Power, Spirit, and Totem Animals: Proof that I Should Split Up My Ideas into Separate Blogs

Luz--- the llama I had the
privilege of caring for in Cusco
last summer.

<-- This is me today. Or at least this is my hair today. So today, I honor the llama. You are my power animal of the moment. Rock the llama-"fro"! After all, this one's not so much about the "basic integrative force" or "collective life of a social group." It's not that deep. Rather, it's "specific and personal for every individual"--- in this instance, namely just me. (396-397)
You had fair warning. Here comes the short novel, my pets--- here we go deep into the trenches of my childhood and inner psyche. For those of you who don't like narratives or short stories (or me, I guess, which if fine, too) please don't feel obligated to read on. However, for those of you who are interested, I will muse upon what the experience of tapping into the particular power of animals has had on me in my very limited experiences. 


As many of you have probably noticed, (or maybe not) my interests and research are varied and for the most part non-linear or rather useless (Egyptian mythology, Native American literature, tattoo culture, animal husbandry, storytelling traditions across cultures). However, I think here, they actually come together to make some sense of the mess that is my mind.


For you see, I grew up reading horoscopes and researching Chinese astrology. It was a guilty pleasure of mine. Of course, this was all linked to my rather unexplained fascination with all things related to mythology rather than any true faith, but I was always interested in seeing if there was any resonance to a certain year yielding certain characteristics in children. I mean, I don't think I ever asked anybody seriously "Baby, what's yo sign?!" But you know what I mean. I used it more so that I could try to disprove it. What I found was that comparing myself to what I was "supposed" to be did yield some interesting notions of my own self-perception. I actually did give quite a bit of reflection as to how these animals resonated with me. So--- I am a Scorpio born in the year of the horse. What does this mean, you ask? 

Well, to start off with, I should probably admit that I love horses and am indifferent towards scorpions, and as I will explain later, my experiences with either differ. However, in my very contradictory nature, being a scorpio horse means that I'm a complex and multi-faceted creature. Just as no Myers-Briggs test has yet quanitifiably identified me as an introvert or an extrovert, the jury is still out, folks, if I want to claim both of these creatures as my power animals. One one hand, I am apparently a social butterfly, although flighty, on the other I'm withdrawn and overpassionate and interested in the occult. I mean, as much as I can rationalize these two divergent characters to represent me, I don't necessarily have a strong tie to the scorpion at this time in my life. (As a side note, though, interestingly enough, my first scorpion sting pretty much coincided with me hitting puberty and the beginning of the most dramatic of my  adolescent angst. I just thought that coincidental.) I'll talk more about horses later.

Where do I look then? Like I've told you before, I've been Mariah Rabbit since I was old enough to speak. I dubbed myself that. I don't really know why. However, it stuck. Rabbitini, Bunny Foo Foo, Thumper--- you name the rabbit-related term, I've probably been called it. But your animal isn't something you're supposed to be able to choose. It must choose you. But perhaps the rabbit has.

They've always been a constant presence in my life. My sister had them as pets. Then I did. Then I saved a very young one from a coyote out in the field while I was plowing one day. There's a whole list of events. Is that evidence alone? In that vein, then, along the translation of Durkheim, the rabbit is "a from of symbol representing the collective life of a [my] social group, being its basic integrative force." (396) "My people" then, would be ingenious, timid, gentle, nervous, humble, always aware of an escape, wildcards quick to action, fearful but faithful, (all true of the people I get along with best) and very interested in procreation and rebirth. (woah there!) I will say this, I do like babies, and recently I've been considering midwifery as a trade. Perhaps getting Rory, my newest rabbit, was supposed to mark some push to look more into that. Moreover, rabbit shows us that defending ourselves doesn't always involve fighting back. He/she teaches us to listen carefully to what is going on in our environment so we can accurately use our intuition when in danger. This sounds like me. I can work with that.

But after I think upon this more, I just get a bit confused, for it seems that my life is always in some constant flux of rejuvenation or change or new awareness, so I have different animals pass in and out fluidly without much question or remark. I mean, I don't want to think of this as some kind of special thing, but I have always been that kid who remarked on animals passing by my car or in a book or in a blurb as I pass by it on tv at the time and tried to recognize why they chose that time to show up. I always have. My mom would always help me through it and talk it out with me. Yes, I'll admit it, I was that weird kid who talked about "signs" all the time. I didn't then, nor do I now think of them as coincidences, but rather as felicitous manifestations of what is going on in the world. 
I was the kid who read Pullman's His Dark Materials and had hours of discussion with my friends over what our daemons would be. I was the kid who liked Disney princesses because they had cool animal sidekicks and friends (and because they were not socially outcast because they sang in public). Aladdin had Abu. Cinderella had Jack and Gus. Who would be my animal "familiar" if Disney had recreated my life? I mean, my life has been one animal encounter after another. I constantly saw deer as a kid out in "the boonies." I might even conjecture that my brother's power animal is the deer after one seemingly came out of nowhere to give him a wake up call one night. Red-tailed hawks and scissor-tails have often made their homes near mine. When I lived on reservation land in OK(just a couple short months), I was always dealing with bison that would rub up on my truck. So, too, would mountain lions visit occasionally, (much to my dad's chagrin) to become the talk of my small town. Then, there were the ever-present dairy cows that I look upon as the definition of all that is life and serenity and "motherhood", and sure, while "there is a very palpable memory there, a living memory of what I felt and experienced," like Moyer's feelings about UT, these fit into a more overarching philosophy and ideal for me rather than one source of power that I can tap into specifically. Now, it's as if wherever there are animals, of whatever kind, I can feel at home. I mean, now, I feel detached from any one certain place since I've moved around, my childhood home is gone, and because I look at myself somewhat as a vagabond on adventures around the world. If anything, the beings I surround myself with do more to define me than the resonance of a place (even with how much I love UT.) 

