To Be or Not to Be.... an Elephant

Charles Siebert explains that Sheldrick Trust has rehabilitated elephants and reintroduced them back into the wild. According to the OED, rehabilitate is defined as “To restore to former privileges, status, possessions, etc., by official decree or declaration.” By stating that we are rehabilitating the elephants, Siebert is showing that they are no longer in their rightful standing. This is because we took it from them. By killing thousands of adult elephants, we have left the young elephants without elders to teach them how to become the happy and social animals that they would naturally be. Because we, as humans, have caused this problem, we MUST be the ones to fix it and help them. In other parts of his article, Siebert has tried to convince us that we, because we are so similar to elephants, actually are elephants. This would mean that if the elephants are not in their rightful standing, then we are not either. If we are mistreating these elephants, then we are not doing what we should be doing, which is living in harmony with them, and we are destroying the reputation of human beings to the other animals. Siebert told us that elephants are social with a detailed communication system. Therefore, they usually understand what is going on around them. If the elephants know that we are destroying them as a species, how should we expect them to ever trust us when we are trying to do the right thing, such as putting them in a protected habitat or rehabilitating them in an elephant sanctuary? We are only making it more difficult on ourselves to do the right thing for the elephants.

In addition, there was something else interesting that I noticed in the end of the passage. Bradshaw tells “‘Now humans can participate actively in the healing of both themselves and non-human animals.’” Bradshaw says that, not only are we helping the elephants, but also we are helping ourselves to heal. According to the OED, healing is defined as “Mending, reparation, restoration of wholeness, well-being, safety, or prosperity.” If we are healing ourselves, then we are restoring our own wholeness. This means that we are not currently whole. Because we hurt the elephants as a species, we have hurt ourselves as well. We are damaged in the sense that, not only are we not achieving everything that we possibly can (or being the best that we can be,) but we are not even capable of doing so because our mindset has shifted and disabled us from reaching our full potential. Until we are capable of becoming elephants and treating them as equals, we are limiting ourselves. We do know have the wisdom or power to make the most of our lives. In order to fix this problem, we must achieve what Siebert describes as the “trans-species psyche.” This means to put us on the same level as the elephants, to be equals and friends. We must be one in our fight to live our lives to the fullest on the planet that we both call home.

Thank you to trip advisor for the lovely elephant photo.

Trans-species Culture

To date, the Sheldrick Trust has successfully rehabilitated more than 60 elephants and reintroduced them into wild herds. A number of them have periodically returned to the sanctuary with their own wild-born calves in order to reunite with their human allomothers and to introduce their offspring to what — out on this uncharted frontier of the new ‘‘trans-species psyche’’ — is now being recognized, at least by the elephants, it seems, as a whole new subspecies: the human allograndmother. ‘‘Traditionally, nature has served as a source of healing for humans,’’ Bradshaw told me. ‘‘Now humans can participate actively in the healing of both themselves and nonhuman animals. The trust and the sanctuary are the beginnings of a mutually benefiting interspecies culture.’’ (538)

This passage from Seibert’s “An Elephant Crackup” describes the rehabilitation and reintroduction of over sixty abused elephants into the wild. He writes of the elephants who come back to their human mothers and introduce their children to their allograndmother, a human figure in their lives who they have learned to trust. Bradshaw explains that, “Traditionally, nature has served as a source of healing for humans.” This idea follows Seibert’s idea of trans-species psyche, a relationship between humans and elephants. Bradshaw also explains that “Now humans can participate actively in the healing of both themselves and non-human animals”, meaning that the close relation of the human and elephant psyche affords us the ability to form a “mutually benefitting interspecies culture”, as Seibert describes.

Human-Elephant Bonds

“To date, the Sheldrick Trust has successfully rehabilitated more than 60 elephants and reintroduced them into wild herds. A number of them have periodically returned to the sanctuary with their own wild-born calves in order to re-unite them with their human allomothers and to introduce their offspring to what – out on this uncharted frontier of the new “trans-species psyche” – in now being recognized, at least by the elephants, it seems, as a whole new subspecies: the human allograndmothers. “Traditionally, nature has served as a source of healing for humans,” Bradshaw told me. “Now humans can participate actively in the healing of both themselves and non-human animals. The trust and the sanctuary are the beginnings of a mutually benefiting interspecies culture.” (538)

