Civilization to Elephants

"From an animalistic perspective, the clearest source of all this distress [in humans], both physical and psychological, lies in the aforementioned violence needlessly perpetrated by our civilization on the ecology of the planet; only alleviating the latter will we be able to heal the former. (Abran 17)"

"Too much about elephants, in the end--reminds us of ourselves to dismiss out of hand this revolt they're currently staging against their own dismissal. And while our concern may ultimately be rooted in that most human of impulses--the preservation of our own self-image--the great paradox about this particular moment in our history with the elephants is that saving them will require finally getting past ourselves it will demand the ultimate act of deep, interspecies empathy. (Siebert 537)"

Both Siebert and Abram are trying to prove a point about a specific issue in their essays. Both of the quotes are claims, however with different approaches. In Siebert's quote, he mentions that humans have an impulse to preserve our species, whereas Abram states that the civilization needlessly perpetrated the violence. Abram is saying that humans are purposefully creating this dilemma and humans could have avoided this if they weren't so ignorant. Siebert explains that humans unknowingly created this issue because they are not aware of how to stop this problem from happening. He however gives an example of how humans can solve this issue.

Cleaning Up Our Own Mess

On page 17 of Abram's text, he states that we are ourselves the direct source of our distress whether psychological or physical. Interestingly, he remarks that specifically civilization which we have built is causing this distress. The word "civilization" implies that the problem does not result from any one individual person, but us humans as one mass. As one mass we also share one image of ourselves, an image that we are the top, the most advanced and intelligent. Siebert's arguments closely relate to this idea when he introduces a solution to the current crisis between humans and elephants. He says on page 537 that "saving them will require finally getting past ourselves...". In other words, we must look past this image we fabricated of ourselves being the only important ones. Coming to a solution will require us to understand the feelings of the elephants and have interspecies empathy.

A Commonality, Empathy

Charles Siebert believes that humans should relate and connect to animals, whereas David Abram’s beliefs are opposing. Although Siebert’s and Abram’s essays have contrasting ideas, they both share a similar ground in terms of being selfless and caring. Siebert emphasized the need to heal animals by displaying empathy and compassion for them. In order to help heal the animals, people must take down the wall of selfishness and “get past ourselves.” Similarly, Abram stated “only alleviating the latter will we be able to heal the former.” One must go above and beyond to make a difference in order to maintain stability in society.

The Translator

"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 from 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, propitiations, and praise. The scale of the harvest or the size of the hunt are always negotiated between the tribal community and the natural world that it 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 human 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 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)

---------

While both authors are attempting to discuss the solution to the problems at hand, Siebert is stating that it will require this "fundamental shift" and what Bradshaw "whimsically" refers to it as the "trans-species psyche," like these radical ideas are almost comical. Siebert speaks of these ideas as if they are groundbreaking ideas that will be able to completely reverse the downward spiral that is the human elephant relationship. On the other hand, Abram speaks of this "traditional" shaman as if these connections between humans and the "more-than-human" worlds have been around as long as he can remember. These shamans have been the keepers of balance between the earth and its human inhabitants, and ensures the scales are not tipping in one direction or another. Abram tells us that the shamans are the only ones capable of bridging this gap between both worlds and acting as the translator between these two realms.

The Great Paradox

Abram contests Siebert's idea of becoming elephants in order to understand their plight when he says that "we cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle. " Abram is right in saying that becoming elephants is a dramatic exaggeration of the "trans-specie-psyche". Any living species today has evolved over millions of years and it is impossible to acquaint ourselves with every minute detail that marks their evolution.By suggesting that every living species is as intricate as another, Abram claims that the degree of familiarity that Siebert suggests to attain is a distant dream. It is funny how Abram completely disowns his own idea of an "animistic perspective" with this claim. It is also interesting to note how Siebert puts forth the idea of extreme empathy when he had earlier commented that "preservation of self image" would be the key element behind human want for saving the Elephant.