A brumby in Kakadu. A few minutes after this, he got all
excited and started prancing around our little comvee.

Perhaps this can be explained by the 2 animals most prevalent in my dream life/unexpected meetings lately. So, back to the horse. If I look at recurring patterns and themes of my life--- the horse is always there. My mom and I (super kindred spirits, we always say) were both born in the year of the horse like I mentioned before. I begged for them when I was younger and we've adopted 3 so far. A PMU mare, a little mare who was being "too-cowboyed" as I have euphemistically explained, and a mustang. I bonded with the brumbies in Oz. When I was in Honduras, too, we had to stop for gas one last time before we headed to the airport and there was a wild horse literally just running down the major highway before I said a prayer for it to get out of harm's way and it veered off into a sidestreet and up the mountainside. I think I need to think on this further, though.

As for the power animal that I'm vibing right now, I'm going to second Brianne's claim to the fox.

However, I will acknowledge Andrews' statement that even if two people share an animal, it manifests in separate ways for them. For I feel like these foxes just keep popping up as journey animals for this particular stage in my life, and may leave as soon as I've passed through the trials of this time. (Deep, I know) In fact, it is a little felicitous that I think of this now, because I didn't even see a fox until about 5 years ago. We had one visit our condo on a family trip, and while I was there alone one day, reading in the living room with the porch door wide open in order to enjoy the fresh mountain air, he decided to climb on up the stairs and come to the foot of the couch to just stare at me. Then a year later, my best friend from high school who I had lost touch with sent me a message about how life was going for him in England, and the first line was mentioning how loud the foxes were. Third point of evidence: these guys.

Picture I took at Mt. Rainier over Christmas break. It just sat there and
posed for me. And then took off  when my brother walked up.

Picture I took the same evening on Rainier. The darker side of fox-dom. 

And fourth of all, and perhaps the most interesting to me, is that I just discovered that one of my better friends from my trip to Peru just showed me the "secret tattoo" she keeps hidden because she touts that it is so personal. But I visited her over spring break and used my wiles to trick her into wearing a bathing suit, and I snuck a peek at her body art. Convenient, isn't it?

After those signs, I'll just go ahead and claim it. The fox, is indeed, touted as a trickster and wily. It is also known, like the rabbit, for its ingenuity and ability to be mindful of surrounding. I suppose this goes hand in hand with the fact that it is a renowned shapeshifter and adapter.  The fox encourages us to think outside of the box and use our intelligence in different, creative ways. Perhaps I should try to approach all my circumstances happening now differently that I normally would-- unorthodox methods, if you will. 

Come to think of it, though, my mom and I always joke about how when it rains it pours, and how all the bad accidents with animals in our lives always seem to come at some critical time (though at this point, everyday of our lives feels pretty hectic and critical. That's just the way we seem to do things.) When the bull attacked my dad, or when the deer completely jumped over the car in front of him to crush into my brother's--- those marked meaningful moments in my family's life beyond the shock of these events. (Now that I think about it, I was not able to pick up my new little lop Magnus on Sunday because of the host of things that happened over the weekend.) Believe, people. 

 But then I have to ask myself, with all of the history and mythology that I know is associated with animals across the world, why just restrict myself to animals from this continent? When I was in Australia, the stories and energy of the people was palpable. When I was in Peru, I swear that people almost cried when they saw a condor, and I had to smile as I watched the little old lady who would go to the "Jaguar Square" to touch the 10-sided rock (and heard over and over how Cusco was initially designed in the shape of a Jaguar, and thus survived against the Spaniards for so long because it was imbued with special jaguar magic.) Even the nice little Maori lady in New Zealand gave me a bone amulet when I left as a gift of travel and connection to her people. (Don't worry, I'll wear it to class tomorrow.) But then why haven't I had experiences with animals from other parts of the world, you know? I must ponder on this and get back to you.
P.S. As a side note, there was mention in here of body modification as a sacramental type ideology. As a fan of tattoos, I thought I'd share my family and friend's experiences with this:

To commemorate her move and freedom and voice.

To mark a transformative period in her life.

To symbolize the unity of life and her love for the gentleness and innocence of deer.

My brother, who's always loved wolves, has
Norse trickster Loki Fenris tattooed on his elbow.

 And then people who have taken it to a much more literal level. What's your opinion, folks? True dedication to their inner spirit and self and spiritualism... or something else?

So it's been a while.... getting back in the swing of things with something that still leaves me confused.

Prometheus getting the punishment the reading didn't
talk about-- having his liver eaten out over and over.
Curiositymay not have killed the cat, but it sure made the cat suffer. 

Vivisection: A double-edged sword? 

