There are animals that we cuddle and those that we eat. In his latest reference work, Attachments, investigation into our bonds beyond the humanthe anthropologist Charles Stépanoff (1) analyzes the evolution of the links we have with animals and our environment. Far away from the breeding grounds on which we are dependent, we turn a blind eye to the reality of this economy. Out of sight but close to the heart, we nevertheless want animal welfare. Even if it means locking it up in zoos to better protect it…
Over the last hundred years, what has changed the most in the relationship between humans and animals?
Animals have almost disappeared from our lives. If we look at our grandparents' farms, we see that they lived with many animals, not just dogs and cats, but for example in the company of the pig, which was present on the farm, which we all fed days, with plants collected along the paths. There were the working horses, the small sheep farms, the farmyard. It was a hybrid community that brought together humans and many other species according to complex links of work, production, and collaboration. And it was not incompatible with maintaining an emotional relationship with the little pig, treated like a baby. Then, when it was big, we killed it, we ate it, we shared it. All this wealth was based on food autonomy. Today, we are much more in the context of a separation, a form of compartmentalization of our relationship with animals: on one side there are the animals that feed us, and on the other the animals that we love. Our pets are carriers of affect, while “production” animals are seen as a source of food.
We would therefore be less concerned by our animal environment?
When we live in the city, we can have a rich relationship with a garden, a park, pigeons that we feed, pets… But the metabolic dimension, the supply, have been transferred elsewhere. We have camouflaged and delegated everything that makes us dependent on our living environment, by entrusting it to the food industry.
Why is it more difficult for us to kill a domestic animal than a wild animal?
Because we are empathetic predators: humans are undoubtedly the greatest predators on the planet, but unlike the wolf or the tiger, they are capable of having emotions for the animal they kill, of being dazzled by the beauty of a deer, to feel affection for a cow. This is a paradox that was not resolved with domestication. This is why we are not going to eat our meat alone. Killing a pig was a collective act among the peasantry. It was shared, that is to say, a family gave a ham to its neighbor, who in turn would give it back to them when they slaughtered their own animal. What distinguishes humans is this notion of sharing. “It’s the lions that eat by themselves”say the San peoples of South Africa!
So what is the balance between empathy and predation?
Every human society tries to find it, and it is not easy. There is no single solution for all humans. Among some peoples, this translates into rituals of apology to the animals and trees that are felled. These are ethical rules of moderation established in order to avoid waste. We feel compassion for the animal we eat, but we don't want it to die for nothing! Another way, the most common today, consists of hiding the affair, by camouflaging the act of violence and entrusting it to the workers working in the slaughterhouses. The slaughterhouse was a modern way of solving the problem of the empathetic predator. It is the place where humans secretly prey on animals that they have raised themselves.
But we nevertheless claim to care more and more about animal welfare…
This issue of animal welfare is a double-edged sword, because very often, it is an argument used by the industry to make industrial farming acceptable. We are making efforts to grant half an extra square meter for the pig… The specifications for slaughterhouses, for example, are today very bureaucratic and favor the industry. Across France, municipal slaughterhouses became economically unviable because they were unable to meet these regulatory requirements. This is not necessarily a gain for the animals, because it involves more transport whereas previously, they could be slaughtered in their communities. The animals thus travel hundreds of kilometers, in trucks, in intercontinental and maritime transport, which constitutes a terrible source of stress for them.
On the ground, is the cohabitation of wolves with modern livestock farming a utopia?
It is indeed difficult. I worked for quite a long time in Siberia, where I conducted studies on the subject. There, things coexist well! The reason is simple: the wolf has never disappeared and has not been reintroduced, as is the case with us. Above all, breeders have the right to protect themselves against a wolf that causes damage. Some wolves are a problem, others are not. Breeders in Siberia do not feel hatred towards wolves in general. On the contrary, since they consider it a sacred animal. But if he takes too many ewes or lambs, the breeder has the right to kill him. It is a right of self-defense. Which does not exist here, and which our breeders demand. I think that if this right existed, it could actually pacify these relations, because today's breeders feel like they are under a constraint imposed on them by people in the cities.
The evolution of zoos today makes it possible to save endangered species.
We therefore end up locking up animals to protect them…
The zoo has always played an important role in the knowledge of animals. The menagerie of the king's garden, which became a natural history museum in Paris, under the Ancien Régime, was a place for collecting animals. It made it possible to study their anatomy, but it also had a conservation role. We could see this for example with the Przewalski horse, considered a wild horse and which was kept only in zoos. If it was able to be reintroduced in Mongolia, it is thanks to zoos and in particular to the Jardin des Plantes in Paris. These places therefore play a very important scientific role, but also an educational role to make children aware of the richness of wildlife. The zoo, contrary to what one might think, has a bright future.
1. Charles Stépanoff is an anthropologist, director of studies at the School of Advanced Studies in Social Sciences and co-founder of the École paysanne de Lignerolles.
To read: Attachments, investigation into our bonds beyond the human, editions La Découverte, 640 pages, 27 euros.