In this quote, Siebert is discussing the effects of rehabilitation on the elephants. He quotes another researcher, Bradshaw, on this topic. In this particular section, Siebert is looking at the intense bond between the rehabilitated elephants and their caretakers. When he notes that some of the released elephants actually come back to the Sheldrick Trust to introduce their calves to the caretakers, as if the caretakers were their parents, which is fascinating. This shows the strong sense of family between the elephants, regardless of the species, so Siebert describes it as a “trans-species psyche”. Psyche, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “the mind, soul, or spirit, as distinguished from the body”, says that there is a connection of the soul that the elephants feel towards their human allomothers, or the allograndmothers, for the calves. The particular usage of the word psyche shows that Siebert is clearly saying that the humans and elephants are thought one in the same. The end quote from Bradshaw, “the trust and sanctuary are the beginnings of a mutually benefiting interspecies culture”, signifies this bond between the humans and elephants even further.

One Must Go Back in Order to Go Forward

Rehabilitation, or the act of restoring to a normal condition, gives one the sense that these creatures are given a second chance in life. Within the first sentence and a half of this quote (538), the prefix ‘re’, which means to go back or form again, was used four times: “rehabilitated”, “reintroduced”, “returned”, and “re-unite”. Not only do these words suggest a new beginning for the elephants that were lucky enough to go to the sanctuary, but within the context of the text, it seems that these elephants are able to live a better life and are truly thankful for this opportunity. They show this by bringing their calves back to the humans who have helped them recover, implying that the baby calf would not have been possible without the help of these humans. For humans, the fact that the animals are grateful and regard them as members of their family (human allograndmother), creates a fulfilling feeling. Both animal and human are able to feed off each other to create a better life. From all of the acts of going backwards to change the past of the elephants, the start of something new was created, a human-elephant culture. This may be thought of as a “trans-species psyche”, or else the idea that both species share a mutual mindset and desire for positive emotion.

A Universal Culture

"To date, the Sheldrick Trust has successfully rehabilitated more than 60 elephants and reintroduced them into wild herds. A number of them have periodically returned to the sanctuary with their own wild-born calves in order to reunite with their human allomothers and to introduce their offspring to what — out on this uncharted frontier of the new ‘‘trans-species psyche’’ — is now being recognized, at least by the elephants, it seems, as a whole new subspecies: the human allograndmother. ‘‘Traditionally, nature has served as a source of healing for humans,’’ Bradshaw told me. ‘‘Now humans can participate actively in the healing of both themselves and nonhuman animals. The trust and the sanctuary are the beginnings of a mutually benefiting interspecies culture.’’

Siebert claims here that the only solution to the elephant’s problem is a fundamental shift in the way we view ourselves as humans. Humans must consider themselves part of a “mutually benefiting interspecies culture”, and not as a superior being. Siebert yearns for the day when a “new trans-species psyche” will exist and unite all living things. This psyche will exist when all beings on earth view themselves as having one, united culture and soul. He includes an example of this new psyche at work when he tells the story of “human allomothers”. These humans raise infant elephants until they are ready to go out on their own. This forms a bond so strong, however, that elephants have been reported bringing their offspring to meet their old human allomothers. A colleague of Bradshaw writes that, when viewing the world through Siebert’s new psyche, “humans can participate actively in healing both themselves and non-human animals”.

A New Age.... A Trans-Species Psyche

The recent history of elephant and humans interaction has seen a great deal of violence, hostility, and uneasiness. it can be look as the modern day "school yard fight", where neither humans nor the elephants play a specific role. With the constant attacks on the everyday lives of the elephants, the elephants are standing up for their right on this earth. Somehow in the mist of all this dark violence, a new age is shedding its light on a bright future ahead. Humans and elephants participating in healing rituals together? "Sheldrick Trust has successfully reabilitated more than 60 elephants and reintroduced them into wild herds... (the elphants) have returned to the sancutuary with their own wild-born caves in order to be re-unite them with thier human allomothers...". This mirrors the common nature of mature grown-up humans visiting thier parents and bringing their children along. This is no difference to what these elephants are doing returing to the place where they were raised by their human "parents". This serves as an example of the ideology of a "trans-species psyche" between humans and elephants. Hopefully soon the conflict between humans and elephants will be a thing of the past and the only interaction between these two species will be the natural interaction of healing from oneanother. A new age is finally on the rise where one day their will be great trust and a mutal relationship will beformed from these not so different species.