Ok. I'm an idealist and not necessarily a foremost expert on this topic by any means. However, I am opinionated, so let's begin with that, shall we? First off, I don't know why I'm so hard-headed, but I need a convincing argument that animal testing/experimentation is necessary for medical advances. I need hard evidence that the cure for [fill in blank] or the key piece of knowledge to understanding [fill in the blank here] can only be found through animal means. Maybe I'm naive, but there have to be other methods, right?

Or perhaps I am too idealistically legal-minded or wrapped up in the philosophy behind rights and consent. So, therein lies my problem. I'm conflicted.There're opposing sides getting the issue all wrapped up in philosophical debates that have loopholes. Let's just look at Regan and Cohen here for a moment as examples.

Tom Regan- "An entity has inherent and not conditional value (i.e., value is not earned). Simply being an animal with a characteristic life course and a set of interests would thus be sufficient to warrant protection. (79) 

Here, I can jump on Regan's wagon. This fits in with my rather "rainbows and marshmallows" view of my personal life in which I respect all life if I can. What I mean is that this is one of the few tenets of morality that I think I adhere to pretty much across the board. (Explains a lot, doesn't it?) But really. Animals don't have to be used. Humans don't have to be used. As far as I see it, by the time a drug or pharmaceutical goes through the rigors of testing and retesting, many of those who could benefit from treatment have succumbed to their illness/injury/medical anomaly. I mean, I'm a sentimentalist, but I am also have utilitarian tendencies. Why not test on humans, with their consent? Perhaps I don't quite realize how many trials have to be done or how drugs are tweaked in the experimentation process. Or perhaps I don't quite grasp just how "imperative" certain tests are to our overall understanding of the human body or mind. Still, I'm one of those believers in "consent of the governed"--- and though we know that many animals freely risk their lives for the humans they know, I don't think of that as consent. 

Still, many would call me crazy for even giving animals rights at all. For example, Cohen's idea,  where "rights are relevant only to members of moral communities, places in which these types of reciprocal agreements are negotiated and acknowledged" and "anencephallic infants and people in a permanent vegetable state would seem to lose their membership in the rights-owning moral community" (80) just seems like a world in which a logical argument ignores what feels moral altogether and just sounds logical. I mean, that's where scientists got into trouble before, seeming cruel towards people as well as animals. Surely, all scientists are individuals, and thus have different methods of rationalizing what they do. They feel, even if objective, empirical data is still the method of communication. I particularly liked this quote as evidence: 

"To prevent me from hating myself for working with animals, I try not to get too attached to the mice because I know their death is inevitable" --- "to love with detachment." (141)

So they still feel. However, it seems to me that science, as Titus pointed out, brought both good and bad to the animal community. On one hand, we developed (and still somewhat have) a symbiotic relationship with animals and nature. ("Once nature ceased to be a constant antagonist, it could be viewed with affection. Wildness became attractive rather than ugly, wild animals might evoke sympathy rather than scorn." (133)) As evidenced by those of us in this class, that most people in society today believe that affection and love for an animal, shown in whatever form or fashion,  is a mark of a good person. However, those kinds of advances--- "the Victorian extension of rights to animals, initiated by Hume and advanced by Darwin, stopped at vivisection." (138)

For just as much as humans are logical creatures, we also claim another (seemingly contradictory innate value --- "long-accepted overarching moral goals to become individuals who relieve and reduce suffering and attempt to behave fairly." (79)--- as opposed to brutes.  Now, it's probably not fair for me to be preaching. I'm lucky. I haven't been exposed to incurable disease or debilitating injuries. I don't take medicine unless forced to. I'll not deny it. I'm against makeup as well (if you haven't noticed yet). I have a very high pain tolerance, so my sympathies towards natural pain in life is a little mixed. Sure, I'd like to avoid others hurting, but by the same token, I believe pain to be natural and educational for humans to be empowered by their own strengths and limits (as long as infliction of pain is not done intentionally by others). (Yes, that includes feeling uncomfortable, guilty, and all those other negative emotions that come with acknowledging human brutality--- as long as we don't dwell on them too long and use those emotions to promote positive action.) Still, if you're not quite so accepting of pain as I am, (and by no means do I advocate purposeful infliction of pain on another) then you can be particularly taken aback by the fact that experimentation and vivisection has occured in human populations. 

Twin subjects of Mengele's experiments. Two little
girls from a concentration camp who have been
sewn together. 

1. Tuskegee syphilis experiment
2. Harold Blauer
3. high oxygen to premature infants
4. injections of cancer cells
5. hepatitis in retarded children
6. Cincinnati radiation experiments
7. anything done by Mengele in WWII Germany

Do I find it strangely and twistedly fascinating? I'm ashamed to admit it, but yes. I could totally be accused of possessing, like St. Augustine said, "libido sciendt" --- "problems produced by the lust to know." (78) Humans must have a sick fascination with the morbid and human limits. We like to feel like we have some understanding and power over our bodies and what we can endure (thus, science exists in the first place)--- even if only to help people who have to endure the rigors of the seemingly impossible.  I used to be fascinated by what had been learned by observing animals in laboratories and such. I wanted to be a veterinarian for the longest time--- had even applied to Cornell's pre-vet program--- but realized that I didn't have the heart or the stomach to undertake the classes that would be required. (Speaking of which, does anybody else find it interesting that to be certified to save animals' lives, you must first kill a whole bunch of them in the sake of knowledge? It always seemed a bit counter-intuitive to me. I always thought that even in an experiential classroom, students shouldn't be risking lives unless lives were on the line to begin with. However, perhaps that was just how I was raised.) But I have to agree with what many have said before: we're not always learning about human disease reaction or behavior through research on them, but the animals' reaction to disease and behavior. Does that even serve the purpose that we claim... and is it worth the lives that are used?

