbitrary transitional moment in which we as humans distinguish ourselves from and elevate ourselves above animals” (Vital 304). Basically, Vital is suggesting the fact that human beings are above animals because human beings believe they have the capacity to reason, while animals do not. On a side note, one can argue that human beings do not know what animals think. For all we know, animals can reason and suffer just as human beings can. Just because human beings think animals do not reason or suffer, Coetzee and Vital are expressing the fact that using slaughterhouses to kill animals is right.
Human beings have reasoned that they need meat and protein to survive. In order to survive, human beings have to slaughter animals. One side of this debate is similar to Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. In the wild, lions hunt gazelle and sharks hunt seals. If these predators do not eat, they will starve to death. In the colonized lands of the world, cows and pigs are being breed and dying on factory farms. Using reason, human beings are able to kill innocent animals as Elizabeth Costello says, “the question to ask should not be: Do we have something in common – reason, self-consciousness, a soul – with other animals? (With the corollary that, if we do not, then we are entitle to treat them as we like, imprisoning them, killing them, dishonoring their corpses.)” (Coetzee 34). Since human beings and animals have nothing in common it is completely acceptable to kill them and eat them. Since animals do not have a self-consciousness it is completely acceptable to kill them. If human beings can reason this then slaughtering animals is not wrong.
The other side of the debate argues that lions and sharks have to hunt and kill for their food in order to survive. But human beings have many options for nourishment. Unlike lions and sharks, human beings will not starve to death if they stop slaughtering cows and pigs in slaughterhouses. Right after Elizabeth Costello discuses why it is assumed appropriate to slaughter animals, she explains, “I return to the death camps… The horror is that the killers refused to think themselves into the place of their victims” (Coetzee 34). Elizabeth Costello believes that reason should not be the acceptable excuse as to why slaughtering animals is good for human beings. Human beings need to reason the fact that animals are living, breathing, creatures, just like they are as well. Comparing slaughterhouses to the death camps during the Holocaust is very radical but Coetzee, or really Elizabeth Costello, opens the eyes of the listeners and readers. This comparison gets the much needed attention towards animal rights. Elizabeth Costello believes that human beings need to think themselves into the lives of animals. They need to sympathize and empathize with animals in order to realize that breeding and killing them in inhumane ways is torture, cruel, and unacceptable. The image slideshow below shows the horrible conditions of slaughterhouses that Costello and animal advocates want to stop.