The Shift

“As humans, we are well acquainted with the needs and capacities of the human body – we live our bodies and so know, from within, the possibilities of our form. We cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle…We receive from them countless gifts of food, fuel, shelter, and clothing. Yet still the remain Other to us, inhabiting their own cultures and displaying their own rituals, never wholly fathomable” (Abram 10-11).

“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 anthropocentric frame of reference and, in effect, be elephants” (Siebert 537).

The Shift

Siebert’s grand claim in “An Elephant Crackup?” was that humans must be able to put themselves in the shoes of the elephants in order to save them. We must be able to fully understand their problems, not from a human perspective, but from an elephant one. This requires “fundamental shift in the way we look at animals and, by extension, ourselves” (Siebert 537). In order to look at things from an elephant’s viewpoint and “be elephants” (537), humans must first accept that elephants have a consciousness similar to ours and that humans are not the greatest being on earth. David Abram, the author of “The Ecology of Magic”, argues a similar point. He explains that “[a]s humans, we are well acquainted with the needs and capacities of the human body – we live our bodies and so know, from within, the possibilities of our form. We cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle,” (10-11). The phrase “As humans” is key here. By beginning with this, it becomes clear that in our current state, the empathy that Siebert talks about feeling for animals is impossible. Humans must be willing to shed their current frame of mind in order to reach enlightenment, and be able to fully and truly understand what it means to “be elephants” (Siebert 537).

Approaching the Crisis

Clearly, both authors, Abram and Siebert, are delivering similar messages, but their process of reaching the public is completely different. Together they bring to light the damage our humankind has caused to ecosystem, including the animals. However, Abram presents his solution with realistic facts and plan of action, while Siebert’s proposal asks us to become empathetic in order to find a solution. For instance, Abram states, “distress [in humans] lies in the aforementioned violence needlessly perpetrated by our civilization on the ecology…only alleviating the latter will we be able to heal the former” (Abram 17). His plan points out that we have reached a tipping point and our survival is threatened. Hurting the environment is taking a toll on us as well. Hence, by taking action now we are refining the future and mending the past. He simply states out the problem and shows us the outcome of a suggested solution. Even though working with the same issue, Siebert approaches the crisis from a different angle. He focuses on preserving “our self-image” and to save the elephants, it will “demand the ultimate act of deep, interspecies empathy” (Siebert 537). He’s reaching the public by tapping into their emotions and relying on their empathy for the animals. First he indicates how important our self-image is and then he leads our train of thought into an act of compassion. He wants our motivation to help the elephants come from connecting to their kind. Therefore, the solution in fact relies on how we define humanism and how we act according to our empathy. All in all, Siebert and Abrams present the same argument; however, their approach is completely different

The Meaning of Family

After first reading the third set of quotes I felt that Abram was, in effect, disproving Siebert. Through a more detailed breakdown of what he is saying, we are able to see otherwise. Siebert wants us to become elephants so that we may best understand them and be able to treat them properly. He showed that we have to see things from their perspective in order to make the best decisions about them. However, Abram explains “…we live our bodies and so know, from within, the possibilities of our form. We cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle…” (10-11). Here, Abram is trying to explain that, as hard as we may try, we will always physically be humans and cannot fully understand anyone but ourselves. Familiarity is defined in the OED as the quality proper to a member of the family. In Siebert’s article, Siebert showed that elephants and their caretakers at the Trust became symbolic family members. The caretakers were the elephants’ allomothers and the elephants continued this family by making the caretakers the allograndmothers to their calfs. This, in essence, made the elephants and the humans family. Because the term familiar means that we know someone like family, we are able to understand from Abram’s passage that, although humans cannot physically transform into elephants, we can symbolically be them. Because they are family, we are actually able to further grasp the “lived experience” (10-11) of the elephants. Humans may not be able to transform magically into elephants or know exactly what they are thinking and why at all times, but because they are our family through the caretakers at the Trust, humans should have the potential of understanding the elephants better than we can with any other species.

Combining traditional and modern

The second set of quotes looks like an immediate contrast between ideas by the two authors. Abrams talks about traditional practices while Siebert talks of new ideas; however, it appears that Siebert understands that there had already been previous peoples that treated nature with respect. In his essay, Siebert includes quotes by Gay Bradshaw in which she says, "...live with wild animals like humans used to do" (537). Abram's quote enhances the view on what humans must do to return to "the way we used to live" with animals and Siebert just combines views on elephants to come up with a solution that may appeal to modern people, but be a solution because of the traditional ways of past humans.

Are Humans Animals?

As humans, we are well acquainted with the needs and capacities of the human body - we live our bodies and so know, from within, the possibilities of our form. We cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle...We receive from them countless gifts of food, fuel, shelter, and clothing. Yet they still remain Other to us, inhabiting their own cultures and displaying their own rituals, never wholly fathomable (Abram 10-11).