Poor unicorn :( 

What fools these mortals be!? (Shakespeare, a Midsummer Night's Dream, Act III. Scene ii.)

"Lingering in the golden gleam –

Life, what is it but a dream?" ~closing lines of AliceThrough the Looking Glass 

Reading these, I couldn't help but recite the closing lines of Puck's soliloquy in A Midsummer Night's Dream. 

Don't they bear a striking resemblance to one another?:

If we shadows have offended,

Think but this, and all is mended,

That you have but slumber'd here

While these visions did appear.

And this weak and idle theme,

No more yielding but a dream,
...

So, good night unto you all.

Give me your hands, if we be friends,

And Robin shall restore amends. ~ Puck, A Midsummer Night's Dream (Act v. Scene i.)

Actually, I uttered these words a few years ago, myself, when I played Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream. 

My mom and I after the show. 

        I just remember telling my mother all about my role, and all she could say was, "You would pick Shakespeare at his most whimsical, wouldn't you? I should've known. It's like Alice in Wonderland for people who think they're high-brow." 

            Now, to be fair, I wouldn't say that exactly. Many of the themes are completely different. However, my mom did have a point about the draw of the play for me--- the dream-like nature of it. Any chance I had to escape "the real world" was sought with vigor when I was younger. I was one of those overly-optimistic types that thought that love and creativity and equality of all were possible if I just created it within my reality--- whether with man, animal, or woodland nymph. All I had to do was become a channel for those things. Moreover, becoming Puck meant becoming a fairy"ish" thing, half-man/half-creature (of which I am neither, by conventional definition). It required a huge stretch of the imagination. I found myself asking why he would say the things he would say. What would he be feeling at this point in the play? And now? How would he react? Who is he as a person? I had to become someone else-- much like children do when they are playing pretend or dress-up or whatever, but more cerebrally. I had to know what it was to be him. (If I harken back to earlier in our course readings, I'm reminded of the quote that you could never know what it means to be a bat, only what it eats and sees and looks like, etc.) So, there's much to be said for transporting one's self into a new world in which one must internalize a character, and I certainly had to forsake my own sense of what the world is and who I was to play Puck back then. And I don't remember ever thinking... "but I can't understand this, I'm human. This isn't my world." Nor do I remember an audience member ever coming up to me and saying that they didn't get why things happened as they did in this topsy-turvy reality we had created. So I suppose that that brings me to Alice. 

"Carroll does not invite Alice (and us) to learn human lessons from animal mouths, but rather to consider that animals might ALWAYS have had a voice that we have neglected to hear." (Bump) Classic.That would totally be me, chasing after the rabbit without much thought of consequences or the "why's." I was that kid who talked to animals more than other little kids. However, rather than putting daisy-chains on them and trying to make them fit into my world, I was usually the one who would kick off my shoes and try to get into their world. Throughout the course of my childhood I think I tried chirping, meowing, barking, lowing--- the whole nine yards. Doesn't really surprise you, though, does it? 

                So, perhaps, arguably, that's the common theme that made me draw some kind of linear relationship between Alice and Puck. After all, suspension of disbelief and transformation are two very big overarching ideas thrown around in the works. Now, I've always had a rather confusing relationship with Alice... and Carroll, for that matter. I love Alice for a multitude of reasons, including those listed in Professor Bump's analysis, for example, my appreciation that "it is the promise of a new perspective that sends her forward, and it is her preconceptions, particularly about animals, that she must leave behind." That's pretty much what I always took away from it. I loved the animals. I loved the whimsy. I loved the idea of a world turned upside down, in which reality was tenuous and anything was possible. You know? Even if everyone treated each other in ways that I did not understand and was slightly scared of, I still thought it interesting and wonderful.  

Suffering with the animal, knowing that pain consciously, feeling it, acknowledging it openly and directly, most of us will be less likely to inflict it on other animals, and more likely to take action against those who do.  It's high time I look at those little honking critters and feel for them--- as much as I say it, it's time to act. Lord knows, I give myself very good advice, but very seldom follow it. 