The Elephant Perspective

Seibert is portraying the evolution of the relationship between humans and elephants in the perspective of elephants. At first elephants and humans stood across an "uncharted frontier" when it came to the understanding each others' mental characteristics. OED defines "frontier" as the border of two countries. As the lives of humans and elephants intertwines the boundary abates. The occurrence of homicidal events resulted in imparities in the "intricate web of familial and societal relations" of elephants. As a service, humans replaced these gaps. However, in the viewpoint of elephants humans are have become a "sub-species", a step-realtive. A position for humans has developed in the social structure of elephants.

Growing Bonds

Sheldrick Trust has rehabilitated more than 60 elephants. Trust has made a bond with the elephants that have a number of them coming back with their calves. This shows that he has built a connection with the elephants and they consider him and the other keepers their human allomothers. This "trans-species psyche" has made the humans and the elephants one. Gay Bradshaw tells us that it is not enough to be anthropomorphic but to look at humans being like elephants. This summarizes this essay because even after I read the essay the first time I thought that elephants were like humans not humans like elephants. To sum it up Trust has made an inter-species culture that has connected elephants and humans. He has made a bond that will hopefully grow stronger through the years and eventually humans and elephants will be able to live in peace.

The Human-Elephant Relationship

This passage from Siebert's essay demonstrates the bond that elephants can, and do, create with their human caretakers. In Sheldrick Trust's elephant sanctuary, many elephants return to the sanctuary after giving birth to their young born in the wild. The elephants want to reunite with their caretakers and introduce them to their calves. Siebert calls the relationship a "trans-species psyche", which explains the positive mentality of the relationship that the elephants hold with humans. Siebert goes on to quote Bradshaw in saying, "Now humans can participate actively in the healing of both themselves and non-human animals. The trust and the sanctuary are the beginnings of a mutually benefiting interspecies culture." The passage end with this quote, which powerfully brings home the idea that elephants can treat humans as equals and that they really can love people.

Mutual Benefits

The Sheldrick Trust is a partial step needed to be taken in order to solve the elephant crisis. Siebert recognizes that the Trust rehabilitates elephants using methods such as the use of an allomother, but it is the participation of humans that Siebert truly thinks is the answer. The active participation of humans improves the trans-species psyche of not only elephants and humans, but of humans and all other animals. Siebert quotes Bradshaw as saying, “Now humans can participate actively in the healing of both themselves and non-human animals. The trust and the sanctuary are the beginnings of a mutually benefitting interspecies culture,” (538). This improvement of human-elephant relationship can not only teach humans how to treat elephants better, but how improve treatment of all animals.

Part of the Family

There are not many animals in the wild that have a reason to visit humans. The Sheldrick trust, however, has successfully given some elephants a reason to do just that. After the rehabilitation and reintroduction into the wild of over sixty elephants, engrained in their memory are the caring humans that helped them in their time of need. After being released, they have come back with children to introduce to their allomothers. Even further than this, a new sub-species known as “allograndmothers” has earned a place in the pachyderm’s society.

This means that not only are the original patients at this elephant sanctuary grateful to those who cared for them, but they consider them a long-term part of their families. In the passage they mention the “trans-species psyche”. The author uses this to give the sense that in a way, the elephants, as well as their caregivers, have a bond that can be only felt by the two parties involved. The fact that these people have seen the grandchildren of these elephants is truly remarkable. The elephants must have a way of communicating and letting each other know what humans did for them. A complex way of speaking such as this shows us just how intelligent these animals are and just how much of a long term impact we can have on them.

Trans-species Psyche

The quote talks about the beginning of a new way of thinking. With this new “trans-species psyche” humans and elephants are thought of as one and the same. Humans are seen as part of the elephant’s life and an essential part of their family. Elephants are accepted into human lives and valued in the same way they value their normal family members. In a way, elephants and humans are part of the same species. The author sees the sanctuary as the beginning of a period where elephants and humans are treated the same way. Humans won't help elephants because the elephants are attacking them; they will assist because they care about the health of the elephants. This is the beginning of elephants and humans being connected on a deeper emotional level.

What does a microscope have to do with reading and writing?

Jack Lynch says that an English teacher’s heart will go pitter patter at the very thought of close reading. Today will be the very first day of introducing close reading to one set of my students and I am excited. Lynch calls close reading “close engagement with the language of the text” and he gives his take on how this might be accomplished.

Responding to a poetry prompt last night, I ended up writing something about close reading. The prompt was to begin and end the poem with the same word. Here is what I wrote:

Like snow under the microscope,

I say, hold the text to scrutiny and see

each flake break into shape. From a

distance, words on a page can be cold, snow like.

