Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - Hier 04:36

Animals on my mind

THE term “anthropomorphism” is basically defined as the attribution of human characteristics, traits, emotions, intentions, etc, to animals. In some cases, a person may see themselves and their personality reflected in the animal’s behaviour or qualities. While this can lead to a greater awareness of the human-animal connection and can help to nurture feelings of empathy and an increased interest in the welfare of fellow “sentient beings,” there are also instances in which it may not have such a positive outcome. Increasingly, on social media, people project human feelings, intentions and behaviour onto animals, in ways that are widely defined as being “cute.” Eg “Hey guys...Rover lost his toy and is feeling sad today, so let’s give him a pampering and self-care routine.” A video may then be shown of Rover on a plush dog (or human) bed, wearing a fashionable fitted jumper, akin to one for a human baby, with cucumber slices on his eyes, while his human gives him a “pawdicure.” There is nothing harmful in this. It may be light fun for the human and can be pleasurable for some pets. A responsible pet owner would not subject his/her pet to a “spa day” if the pet was squirming, screaming and clearly uncomfortable. However, with the rise in “normality” of such situations, there are cases in which the anthropomorphic perspective can lead to unpleasant or disastrous consequences – be it through inappropriate diets, application of make-up (which can be toxic to animals), the impact on the animal’s mental state caused by overly intense human-to-animal contact (resulting in the animal’s developing aggression, separation anxiety, fear, etc)...and so on. [caption id="attachment_1136546" align="alignnone" width="541"] -[/caption] In light of two recently reported cases of crimes committed against animals in TT, I wondered – could one say that some degree of “anthropomorphism” was involved? Did the perpetrators see themselves and their feelings and experiences reflected in their animal victims? Case 1: The decapitation of a dog by a man on High Street, San Fernando. A video of the act was recorded by a bystander and shared on social media. Case 2: The beating, relentless pursuit and subsequent stifling to death of a puppy by an allegedly unattended three-year-old boy. The act was captured on CCTV footage and, as was stated on one social media crime page, could not be shown “because of its graphic nature,” as it “may violate Facebook’s community standards guidelines on cruelty to animals.” In the case of the man, it was reported that he was arrested and subsequently sent to St Ann’s for psychiatric evaluation. I (and anyone else I have asked) have not heard or read anything thereafter on that case. In the case of the boy, one article said Western Division police were working with the Child Protection Unit and the Children’s Authority to find the child and family. I have not heard or read anything since. In applying my thoughts on anthropomorphism, I wondered: on some level of his perception, did the potentially “mentally ill” man view the dog’s head as his own, full of disturbing thoughts, voices and visions, and want to get rid of it? Did he achieve a sense of release from the detachment of the “offensive” body part? Did his subsequent parade up the street swinging the decapitated dog’s head in his hands give him a feeling of victory over it? Note: In saying this, I am in no way excusing his heinous and unacceptable act. In the case of the boy, many have called for compassion and non-judgment, with one clinical psychologist saying the child is too young to be diagnosed as a psychopath or sociopath. As quickly and easily as a modern-day child (even from as early an age as three) can learn and incorporate ubiquitous technology into his/her life, that child may as quickly and easily also learn, understand and emulate actions displayed in his/her environment. Is it that the mind of the average three-year-old is not what it was prior to the “technological explosion? Does the perceived “evolution” of the average child’s mind also include a more potent understanding of what violence is and what it can do? Is it still accurate to say that a child of three could not have understood what he was doing in the fatal beating and stifling of a puppy? How much of a child’s harmful or violent treatment of an animal is “innocence” and how much is it “experience?”   The post Animals on my mind appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.