           But this is where I hit a wall as a young adult. I think part of me still wants to be that child. For one, I dislike that I am much more firmly rooted in the world (the bills to pay, looking professional at work, just generally meeting the demands a society who has the power to change my future makes on me). Perhaps "society" as I have called it has a hard time trusting Carroll. Like the Bluest Eye, in which Morrison said that the initial narration by a child "'gives the reader pause about whether the voice of children can be trusted at all or is more trustworthy than an adult's."
               That adds an entire other layer of complexity to my view of Alice. For one, I've always identified with her in a few ways.  So, it's dificult for me to look back now and call Alice cruel, playing "cat and mouse" with the mouse and threatening him, or playing croquet with the flamingo mallet or kicking poor Bill up through the chimney. I guess I really didn't think of that as pain at that point. I, too, would try to cart my pets around in my wagon as we went off on adventures. I would give them human voices and expect human things of them, patting them on the nose when they did something "bad," or at least joking that I would. I was suspended in a world where there was pain wasn't really a reality and events like that were just humor and absurdity. Of course, I, as a kid, it might have been argued, hadn't developed a sense of morality. Whether I was acting out of fear, wanting to exert my power because I felt like I had very little power ("now that she is large again, her first reaction is intimidation and violence), or I was avoiding my actual feelings ("Psychologically speaking, Alice’s apparent sadism derives from her denial of her feelings, reflecting the denial of her readers.") But I don't feel like I was immoral. 
                It was all wrapped up in a world of such outlandish ridiculousness-- however, as somebody who fondly remembers doing weird, random things like coming up with cock-and-bull stories that were random and made no sense to my family--- I look at this fondly and have to compare who I was then to who I am now in the context of my behavior towards things. For I had to learn the "ways" of this world from society, from my mom, from people telling me this hurts them, "No, no!" or that's right or that's how it is in this world. Etc. Etc. Etc. 
               And now I watch my family members teaching my nieces and nephews about the world, and I, wanting them to retain their childish wonder and enthusiasm and outlandishness for as long as possible, will encourage all their weird and subversive behaviors (much to the chagrin of their nonsupporting mothers).

“Carroll's parodies are fundamentally serious,” occupying “that ‘space of play’ for child readers described by Cosslett, ‘in which boundaries could potentially be transgressed.’"Lovell-Smith

We have tea parties. We write poems. We play chess. We play "house." We play with their kittens (and discuss how the kitten feels).We read copious amounts of literature. (Which, in the course of this, we somehow spend more time talking about the moral dilemmas in the books, ending up in 2-hour long conversations about all the issues that have come up during the course of our reading than what the book's actually about.) 

And I have to think, "this is how it happens." This is one of those fundamental points of change in her life where she's learning how to maneuver what she's going to have to face in her life. I actually am that channel of love and compassion and creativity that I thought I could be as an actress (whether I succeeded or failed I guess is up to the individuals who saw me.) 

So I guess if my niece ever sits down because she can't fit through a door and cries a river of tears like Alice did, 4 inches deep, I'll support that. ( Granted, she knows why she's crying.) Or when she cries because fictional animals die in movies, I'll take that as a great sign of her sympathetic imagination. 
But I do not mean to make light of this. "Life chances hang in the balance."

Ervin Goffman: “By definition, of course, we believe the person with a stigma is not quite human. On this assumption we exercise varieties of discrimination, through which we effectively, if often unthinkingly, reduce his life chances” (1963,         5-6; cf. Davis 29).

I would never want to reduce anyone's life chances. What is the opposite of blind discrimination then? Love? Many have said so (including Bump). I suppose it is love that I will teach her, then. Love, indeed. What a simple, but unbelievably preposterous idea--- love. (which, as many have pointed out, is a misdefined word) I suppose when I read her Alice the next time, we'll have to discuss why Alice is behaving the way she is, (as I mentioned before, suppression of feelings, fear, discrimination, the power imbalance) and then we'll bake some kitty treats for her kitten Mittens. This sounds like a plan. 

"After this I'll think nothing of falling down stairs."

Cruelty and Sadism

Why be cruel? Why does there have to be a weak and a strong? Why must there be a winner and a loser in the power dynamic? 

Because they can? 

That really isn't satisfying enough. That doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Even with human psychology saying that in certain individuals, the pleasure center of the brain is more excited when they see others in pain, this still doesn't really get at why people act upon these impulses, for "the mere act of thinking compassionate thoughts caused significant activity and physical changes in the brain's empathic pathways" (622) as well. 

I mean, I'm sure the pleasure center of my brain is firing off five million times stronger/faster when I'm eating brownies, but it's not as if my delight in brownies means that I can't deny myself of them. There is a certain amount of self-awareness and autonomy and choice that has to be involved, as well. 

So let's look at some of the definitions of sadism (and schadenfreude) as defined in these works then, shall we? 

The "impulse to acquire unrestricted power over another person?" (606) "Need for power and control?" (619)

I'm still unsatisfied. "Power" is too ambiguous a word. I mean, in reality, there are as many expressions of power as there are individuals. For example, to say that I will exert my will on you [il.e. manhandle you into sitting in a chair] because I want to prove that I have power over you is physical, real, tangible. However, this idea of power is an idea and only exists in one's affirmation of it.

After all, it is not as if all of our definitions of power are the same. For one it may just mean feeling a semblance of physical security in which nobody would be able to hurt you. For another, power may mean that they are able to do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it (without consequence). You see? Think about your own idea of power. Does it involve other people? Or just a feeling of autonomy, in which there is possibility? I mean, yes this is a very vague notion, but in my defense, the "irrational perception" of someone else taking something from me by their actions or existence is a rather vague notion, too (no matter how real it feels to the person).