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-species-psyche”, a commitment to move beyond an anthropocentric frame of reference and, in effect, be elephants. (Siebert 537)

Even though a human is technically still an animal, we treat animals with disrespect as though humans are somehow better. According to Siebert, the only way to view animals as physical and psychological equals is to closely empathize with them. Siebert believes that as humans, we will have to completely change our way of thinking. On the other hand, Abram suggests that “[w]e cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle”. Abram’s belief is that current mentality of humans’ cannot change as we have no way of communicating with other species, and consequently no way to empathize. Additionally, Abram poses the idea that animals “remain Other to us”, emphasizing by capitalization the notion that we are not animals.

Can we become elephants?

One of Siebert's main points throughout his essay is his call for us to become more like elephants. He wants us to develop an inter-species psyche. Abram's essay seems to imply that it will be impossible for us to do that. Abram believes that animals will also remain foreign to us and we can never fully understand their ways and culture. I think Abram's use of the phrase 'never wholly fathomable' is key. Abram implies that we can understand some aspects of animal culture. I think that Siebert and Abram would agree that there is no harm in trying to understand animals.

The Tale of Two Ideas

Within the third set of quotes between Abram and Siebert the concept of taking the mindset of another creature is brought up. Abram draws a line between humans and others. He talks about familiarity and intimacy with the animal mindset to imply that we can never fully connect to others because there is no possible way to understand the complexities of our own minds let alone another’s. This thought of differences is specifically shown with the capitalization of “O” in Others. By ‘others’ Abram means other creatures. He has made them their own proper noun, completely separate from humans. Siebert creates a comparison between humans and elephants and asks us to step into their shoes, and in effect think like they do. This idea is the exact opposite of what Abram is telling us is not possible.

By Abram capitalizing others he is showing shows a sign of respect towards animals, which shows that there is a complex nature to animals that are not “fathomable”. This makes it seem like there is something mysterious and majestic that humans are missing in the big picture. This is also what Siebert is saying towards elephants. Obviously people cannot be elephants, but if we put ourselves in their mindset, we may take on a different view of how the world works and how people and animals need to interact. This key allows us to understand more of how the world coexists as a single unit between the natural and modernized worlds.

Close Reading of Siebert and Abram

The way humans treat animals is an elephant of a problem and according the Charles Siebert the only way we can solve this problem is, in the case of elephants, by becoming elephants. Siebert is implying that we cannot understand other species unless we become them and them empathy. This contradicts what Abram advocates when he says “we cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy, the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle” (10-11). Abram’s choice of animals in significant because if we cannot become grass snakes or snapping turtles we cannot possibly become something as huge as an elephant. Perhaps the best course of action is a combination of the two. We can follow what Siebert implies and empathize with animals, but no matter how much we try we cannot hope to know everything about them as Abram points out.

Reciprocal Relationships

The traditional tribal shaman, I came to discern, acts as an intermediary between the human community and the larger ecological field, ensuring that there is an appropriate flow of nourishment, not just form the landscape to human inhabitants, but from the human community back to the local earth. By his constant rituals, trances, ecstasies, and "journeys," he ensures that the relation between human society and the larger society of beings is balanced and reciprocal, and that the village never takes more from the living land that it returns to it - not just materially but with prayers prayers, propitiations, and praise. The scale of the harvest or the size of a hunt are always negotiated between the tribal community and the natural world that it in inhabits. To some extent every adult in the community is engaged in this process of listening and attuning to the other presences that surround and influence daily life. but the shaman or the sorcerer is the exemplary voyager in the intermediate realm between the humans and the more-than-human worlds, the primary strategist and negotiator in any dealings with the Others. (Abram 5)

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 at animals, and by extension, ourselves. It requires what Bradshaw somewhat whimsically refers to as a new "trans-species-psyche," a commitment to move beyond an anthropocentric frame of reference and, in effect, be elephants. (Siebert 537)

On a quick overlook of these two quotes, the reader sees the similarity between both Abram's and Siebert's ideas. Both authors are talking about a relationship humans must have with animals, a reciprocal relationship; they give to the animals, and the animals give back. While Abrams includes all animals with the terms "landscape" and "local earth", Siebert is referring specifically to elephants. The most contrasting point between two quotes though is apparent upon closer inspection of the word usage. In the passage by Abrams, he uses words like "traditional" and describes the rituals and customs of how the Shaman abides by this "trans-species psyche," as Siebert would say, for readers to get an understanding of how old this has been in effect. Meanwhile, Siebert uses the wording "newly emerging," so it is clear that Siebert is arguing that this necessary reciprocal relationship has yet to spread. Taking Abram's ideas in context with the passage by Siebert, there seems to be a vast gap between the two cultures in discussion. Abrams is describing a closed off set of people, by bringing up villages only. Siebert's idea, while whimsically brought up by Bradshaw, is calling for widespread apprehension of what Abrams is describing of the Shaman; bringing it to light for a more westernized culture.