So my take on close reading is the equivalent of putting a text under the microscope and noticing details, patterns, structures that go into making a piece of text meaningful. Reading with a pencil in hand and annotating the text as we read is an important part of the process because in that act we begin to combine reading and writing. The ultimate goal is to be able to write out the close reading.

There is a selection of good, bad and ugly advice to be had online about how to go about this business but the most important advice in my opinion is to do it. Keep practicing till one gets the hang of it. Like driving, biking, swimming, playing an instrument (or any other matter of practical skill) close reading can only be learnt by doing it. And once learnt… what pleasure!

The politics of word making

"The other part of our newly emerging compact with elephants, however, is far more difficult to codify. It requires nothing less than a fundamental shift in the way we look at animals and, by extension ourselves. It requires what Bradshaw, somewhat whimsically, refers to as a new “trans-specie psyche”, a commitment to move beyond an anthropomorphic frame of reference and, in effect be elephants” (537)

Siebert finds that no words exist to describe the new way in which humans must re-imagine their relationship with elephants; he admits that “our newly emerging compact with elephants is difficult to codify”. There are two important ideas in this brief phrase: the word “compact” suggests that the pact between humans and elephants is mutual and the word “codify” implies that the terms of this compact are not yet clearly laid out. The difficulty of the codification lies in the fact that while humans are capable of anthropomorphism and seeing the elephants through the lens of their own humanity, they are still inadequate in gauging their humanity through the lens of elephants. Siebert points to a necessary “fundamental shift” in the “way we look at animals and, by extension ourselves”. The codification of the new compact with elephants must reflect the capacity of humans to “be elephants”. Siebert finds that anthropomorphism does not express the new compact with elephants so Bradshaw coins a new phrase to describe it: “trans-specie psyche”. Bradshaw’s “whimsical” phrase does not put humans in the center of the evaluating frame of reference which the word “anthropomorphism” does; instead, it spreads the line of reference laterally, suggesting a relationship that goes across species: trans-specie. Her choice of the word “psyche” is also interesting because the word invokes a greater soulful intellect that is capable of a deeper understanding than only the mind or only the heart can be. Siebert and Bradshaw’s momentary loss of words to describe something new shows the codifying power of words. Our politics is shaped by the kinds of words we choose to describe concepts, situations and experiences. “Anthropomorphism” would necessarily imply a politics that still sees the humans dominating the pact with elephants but an acknowledgement of a “trans-specie psyche” gives equal sense of power to the elephants in this compact, since it is they  who have brought the humans to the negotiating table.

What does it mean to be an elephant?

"The other part of our newly emerging compact with elephants, however, is far more difficult to codify. It requires nothing less than a fundamental shift in the way we look at animals and, by extension ourselves. It requires what Bradshaw, somewhat whimsically, refers to as a new “trans-specie psyche”, a commitment to move beyond an anthropomorphic frame of reference and, in effect be elephants” (537)

Charles Siebert and elephant researchers Gay Bradshaw and  Eve Abe suggest that it is not only not enough to be anthropomorphic when it comes to our understanding of elephants, they suggest quite its opposite: that we need to be elephants. Not only do we need to accord a degree of humanity to the elephants, we need to imbue our humanity with a degree of elephantness.  What Siebert is asking us to do sounds impossible to achieve. How on earth do we become elephants? Yet, it does begin to make sense when we see that anthropomorphism is a call for sympathy. As highly social creatures, if elephants socialize, hurt and heal like humans then to accord them humanness is to say that we can begin to feel sympathy for them. The word sympathy is defined in the OED as “a real or virtual affinity or similarity between things”, it highlights the difference between the subjects that nonetheless share real or virtual points of similarity. Sympathy is only possible between unlike subjects, when we feel sympathy we feel it from a place of knowing that we are not in that spot of suffering, though we feel for those that are. Sympathy provides an escape from the situation. To resolve the elephant-human crisis anthropomorphic sympathy then is clearly only the first step. To move beyond it would be not just to feel sympathy but feel empathy. Empathy is defined in the OED as “The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation.”  Clearly, full comprehension of the object of contemplation, here the specie wide nervous breakdown of elephants, is not possible until the subject-object barrier is broken down by means of a personality projection that empathy allows. And so it is logical that Abe and Siebert think that we need to become elephants if we want to even understand the full scale of the problem. To be an elephant then is to cultivate a deep sense of empathy for creatures who, by the looks of it, look or feel nothing like us at all.