Look at the reasons demonstrated here: 

1.  I have to lash out at this person because something about them is threatening to me physically or my perception of self, etc. In this case the ""victim is a personified representative of a variety of irrationally perceived threats." (606)
2. The perpetrator is simply not thinking or feeling at all. They have completely disconnected themself emotionally and mentally from what they are doing. If one"cant bear the pain caused by their own empathy," choosing rather to feel nothing at all," then exertion of self becomes an act against others, one in which good/bad/pain/pleasure don't really matter. Even beyond that, inflicting pain becomes a self-actualizing analysis of identity to test "the boundaries of their own desensitization." (620)
3. Somebody with authority told you to, and you're afraid for yourself, or if you've never been taught to question authority, you just don't question it at all. 
4. Somebody you love asked you to do it. "I am resolved to venture body and soul to do as you would have me" even as "my conscience flies in my face as often as I think of wronging her." (615) Such is the case with Ann Gill, the love of Tom Nero. 
5. Repetition and utility. You have been told that doing this sadistic thing will somehow benefit a select group of people. Consider the dissectors of Tom Nero, whose "hearts hardened after years of working with cadavers" (616) * Still, I would love to point out the irony that humans have this need to punish others that have done wrong, even if not to them. Consider how many people believe in the death penalty who have no tangible connection to any criminal or the penal system. I mean, where does that come from in us, when, after all, historically speaking, murderers and most thieves were being tried by the "state," not humans. The state is meant to be impartial and just, is it not? Why, then do we insert our desire to inflict pain on those who inflict pain? As someone who doesn't share that belief, I really don't know, other than that is what they've been taught is right. Feel free to talk to me about it anybody. I really am curious.  Perhaps we could add
6. Revenge to the list. "God's Revenge against the Murderer" (615) I mean, even entities that should in know way bear resemblance to our base human emotions we give violent tendencies like "revenge." 
7. "Abuse reactive" behaviors in which individuals "re-enact what has been done to them either with younger siblings or pets" in order to maintain a semblance of control in an environment in which they very often do not feel like they have control because they are very often being physically or emotionally imposed upon. (620)
8. The behavior is socially acceptable or legal, and we're willing to put aside whatever we think is right because it's socially acceptable. 
9. When our own needs are compromised, we become selfish, and are not willing to consider someone else's pain above our own. (Consider the Stanford experiment.) 

We're strange, convoluted creatures, aren't we, then? On one hand, we recognize that what we are doing made us feel bad, but then we inflict that upon others in order to understand the action, because before it just felt like something happening TO us. Think about it. That 1980's study in which "7-to-10-year-old children named on average two pets when listing the 10 most important individuals in their lives" (620) had to include children who would grow up to inflict pain knowingly on others, statistically speaking. Yet we are capable of such bad things. People who shut themselves off in the ultimate form of isolation (and sadism ceratinly does seem to be a way of protecting yourself from everyone else around you) often act that way because they know they can get away with it in their community (i.e. they're still acknowledging being a part of the group). 

I guess I'm just a big advocate of questioning why you do things to understand it, through thought, not action. For example, the "crush" videos really bother me, not because they're a fetish. In fact, all power to responsible practicers of BDSM who are aware that that form of expression will make them happy without infringing upon another. All power to you! But these "crush" videos, along with a few other various sexual preferences that I don't need to go into detail about now, don't seem to really question the where's or why's or outcomes of their preferences. They just know they like it, and that's a good enough reason for them--- no further thought as to what that says about them as a person, or better yet, how their expression of that interacts with the outside world.

Anyway, I've digressed. I suppose that I will leave you with this final thought:

"Prisoners suffered--- and accepted--- sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress led them from rebellion to inhibition." (608)

There's two parts to the violence, which equals acceptance and perpetuation. That is the problem. 

"Dismayed by official military and government efforts shifting the blame from the torture and abuses in the Abu Ghraib American military prison on to "a few bad apples" rather than acknowledging it as possibly systemic problems of a formally established military incarceration system." (609)

I'm with her. I seek to understand--- not judge. I will not be an  "idle onlookers" (618) like the people watching a dog burn in the middle of Baltimore. 

So, do we make laws to make people behave better or to represent people since clearly we want to think well of ourselves and ignore our "dark side"?

Dame Jane Goodall: A Life

"Only if we understand, can we care.  

Only if we care, we will help. Only if 

we help, we shall be saved." — Jane Goodall (Jane Goodall: 40 Years at Gombe)

Young Jane Goodall and her stuffed monkey, Jubilee, courtesy of
www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/goo1gal-1

A Child’s Dream

She closes her eyes, feels the breeze hit her face, and she is there--- Africa. The balmy midday air washes over her cheeks, caresses her closed eyelids, and ruffles her hair. She opens her pale blue eyes to the brilliance. Over the horizon, she can just make out the figure of a giraffe browsing in the acacias. Acacias, right? She had read that somewhere--- that giraffes eat the leaves of acacia trees. Had it been Tarzan or Dr. Doolittle? It mattered very little, for just then her wandering thoughts are cutoff by the echo of a lion’s call resounding over the plain. So this is Africa. It is pure magic, just as her 6 year-old imagination had created it to be. In the reality of 1942 England, the little girl who would one day become known as “Dame” Jane Goodall dreamed of traveling to this far-off land to study animals in the wild. Little did she know that she would one day realize this goal and far more.

More than fifty years later and an ocean away, in the foreign land of Texas, another little girl lives vicariously through Jane’s writing. Kathleen Hoffman has been reading her daughter, Mariah, In the Shadow of Man by Jane Goodall--- or Auntie Jane, as she had been affectionately dubbed in the Hoffman household, where she was a talked about at during dinner conversation like an old, familiar friend: 

Jane in Gombe during her first few years of research. 

