Dr. Temple Grandin (PhD in Animal Science) is autistic. Because of her autism she has become a leading authority in helping those who raise and work with animals understand how animals think since autistic humans and animals think so much alike—in pictures rather than words. The author of a half-dozen books, she is also a leading authority on helping autistic children and adults live productively in the "normal" world. Like many autistic people, she is obviously brilliant and sees the world (and especially animals) in ways that "normal" people can't.
I have been captivated by Animals in Translation—Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior. She (along with her co-author Catherine Johnson, PhD in neuropsychiatry) present page after page of fascinating research and insights into the human-animal relationship.
I had to stop and share the following short section from Animals in Translation. She has been talking about "hormones of love"—the familiar ones like testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone, and another less familiar one called oxytocin, more prominent in female animals and humans, but in males as well. Remember when reading this quote: oxytocin is a "hormone of love"—of relational warmth. She says,
I also have (and love the title of) her latest book dealing with animals: Animals Make Us Human—Creating the Best Life for Animals. I was caused to think recently that perhaps one of the primary purposes of animals in creation is to help humans discover who they are. Just as we discover much about ourselves as we measure how others react to us, so maybe we discover things about ourselves as we relate to animals that we would otherwise never know. I don't know what she is going to say about how "animals make us human" but I'm looking forward to finding out.
On the page for this book at Amazon there is a short video of Dr. Grandin talking about this book and some of her views on animals. She is a totally unique person in light of her autism—"normal" yet so different. You'll enjoy watching the video.
ADDENDUM: Someone raised a question about my support for the work of someone who has designed animal-handling systems for the meat packing industry. I should have clarified Temple Grandin's work in this area. She is a scientist who is regularly employed as a consultant to the animal packinghouse industry, designing handling systems that result in better treatment for animals and more efficient operation. Even though her work contributes to the death of countless animals who are killed for human consumption, they are at least treated better because of her expertise. I am not reading her books in support of how she applies her knowledge of animals and humans, but because of how I can (hopefully) apply it. Sorry for not including this information in the original post.
I have been captivated by Animals in Translation—Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior. She (along with her co-author Catherine Johnson, PhD in neuropsychiatry) present page after page of fascinating research and insights into the human-animal relationship.
I had to stop and share the following short section from Animals in Translation. She has been talking about "hormones of love"—the familiar ones like testosterone, estrogen, and progesterone, and another less familiar one called oxytocin, more prominent in female animals and humans, but in males as well. Remember when reading this quote: oxytocin is a "hormone of love"—of relational warmth. She says,
A dog's oxytocin levels rise when his owner pets him, and petting his dog raises the owner's oxytocin, too. I'm sure that's one reason why so many people have dogs in the first place. I don't think anyone has researched this yet, but I expect we'll find that dogs make humans into nicer people and better parents. Oxytocin is definitely important in humans. When women have babies their oxytocin levels shoot up right before the birth, and research shows that those high levels spark maternal warmth and care. Oxytocin produces caring "maternal" behavior in men, too. So for parents, owning and petting a dog is probably like getting a "good parent" shot every day. Dogs are probably good for marriages for the same reason.Science as well as the practical implications. Fascinating stuff. This interestes me because of the consideration I've given of late to the lack of a "theology of animals" among those who were given responsibility by God for caring for them—primarily those who profess to know God. The secular community has done a much better job trying to describe and implement a "theology" (a science) of animals than Christendom has done, and to define the mutually-beneficial relationship that should exist between humans and non-human animals.
I also have (and love the title of) her latest book dealing with animals: Animals Make Us Human—Creating the Best Life for Animals. I was caused to think recently that perhaps one of the primary purposes of animals in creation is to help humans discover who they are. Just as we discover much about ourselves as we measure how others react to us, so maybe we discover things about ourselves as we relate to animals that we would otherwise never know. I don't know what she is going to say about how "animals make us human" but I'm looking forward to finding out.On the page for this book at Amazon there is a short video of Dr. Grandin talking about this book and some of her views on animals. She is a totally unique person in light of her autism—"normal" yet so different. You'll enjoy watching the video.
ADDENDUM: Someone raised a question about my support for the work of someone who has designed animal-handling systems for the meat packing industry. I should have clarified Temple Grandin's work in this area. She is a scientist who is regularly employed as a consultant to the animal packinghouse industry, designing handling systems that result in better treatment for animals and more efficient operation. Even though her work contributes to the death of countless animals who are killed for human consumption, they are at least treated better because of her expertise. I am not reading her books in support of how she applies her knowledge of animals and humans, but because of how I can (hopefully) apply it. Sorry for not including this information in the original post.
Posts
Thanks for this note. I think my experience with animals correlates with the message of the author. Our dogs and cat have both enriched my life and been a sort of mirror into my own personality or soul. They are indeed sensitive and incredibly perceptive-just not in words.
ReplyDeleteIs a "theology of animals" a "Christian zoology"? I didn't understand your use of "theology" in reference to our understanding of animals. Is it that you want to locate your understanding of animals from God's point of view? "Theology of animals" is a new, to me, and different way of saying something. What is it?
Daniel
Yes, I think "theology of animals" is my way of saying, "What is the purpose of animals from God's point of view?" It seems that cultures create their own ways of relating to animals, and Christians just adopt those cultural norms without asking, "What does God think of these norms?"
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in America (the West) people eat cows but not dogs, whereas in the East (Asia) dogs are on the menu, and neither are on the menu in India. Why the difference? It seems to me that if God has a position on what to eat and what not to eat it would apply to all cultures. But because Christians don't have a developed "theology of animals" (they don't know why God created animals and therefore how to relate to them) they just do what the culture does without thinking more deeply about it (for the most part).
I don't have a defined "theology of animals" myself other than believing they weren't created as food for humans. That solves the question of what they're NOT for, but doesn't answer what they ARE for. I have some scattered idea, but any help in answering this is welcomed!
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI didn't include this in the post, but thought of you all's dogs when reading her book. She has much higher praise for "mutts" than for purebreds, as selective breeding creates more problems in animals. She cites fascinating cases of this from her work with farm/food animals that have been selectively bred for specific "advantages" only to then suffer with unforeseen disadvantages.
Example: hens who "forget" how to perform their pre-coital dance that tells roosters they're willing to have sex. The roosters become enraged at the lack of invitation and attack the hens and kill them. "Rapist Roosters" she calls them. No one knows why selective breeding resulted in the hens forgetting how to "dance," but it happens.
Dad, Im sorry to cast a dark cloud over this but Temple Grandin designs slaughterhouse for the meat industry. She is horrible person that disguises slaughter as something acceptable. Here is a great blog on this hypocrite.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abolitionist-online.com/article-issue04_animals.lost.in.translation_dr.coral.hull.shtml
Thanks for the note, Stephen. I'm aware of her background and of her involvement with the animals-for-food industries. I just didn't take time to explain all that in my original post. To her credit, the handling systems she had designed for the slaughter industry have at least resulted in better treatment of the animals both during their confinement at CAFO's and in the killing process.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm reading her books not because I agree with how she applies her knowledge but because of how I can apply it. She has an amazing understanding of how animals think and act, which is what I'd like to know more about. Like you, I wish she used her knowledge to better ultimate ends. But I still appreciate her attitude toward animals as sentient beings deserving of being understood. Reading her books hasn't revealed a person who is callous and insensitive towards animals and their feelings and welfare, but just the opposite. Perhaps one day she'll cross over to the other side and use her knowledge and experience to defend animals' rights to live.
Thanks for the link and raising this issue -- I should have included a more balanced picture of her work in the original post.