Yesterday one of my facebook contacts posted a youtube video. In the comment regarding the post he wrote “pobre burrito” (poor little donkey)...the video was about an advertising stunt organized by local entrepreneurs who sent a donkey into the sky on a parachute. The video is sad…you can hear the donkey crying with fear as he flies to the sky, and apparently, nobody knows where the poor animal landed, or if it is dead or alive. Most likely the donkey did not survive the landing, it seems like the whole stunt was very poorly thought through, not to mention morally wrong.
Chapter V of Crime and Punishment
As I read this “poor little donkey” post, I found myself going back to one of the scenes of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment. The scene is not one of those crucial scenes, which defines the entire plot in the book, however Dostoevsky uses rich description and attention to detail in the narrative of this particular passage. The scene plays out a dream, which is perhaps a distant memory of Raskolnikov, the main character; it describes the death of an old mare in the hand of six drunken men.
Raskolnikov dreams of himself as a young boy who is walking by a tavern, near that tavern was an area where carts with horses stood waiting for passengers. In his dream, a group of drunken men – including the cart owner – came out of the tavern. The cart owner intended to take the group of men in his cart…however the burden proved too much for a 20-year-old horse. The owner of the cart in his drunken anger took a shaft and beat the mare with it, inviting his five companions to do so as well. When onlookers protested in outrage, the owner replied by saying “it is my property”. The rest of the scene reads as follows;
“Mikolka brought the shaft down with a swinging blow. There was a sound of a heavy thud. “Thrash her, thrash her! Shouted voices in the crowd. And Mikolka swung the shaft a second time on the spine of the luckless mare. She sank back on her haunches, but lurched forward and tugged forward with all her force…but six whips were attacking her in all directions, and the shaft was raised again and fell upon her a third time, then a fourth, with heavy measured blows. Mikolka was in fury that he could not kill her in one blow. ‘She’s a tough one’ was shouted in the crowd. ‘She’ll fall in a minute’ said an admiring spectator in the crowd. ‘Fetch an axe to her! Finish her off’ shouted a third one…” (pg. 56).
The cruelty goes on and the mare eventually dies in incredible agony in the eyes of onlookers who seemed to be entertained by the suffering of the mare and whose excitement resembles those of children standing around a living piñata. This scene is one of the hardest ones for me to ever read…and frankly, I wondered the purpose behind Dostoevsky’s treatment of this issue his book. The scene was described as one embedded in Raskolnikov’s (the main character’s) memory…and it is embedded in my memory too.
When I read the above scene -which as I mentioned earlier is not necessarily essential in the development of the main plot- I wondered about the reason why Dostoevsky would spend a significant amount of detail in describing the dream? Obviously the author is trying to make a point…but what is it?
The significance of a Raskolnikov’s dream
The book Crime and Punishment in spite of being about a crime, is not necessarily a murder mystery novel; the reader knows exactly when, where and by whom the crime is committed. Dostoevsky’s main interest is not to create suspense through his story, but to describe the moral awakening of Raskolnikov, the young man who commits the murder; the narrative of the book follows the main character’s line of reasoning and the emotional states he experiences as a result of his thoughts and actions.
At the beginning of the book, Raskolnikov is described as an extremely handsome ex-law-student who due to financial difficulties had to interrupt his studies. Nevertheless, in spite of being poor to the point of almost-starvation, Raskolnikov is an intellectually proud man who regarded himself as a superhuman, beyond good and evil. Raskolnikov’s intellectual pride is manifested in his disdain for people whom he considers intellectually and morally inferior to him, such as Alyona Ivanova -a rich old woman who was a pawnbroker by trade. Ivanova is described as a woman who is “spiteful and uncertain” (62), and has amassed great wealth by practicing usury.