“Did she really do all that Mama? She went out into the wild all by herself and just lived out there so she could watch them in their natural habitat? Oh, she was so brave, Mama. And she did all that when she was so young. Her twenties? I mean, Damian's nineteen, for goodness's sake. Mama, do you think I could ever do something like that, I mean, really? I could study, let’s see, hyenas. Or--- or I could go to Australia. They have koalas there. Ooh, ooh, or I could go to Borneo with the macaques.”

“Slow down there, Sweetie. Clearly I need curb your National Geographic consumption. Well, we’ll figure out where you are going first, and then you can go off to traipse across the world and save all the animals. Ok? Until then, you just sit tight and eat your macaroni and cheese.” 

Jane and Vanne Goodall in their camp in Gombe.  

“Fine, but you know, you can come, too. Jane’s mom went with her to Gombe and worked with her in camp. I read that somewhere, I think. We can just run away together, Mama, what do you say?” 

“Thank you for the offer, Sweetie, but right now, your macaroni’s getting cold. Eat.”                ......... 

That was the end of that conversation. However, there were many more to come, and as that little girl grew up and matured--- as I have grown and matured--- or at least learned to fake that I have grown and matured,  my appreciation for the road Jane Goodall has paved before me and the work she has done has grown as well.

Come to Life

For Jane Goodall has a remarkable story that needs to be told. Of course, like me, her love for animals started at a relatively young age. She snuck into chicken coops to see how hens really lay eggs when she was four or five. She carried around her bosom buddy, the stuffed chimpanzee Jubilee, everywhere she went.She daydreamed and imagined a life in the wild, preferring the outdoors to the stuffiness inside the classroom. 

 However, her physical adventures began after graduating high school l in 1952. As she could not not afford to go to university, resilient and flexible as she was, Goodall worked as a secretary instead,  for a time at Oxford University typing documents and then later for a London filmmaking company choosing music for documentaries. It was during this time that she made better acquaintance with Clo Mange, who would provide Jane with a chance to change her life forever. In May 1956, the winds of change felicitously blew Jane Goodall southward when she was invited to Clo's family's farm in Kenya. Her dream of going to Africa was within her grasp. So Jane jumped on the opportunity, quitting her London job, she moved back home and worked as a waitress to save enough money for boat fare.

In the wild: Jane watching the chimps from afar, before she had
earned the group's full trust. 

On April 2, 1957, at the age of 23, Jane took the long boat ride to Kenya. While there, somebody encouraged her to talk to anthropologist and palaeontologist Dr. Louis S. B. Leakey, who was in Kenya at the time doing research. With gumption and moxie, she telephoned him, thinking she would make an appointment to pick his brain and discuss animals at the very most.

However, Jane managed to impress Leakey with her knowledge of Africa and its wildlife to the extent that he hired her as his assistant. She traveled  with Leakey and his wife, archaeologist Mary Leakey, to Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania on a fossil-hunting expedition. 

Lucem et pocula sacra.  From this place,
we gain enlightenment and precious knowledge.
The motto of Cambridge-- Goodal's alma mater.

Leakey, seeing her potential, convinced her of the importance of an education and how it would legitimize her work.Therefore, helped along by her patron, she was sent off to Cambridge University, and became theeighth person to be allowed study for a Ph.D without first obtaining a BA or B.Sc.

Upon her return to Africa in the summer of 1960, her sense of adventure and indomitable determination brought her to the shores of Lake Tanganyika, to observe the wild chimpanzees at Gombe Stream. Other scientists did not believe that a 26-year-old woman could survive alone in the bush. She was a young woman working in a mature man’s field in the “savage” wilds of Africa. She was risking life and limb and scientific credibility carrying on the way she did, yet she stayed true to her course and braved the elements. Jane Goodall did more than survive.

Goodall makes a young friend.
"A handshake is a sign of candor." ~Kafka
"A Report to an Academy"

 Her work revolutionized the field of primatology. Through her years of observation, she had tested the methods of science, and made new discoveries. Where the field had promoted as little intervention as possible, she had learned to communicate and coexist with her troop.  She was criticized for stepping in and saving chimps from hunters or feeding the chimps who visited camp, but to this she replied with the simple answer that one cannot study chimps in their natural habitat if humans are hunting them, they are starving, or if they are dead. Even now, she defends herself with reserve and confidence when her fellow researchers question how biased or involved or subjective her data might be. She brought an emotional component to science that had never been truly advocated.  In her research, she was observant,  open-minded, and empathetic despite long-held beliefs in the scientific community, in particular, about what animals (particularly chimps) were like or what her role was to be in their lives. She tested conventions, not so interested in solving mysteries as preserving welfare. Moreover, without the strict background in biology or primatology of proper schooling, she described what she saw, not what she was supposed to see. There was an honesty and humility in her work that was unbound by desire for scientific acclaim or proving her knowledge. Rather, her relationship was built on a desire for understanding in a much more personal way. 