Interesting and opposing views

The main point that Siebert makes in his essay "An Elephant Crackup" is that humans need to move past the anthropocentric frame of reference and put elephants in their mental picture. Bradshaw calls this phenomenon a "trans-specie psyche" and Siebert does a good job supporting this claim. He claims that this is the way to communicate with elephants and make them respond to human efforts.
Abram, on the other hand, claims just the opposite. Abram observes that "[humans] cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a frass snake or a snapping turtle" (Abrams 10). It is quite peculiar and interesting how Abrams outright dismisses what seemed to be an intelligent idea after reading Siebert's essay. Although Siebert thinks that this fundamental shift in thinking is "difficult to codify", he still believes that it is the key to solving the problems with the human-elephant relationship.

A mile in someone else's shoes...

People say before you judge me walk a mile in my shoes. Well Siebert says that if we follow that quote then, we will learn to be elephants and thus treat them better. Abram on the other hand says we can try to walk in other species’ shoes but we won’t succeed because we are confined by “the possibilities of our form”(Abrams). Humans will not be able to their cultures and rituals. I don’t know who’s right in this case. I do believe that in the case of humans it is really insightful to walk in someone else’s shows before judging them. I know that if we may never be fully able to understand other species but it can’t hurt us to try to understand them. Even if we don’t fully understand them, we can still respect them.

Siebert and Abrams Connection

By reading both Siebert and Abram's essays you can get a feel that their opinions almost oppose eachother. Throughout An Elephant Crackup? Siebert argues that in order to solve the conflict between humans and elephants, people need to become elephants, mentally. This means that we have to become as familiar with elephants as we already are with ourselves. In Abram's essay, we can get the sense that he disagrees with Siebert's statement. Even though Abram's essay is about a slightly different conflict, the way he says stuff makes it sound like it is impossible to become that familiar with any animal but ourselves. We are [unable to] know, with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or snapping turtle" (Abrams 10-11). In essence, Abrams disagrees that people can mentally become elephants.

Siebert and Abram

Siebert and Abram have different opinion. Siebert believes that human can understand elephants' perspectives because both animals and humans share the same basic set of emotional qualities and thought processes. However, abram does not have same opinion with Siebert. He explains that " We cannot knowm with the same familiarity and intimacy the lived experience of a grass snake or a snapping turtle...never wholly fathomable"(Abram10-11). He believes that humans cannot be familar with elephants.

Can Humans really relate to Animals?

In quote set 3, Abrams knows that humans are well acquainted with the human body but not with other animal bodies. If he read Charles Siebert's claim about how humans need to be elephants in order to understand the human-elephants crisis, Abrams would be flabbergasted. In reality, it is hard to make a connection with another animal, which is what Abrams is trying to point out. If humans can relate to each other, how would they relate to animals? Siebert understands this as he writes "it is far more difficult to codify." Codify, meaning it is hard to digest, or simplify. Siebert believes, that by being elephants, it would help bring harmony with each other. Abrams believes that that is not a possible way to think. Sounds like someone is a bit egocentric

Siebert and Abrams Connection

I picked the first set of quotes to compare. The main connection between Siebert and Abrams is that they both agree that in order to resolve other conflicts with animals and the environment we first need to settle conflicts amongst ourselves. We need to be more concerned about our own problems before we attempt to solve the other problems on the planet. Abram says "only alleviating the latter will we be able to heal the former" and Siebert states "finally getting past ourselves it will demand the ultimate act of deep, interspecies empathy". These two statements are rather similar and show that we need to focus on ourselves before we spend our time and effort focusing on others.

Siebert and Abrams

“As humans, we are all 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 or a snapping turtle… We receive them from the countless gifts of food, fuel, shelter, and clothing. Yet, still, they remain Other to us, inhabiting 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 anthropomorphic frame of reference and, in effect, be elephants” (Siebert 537).
While both Siebert and Abrams both discuss the idea of connections to animals, both have different approaches to the problem. Abrams speaks throughout his essay with confidence and has a rather stubborn connotation throughout the essay. However, Siebert really does not ever directly state his opinion in his essay, rather, he uses others’ opinions, such as Bradshaw’s and Abe’s, to express his point of view. Abrams claims that people can never truly have the experience of being grass or being another form of creature other than a human. On the other hand, Siebert believes that the only way that peace can be attained between humans and elephants is of humans can relate to elephants. Although both Siebert and Abrams find a similar topic to create an essay on, both see oppositely on the solutions to for problems at hand.

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.