How to Be Animal: A New History of What It Means to Be Human

By Melanie Challenger (2021)

The first few sentences of the book sum up Challenger’s argument beautifully, and my fascination with it:

“The world is now dominated by an animal that doesn’t think it’s an animal. And the future is being imagined by an animal that doesn’t want to be an animal. This matters.”

Before I begin, I must admit that I am still reading this book. Therefore, I am cheating and not running this imaginary book club very well. Nonetheless, I still have an emotional stake and a theoretical take which I intend to delight my imaginary readers with.

“Do you think you are an animal?”

What does it mean to be animal? What does animal actually mean? A simple internet search¹ breaks the definition down to mean:

• A living multicellular organisms in the biological kingdom Animalia,
• An animal as opposed to a human being,
• “A person without human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive”

This brings me to Challenger’s first sentence:

“The world is now dominated by an animal that doesn’t think it’s an animal.”

As a living multicellular organism that belongs to the kingdom of Animalia, as a human, I am an animal who is opposed to being an animal. Humans may not think themselves as animals, but we also don’t want to be animals. I know there are some exceptions to this generalisation (i.e. I quite like knowing I am an animal). But throughout her book, Challenger clearly breaks down the human and animal oppositional belief that is core to our (Western) cultural way of thinking.

The reason I write about it here is because this relationship (human and non-human) is key to my research. As how we think about the more-than-human world shapes our lifestyles, our decisions and how we engage with climate change, ecological crises and social justice.

“Are you superior to animals?”

From the teachings of religion that have told us humans have souls and animals don’t through to Darwin’s theory of evolution, there is a core belief that humans are different to and more than animals. This is because of the understanding that we have abilities that are more advanced than animals. Challenger begins the book with the quote from Darwin below (I have read more than the first page!),

“Man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system – with all these exalted powers – Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin. “

Charles Darwin

Darwin’s theories challenged religious beliefs by suggesting that (hu)man came from the same “lowly origin” as the rest of the animal kingdom. Most likely some single-celled bacteria-like creature somewhere. Darwin, therefore, argued against the religious creation story. However, his theories do not disprove the religious dualism of human and animal. Instead it introduces a new secular way to justify it: the separation of human’s “noble” cognitive qualities – “our god-like intellect” – from our “bodily frame”, which is the unfortunate “inedible stamp” of our low animal origins.

Challenger explains our ability to contemplate our emotions and physical reactions theoretically validates the separation of our rational minds from our bodies. It is our bodies and their irritating irrational emotions that are characterised as “animal”. This cognitive solution to dualism, as Challenger refers to it, maintains a hierarchal way of thinking that enables the idea of human exceptionalism, that humans are superior to animal due to their noble intellectual capabilities.

“Does this matter?”

“And the future is being imagined by an animal that doesn’t want to be an animal. This matters.”

Yes, is my simple answer.

Challenger describes how dualism between humans and the more-than-human world reflects the binary relationship we have with our bodies – the human rational mind and lowly animal bodies. She goes on to explain that these beliefs may have severe consequences. If we as a species base our worth on our mental capabilities, we risk creating a worth or value based hierarchal system within society. This could causes the very moral problem Challenger refers to as our paradoxical fear of being animal.

Here I the definition the delights of the internet supplied me with above when searching for ‘animal’:

“A person without human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive”

Our (Western) society has traditionally functioned according to a hierarchy where humans intelligence or cognitive attributes are placed above bodily qualities. In this social hierarchy, we value rational intelligence as most important as it is least reliant on methods of knowledge that may be more closely linked to our body, emotions and the more-than-human world. Those at the top are therefore more human than other persons, who are consequently more animal. Thus the higher ranking humans are ‘justified’ in their superiority, not only over the more-than-human world but over other humans.

If these humans are higher and more ‘perfect’, as they are less like the flawed animals they came from, there is a risk that a system of worth is created. Higher humans, higher value. A superiority system that objectifies and dehumanises others, justifying their exploitation due to their perceived lesser cognitive capabilities and resultant lesser societal value. This system is used as it justifies discriminatory and exploitative practices, allowing humans to distance themselves from the moral and ethical problems entwined with these abusive behaviours.

Within the complex wicked problem that entangles the issues of social justice with the impacts of climate change and the ecological crises, I answer with certainty: yes. It definitely matters whether we think we are animals are not.

Why does this book club matter for my research?

When researching and creating stories that inspire transformative change, there is a need to address the ideas at the core of the tales we already tell. If these new stories are built on the societal beliefs that are used to justify exploitative and discriminatory practices, they will simply replicate and reconstruct them. Therefore, we need to start looking at ways of staying with the trouble and not distancing ourselves from the entangled wicked problems, while living-with the more than human world².

The questions I pose my imaginary audience are:

1. Do you think you are an animal?
2. Are you superior to animals?
3. Does this matter?

Find the book here: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/606910/how-to-be-animal-by-melanie-challenger/

I hope you have enjoyed my imaginary book club series. I definitely have, despite it being imaginary. I hope it has given you food for thought and if you want to share your responses to any of these questions, get in touch!

---

Writers note:

1. As defined by the Oxford Languages dictionary. ↩︎
2. Please read Haraway’s (2016) “Staying With The Trouble”  https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/27/Staying-with-the-TroubleMaking-Kin-in-the ↩︎ ↩︎

Book cover: Challenger, M. (2021). How to Be Animal. A New History of What It Means to Be Human. UK: Penguin Books.