Gaze of Animals, Essay Example

In his review, Armstrong examines Berger’s theory about human-animal relationship. Looking at a Sumatran tiger, the author notices that the animal does not look at humans: they are not in their natural environment, so the relationship between animals and humans do not exist at all.

Further on in the essay, Armstrong compares Berger’s and Derrida’s theories about the meaning of human gaze: he asks the question whether it has any meaning, or it is just a part of human environment reflected in consciousness. Next, the author reviews the historical perspectives of animal gaze. He concludes that humans’ description of animal gaze always included some kind of assumption, such as the belief that the gaze of the wolf would dumb the human. The article also concludes that humans always attempted to find a connection between appearance and characteristics. In the Enlightenment, authors, especially Descartes focused on the rules of physics and mathematics, and ignored “irrational assumptions”. The emotional charge of nonhuman gaze returned during Romanticism, when Poe wrote the “Raven” and “The Black Cat”. Beliefs and mysticism returned during this period, and appearance and character of animals became connected again.

One of the main conclusions of the article is that the interpretation of human-animal relationship is always dependent on the concepts surrounding humanity and the behavior of animals.

Article Analysis

The main line of thought within the essay of Armstrong is based on Berger’s theory of animal gaze. In particular, the author is interested in how humans perceive the animals surrounding them. The main argument of Berger that keeps on returning in references is that in the 20^th Century, animals do not exist in their “original forms”. They are in zoos, or cartoons, and human perception is based on assumptions and stereotypes. Indeed, the fact that humans’ perception of different animals have always depended on the theoretical background of the author is an interesting thought. The author clearly demonstrates the fact that humans often reflected either their knowledge, beliefs, or perceptions of animals in their description of animal gaze. Romanticism surrounded different animals with an air of mysticism, while later theorists, like Derrida explain that animal gaze is simply an environment and a reflection. A human’s self-perception can be deconstructed and reconstructed based on the different reflections. Animal gaze is one of these reflections.

Regarding the analysis of Derrida’s theories, it is interesting to note that Armstrong highlights the fact that a simple gaze itself can be considered a way of interaction and communication. This way, language is not restricted to humans’ ability to speaking.

Culture indeed influences humans’ perception animals’ gaze. It is evident that the gaze of a cow on television would be interpreted in a different way by an animal activist and a farmer. Armstrong (190) also mentions that humans are trying to reconnect with animals, and recreate the same relationship the species once had. Hence, they create zoos, cartoons, and support ecotourism. In a way, understanding animals’ gaze (or language, as Derrida describes it) is another way of understanding ourselves as species. For Berger, animals do not exist in the modern age any more, but they are created as spectacle, attraction, companion, or livestock. Animals of today are the creation of modernity, according to Berger’s theory. The fact that postmodernity still features animal gaze and tries to explain humans’ self-perception through it means that it is still one of the reflections of humanity that takes people closer to understanding themselves.

Works Cited

Armstrong, P. The Gaze of Animals. In: Theorizing Animals. Ed. Nicola Taylor and Tania Signal. pp. 175-199. 2011. Print.