Hence, we encounter a significant intersection of ideas. Despite their vastly
differing perspectives, we find that the collision of anthropocentrism,
behaviourism, and animal-sceptical thinking. The scientific discourses of instinct
through which Seton’s and Roberts’ stories were ridiculed may have instigated
the perception of animal ‘unknowability’ that informed their dismissal as
anthropocentric in much literary animal studies work today. This suggests,
therefore, that to some extent we can attribute Seton
’s and Roberts’ ‘fantasy of
knowing’ the animal to the absence of such animal ‘scepticism’ before
behaviourism.
Allmark-Kent 99
Thus, we can begin to perceive the value of practical zoocriticism’s
interdisciplinary approach. Through this detailed re-contextualization, I have
demonstrated that, prior to Seton and Roberts, representations of animals in
Canadian literature were based on the utility of the nonhuman character,
whether as object or anthropomorphic prop. Likewise, their attempts to write
about animals who lived
for their own ends
and
on their own terms
, can now be
understood through Canada’s ineffectual animal welfare and conservation laws.
I have illuminated the shared language of Salt, Seton, and Roberts and
indicated the possibility that they encountered his work (or its impact) while
living abroad. I have also given examples of their direct engagement with
animal advocacy. By exploring the scientific contexts of their work, I have
elucidated the theory of animal mind that informed their stories. In the following
chapter, I will argue that Seton
’s and Roberts’ representations of animal minds
are aligned with Romanes’ work and that, if his criteria are used, they can even
be described as ‘accurate.’ Finally, I have also demonstrated the crucial role of
scientific professionalization in shaping the scientific and literary environments
into which Seton
’s and Roberts’ stories would be received.
Allmark-Kent 100
Dostları ilə paylaş: |