A review by commander_morgan
The Lives of Animals by Amy Gutmann, J.M. Coetzee, Wendy Doniger, Barbara Smuts, Peter Singer, Marjorie Garber

challenging reflective

3.5

Coetzee has some really wonderful insight and the metafiction of it all is really very interesting.  I admit I enjoyed the reflections more than I enjoyed the actual narrative, particularly Singer's and Smuts's - Barbara Smuts's account of her time living with baboons was fascinating and beautiful, as were her stories of her life with her dog, Safi. She does a magnificent job of illustrating that human-nonhuman friendships are not only theoretically possible, but actively rewarding and enriching in ways that human-human friendships cannot be. I also appreciate the discussions about the social implications of dietary restrictions, and I think both Norma and Elizabeth make interesting points. Some people may behave as though their particular diet gives them moral superiority, but that doesn't mean that (Western) society caters to people with special diets, nor does it mean that people with special diets have an elevated place in Western society. I find oftentimes even though I am not fully vegetarian, I am expected to justify why I choose to simply eat less meat. As though people I mention this to feel entitled to know my reasons, as though they think I am obligated to explain myself to them. It comes with questions, and assumptions. 

 Additionally, I think it would be a good rule for us all to follow to just stop comparing things to the Holocaust. Singer is much more gracious about this topic in his reflection than I am able to be. If you are about to compare something to the Holocaust, or to the experience of Jews in death camps, just stop. Comparison does not necessitate equation, but for fuck's sake, can everybody and their cousin stop appropriating Jewish suffering as a tool to push their own agendas? I no longer care if the agenda is one I personally agree with - I do agree with many of the points in this work, and in general with the cause of animal rights. But two creatures that suffer are not necessarily comparable or similar in any way other than the simple fact that they suffer. I understand that part of why this particular analogy was included was to make a point about the normalcy of the meat industry despite the horrors involved, and that, most likely, it was intended to shock. But that doesn't change my position. In the epilogue of the Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood mentions that Gilead dumped a boatload of Jews in the ocean and let them drown. This is, to my recollection, the only times Jews are mentioned in the whole novel. What is any of this, but making theatre out of Jewish suffering? Commodifying 5,000 years of pain and death for a personal agenda.  

If you feel you cannot make your point without comparing it to the Holocaust, then maybe you need to think about your position more before you open your mouth.