Raskolnikov devices a plan to kill the woman and steal her money, he convinces himself that due to his intellectual and moral superiority, it would better serve justice if someone like him who is not selfish and senseless (like Ivanova) used the money. He anticipates that due to his sound reasoning, he is going to be able to kill the old woman, take her money and have no conflict of conscience. Dostoevsky describes how Raskolnikov uses an axe in order to murder both Alyona and his sister Lizaveta. The author describes the main character’s mental state during the murders as a highly irrational state of mind. He writes “but a sort of blankness, even dreaminess, had begun by degrees to take possession of [Raskolnikov]” (pg. 77).
In my opinion, Dostoevsky’s choice of words in describing Raskolnikov’s state of mind as “dreaminess” is highly significant; it takes the reader back to the dream in which the mare is killed by an irrational mob…to a dream, where better judgment and morality are absent, and a senseless act of cruelty is encouraged by screams who say “Fetch an axe to her! Finish her off” (pg. 56). It seems to me, that Dostoevsky draws a parallel between the moral states of the drunken men who commit senseless acts of cruelty against animals with that of a murderer…I tend to agree with him.
The Case for Animal Rights
In a review article titled “Animal Rights: The Need for a Theoretical Basis”, Martha Nussbaum recounts how a Roman leader once staged a combat between gladiators and elephants. The elephants were put in an enclosed arena and were surrounded and attacked by armed men whose only purpose was to prove their superiority in combat against the elephants…The poor animals perceived that they had no hope of escape, and the historian who documents this event, narrates how the elephants in their despair turned to the audience, pleading with indescribable gestures for their compassion. The audience was moved to sympathy and outrage and they rose to oppose this spectacle of cruelty. The audience felt that these animals, in spite of not being humans, still had had a relation of commonality with the human race. (Nussbaum, 2001: 1506). I believe most of us, had we had the opportunity to be in that arena and witness those events, would have reacted with the same outrage and promptness against the cruelty displayed on that occasion.
Unfortunately, we don’t need to go back in time and stand in the roman arena, in order to witness animal cruelty. Activities such as dog fighting, cockfighting, bullfighting and other types of entertainment display various levels of cruelty against beings that on some level share a commonality with us.
Back to Dostoevsky and the Story of Mary Ellen Wilson
Like I mentioned earlier, I tend to agree with Dostoevsky; there are parallels to be drawn between the moral state of those who participate and enjoy acts of cruelty against animals, and those who commit immoral acts against people. Furthermore, I believe it is possible that the rights of animals and those of humans can coexist in a moral continuum.
Some people maintain that the welfare of animals is secondary and not relevant to the welfare of humans, and that we should pay attention solely to the welfare of humans if we want to build just and ethical societies. However I believe that a just and ethical society needs to include value framework in which animal welfare provisions are established.
My final point is a story that will provide illustration for my the above-statement; Mary Ellen Wilson was a young girl who in 1874 was found to be systematically abused and neglected by her parents.
At that time, there was no child protection legislation in place. The lawyers and social workers were at a loss, because they wanted to help this girl, but the law provided no grounds for prosecuting her parents. After much thought, the lawyers found a way to help this girl. In spite of lacking child protection legislation, the city had enacted laws protecting animals against abuse…this law gave the lawyers grounds for legal action; the parents could be prosecuted for mistreating their daughter by pleading the girl was a member of the animal kingdom.
Human and non-human animal rights are not in conflict with each other, history shows us that they are complementary to each other...however, these issues are not going to be resolved until societies start creating institutional support for the promotion of animal welfare. Legal, institutional frameworks will not only prevent unfortunate incidents such as the unscrupulous acts of advertisers who put a terrified donkey in the air with a parachute without regard for its welfare, they will also reinforce broader mechanisms which ensure justice for people, for you and me.
References:
Fyodor Dostoevsky. Crime and Punishment. Bantam Books (New York: 1987).
Martha C. Nussbaum Reviewed work(s): Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals by Steven M. Wise Harvard Law Review, Vol. 114, No. 5 (Mar., 2001), pp. 1506-1549.
Story of Mary Ellen Wilson (http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/etta-wheeler-account.html).
Other Useful Sites:
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_states/index.php