"A New Kind of Family"

“A New Kind of Family”

In “An Elephant Crackup?” Siebert describes the fabric of elephant society and how the elephant families and relationships work. In this specific passage, Siebert demonstrates a different kind of society- a “mutually benefiting interspecies culture”, in which humans and elephants regard one another with mutual respect and love. The word “mutual” is so key in the idea of “trans-species psyche” because both species really need to understand one another’s essence. They need to become sort of like a family. In this passage about the Sheldrick Trust, we see that the trust and sanctuary is essentially, a family environment. The fact that elephants come back to visit their allomothers, even bringing their children, creates a family web that bonds elephants and humans in a way that has never existed before. As humans, we have always been taught that “birds of a feather flock together”. These new human- elephant relations toss that cliché out the window and their existence proves that humans can, and must, adopt a new way of looking at animals- a “trans-species psyche”, for both species to heal. This word “healing” stood out to me because I feel that both species benefit from the Sheldrick Trust. Elephants get the attention they need and humans get a sense of humanity restored in them by helping these elephants. The “trans-species psyche” helps both species connect and realize that while their anatomies may differ, their spirits are more similar than anyone could have imagined.

A New "Interspecies Culture"

Despite the rise of violence in the Human-Elephant Conflict, Siebert notes that there are efforts to rehabilitate and release elephants back into the wild. Sheldrick Trust is a prime example, as he has helped over 60 traumatized elephants and “reintroduced them into wild herds”. His methods include having humans replace or become substitute allomothers. Bradshaw states that humans can now help heal the wounds of a species other than humans; these are the beginnings of a new “interspecies culture”. They are also supporting our two species co-existence. The Elephant Sanctuary’s human allomothers occasionally receive a visit from the rehabilitated elephants with their wild-born calves. Our progress in the new “trans-species psyche” is slow, but steady. The trauma that some of elephants have may never be healed, but we can work around it and come to an understanding with them.

Close Reading #1

In the given quote, the author points to the fact that, even though the human – elephant relationship has reduced over time, there is still hope to save it. Recent efforts by humans have shown encouraging results, as given in the quote. Researchers have studied the concept of anthropomorphism and based on it, they have used trauma therapy on elephants. People such as Gay Bradshaw have shown that elephant society and family life is in fact very similar to the human society. Thus, humans themselves have served as “allomothers” to young elephants, and it has proved successful as some elephants returned to their human allomothers. This little but positive effort shows how both humans and elephants can make a joint effort in improving their relationship. It is as simple as educating people worldwide about how to live peacefully with elephants. Thus, the human – elephant bond can hopefully grow gradually with time.

Close Reading

Bradshaw discusses that people and elephants can now form a new culture that will incorporate both humans and animals, and both groups will benefit from the union. The word union is defined in the OED as "the action of joining or uniting one thing to another or others". They will resolve their violent relationship by re-uniting. They will both have a sanctuary, safe place or a refuge. Also, Sheldrick Trust explains trans-species psyche. Trans species means some kind of idea that transcends or crosses species and psyche is a state of mind. It is the state of mind that crosses species. So, human and elephants need to understand their perspectives. Furthermore, people can help revive elephant culture by establishing a greater sense of safety and the need to build a peaceful relationship.

New Culture

In the quote Siebert makes the claim that through the rehabilitation of the elephants humans and elephants are making a new connection. The connection is mutual, not only the humans but the elephants can also feel the connection. Rehabilitated can be defined as "to reestablish the good reputation of one's name or character". This word is used perfectly in this quote because the good name of the elephants is being restored through the rehab. They are no longer being viewed as killers that can lash out at any time but gentle creatures who have much in common with humans, such as their families. All of this combined is causing a change in our relations with elephants. According to the passage "out on this uncharted frontier of the new trans-species psych".

Close Reading Assignment 1

Siebert points out that the elephant-human relationship is effectively being rebuilt by recent efforts from both sides due to an acceptance of each other in recent times. The human side has greatly helped the elephants by “[actively participating] in the healings of both themselves and non-human animals.” Humans have been recognized by elephants as a “human allomother”, a pseudo-mother, allowing for such centers like the Sheldrick Trust to successfully exist. Humans and elephants have therefore created a “mutually benefiting interspecies culture.” The success is only proven by periodic visits from the elephants released into the wild to the sanctuary where they were raised; some elephants towing their offspring to introduce to their “human allograndmothers”. The creation of these centers has greatly helped repair the relationship that is currently soured. However, what these centers have accomplished is hoped to only be a small fraction of what we will achieve in the future.