  For example, she developed special relationships with her troop. Instead of numbering the chimpanzees she observed, she gave them names such as Fifi and David Greybeard, and observed them to have unique and individual personalities, an unconventional idea at the time. She found that, “it isn’t only human beings who have personality, who are capable of rational thought [and] emotions like joy and sorrow.”^[1] She also observed behaviors such as hugs, kisses, pats on the back, and even tickling, what we consider "human" actions.^[2] Goodall insists that these gestures are evidence of "the close, supportive, affectionate bonds that develop between family members and other individuals within a community."^[3] These findings suggest similarities between humans and chimpanzees exist in more than genes alone, but can be seen in emotion, intelligence, and family and social relationships. Over the years, she found chimpanzees engaging in activities that were once thought definitively human, such as tool-making, cooperative hunting and even warfare.Her work, the longest continuous field study of any living creature, has forced us to redefine our understanding of what it means to be human, and provided a vital insight into the evolution of our own species.

Goodall speaks to community leaders and 
members about conservation.

After all, as a primatologist, her most vocal subject are humans, themselves, and Goodall's love for man is amazing in itself. Her understanding of the world advocates love and understanding and coexistence for all species, especially those sharing space and resources. For example, while in Gombe, she brought a semblance of human dignity to the communities she encountered there. She never went in telling people what they had to do, but rather asked them what they thought they needed. She launched conservation  and humanitarian projects to local population. Along with her second husband, she helped bring resources such  as educational tools and medical supplies to the people of Gombe, believing improvement in their lives could only better the animals they encountered as well. These ideas have prospered and flourished in these communities. Today, along the shores of Lake Tanganyika in Tanzania, for example, villagers are planting trees where all the trees had disappeared. Women are taking their lives into their own hands, crafting items that can be sold at the market, and obtaining scholarship funding to attend school. Children are also being taught about the dire effects of habitat destruction, about conservation and sustainable living.

Moreover, she has documented her experiences in over thirty books, including a handful of short stories directed at children. Within their pages, not only does she teach ways of understanding and acceptance, and the need for action, but she also speaks of humanity. Her words are simple. Her words are kind. Their power is direct and unobstructed. In fact, it has always baffled me how inviting and personable she comes across in her speeches and books--- as one that would be happy to talk to anyone, to give anyone a chance to speak and be inspired, and she does not attack any institution outright, but opens a dialogue in which one is inspired to make ethical choices on their own terms.  

  

Goodlall gives a speech at UC: Santa Barbara.

Today, at age of seventy-six, Jane Goodall has taken up the banner of many different interrelated causes. She travels the world, campaigning for the humane treatment of all animals and empowering young people in their own efforts to preserve the environment for all living things. As an advocate and United Nations Messenger of Peace, she advocates learning to live in peace and harmony with the whole world--- those who are different from us as well as the natural world and other inhabitants of this world by getting together and working in each of our parts.

Kofi Annan names Goodall a United Nations Messenger of Peace in 2004.

        She is such a talented 
woman. She has shown such patience and endurance throughout her life and career, and it would seem that she sees the big picture- how everything is so interconnected: people, environment, how we live, and our future. In 1977, taking her first steps away from science to advocay,  Goodall established the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI), which supports the Gombe research, and she is a global leader in the effort to protect chimpanzees and their habitats. With nineteen offices around the world, the JGI is widely recognized for innovative, community-centred conservation and development programs in Africa. Yet, she is accessable to anyone. Its global youth program, Roots & Shoots began in 1991 when a group of 16 local teenagers met with Goodall on her back porch in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.s, and is now in hundreds of countries, inspiring thousands of youth. 

Goodall gets her hands dirty working in a zoo in Shanghai with a group of youth from Roots & Shoots.

.

            Now, as a speaker on tour, lecturing to students of all ages and through her organization Roots & Shoots, she has found a way to connect and inspire future generations. The focus is really progressive and forward-thinking.  traveling 300 days a year. She is dedicated beyond belief. I only hope I am as active as she at seventy-six!

A candid shot. 

Going Global

           Today, Goodall devotes virtually all of her time to advocacy on behalf of chimpanzees and the environment, travelling nearly 300 days a year.As former president of Advocates for Animals,she campaigns against the use of animals in medical research, zoos, farming and sport. She cries out for the need of ecological conservation. She sees children as the future of all of these gifts of the world. She urges her audiences to recognize their power and responsibility to effect positive change through consumer action, lifestyle change and activism.
           It is for her initiative, compassion, candor, courage,  self-discipline, flexibility, sense of humor, commitment, sense of justice, the longevity of her career and her endurance, and many other reasons that I love her. She is a scientist, a teacher, a leader, a friend, an ambassador, and an inspiration. She has something to teach us all, I think. Perhaps, I may not yet make it to Africa in my lifetime. Perhaps I will not study animals or make new discoveries about humankind or our relatives, but as she says, I can do my part. And like she, I can be positive and hopeful. That revolutionizing theorist I respected as a child has matured, herself, into a speaker and dynamic advocate for coexistence for my generation. I can promise you that she is sure to be a stand-by in any classroom of mine or to my own children. I guess, in closing, what I really admire is her capacity and ability to look at the world as a whole and work towards and articulate so humbly (yet so profoundly) the ideals of what is best in humanity (or perhaps all life). As she said herself, "We have so far to go to realize our human potential for compassion, altruism, and love." [5]

[1]Jane Goodall's Wild Chimpanzees". PBS. 1996. Retrieved 2011-2-28.
[2]Ibid
[3]Ibid
[4]Ibid
[5] Jane Goodall, Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating (Grand Central Publishing, 2006).

* All photos courtesy of: http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/goo1gal-1. Please check out their site for even more videos and interviews.

Word count:2443
Without titles, captions, or quotes: 2219