John Doyle's A Swinish Multitude, 7th October 1835. [1]
When studying ecoliterature such as The Hungry Tide, Oil on Water, and Oryx and Crake, questions about postcolonialism arise. In our seminars, we specifically focused on the tension between postcolonialism and ecocriticism when specific races or nations, or humans in general, are associated with animals.
For example, during the 18th Century the Irish were seen as animals, something Jonathan Swift's satirical essay A Modest Proposal demonstrates. He proposes that the solution to overpopulation, underemployment, and the undernourishment of many children in poor Irish families is to send the children off aged one to be a part of the meat industry. Through this hyperbolic suggestion, Swift is highlighting how the society of the time treated the Irish as if they were animals, fit to be farmed and eaten like chickens, cows, sheep etc.
Edmund Burke, on the other hand, uses the phrase"swinish multitude" to describe Parisians not in satire, but in what he perceives to be the truth in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. When discussing the implications of this phrase, Darren Howard suggests "the association of some groups with animals correlates with their social standing [...] When humanity is defined as the limit of the moral sphere, the oppressed are associated with animals in order to legitimise their oppression." [2]
Such a view is problematic in postcolonial criticism: we view animals as hierarchically lower than ourselves, and so calling a person an animal suggests they too are inferior. Yet, for ecocritics, the idea that animals are inferior is problematic too. They argue that we have to treat animals better in order to treat humans better.
This idea is one that Howard suggests began to come prevalent in the same period as Burke's infamous comment:
The majority of the children's literature of the period argues that children ought to treat non-humans with kindness so that they learn how to treat all of their inferiors with kindness; non-human animals are an object lesson in the dynamics of class relations. [...] Recent studies centering on the cultural significance of animals in Britain during this period by Keith Thomas, David Perkins, and Christine Kenyon-Jones have documented how the movement for animal welfare originated in the late eighteenth century, and have connected a concern for animals to humanitarian movements in general. [3]
However, the period still viewed the world through a hierarchical lens: salves and animals are still seen as inferior, even if they are treated with "kindness".
Animal phrases or idioms today do not just demonstrate such a hierarchical view of the world, but they also demonstrate our views towards certain animals as far from positive. Indeed, Nick Haslam, when discussing his studies on the meanings of such animals phrases, says:
First, and perhaps not surprisingly, intensely reviled animals such as snakes, leeches and rats make more insulting metaphors. When people use these metaphors to refer to a person they do not imply that the person is literally like these animals. Rather they transfer the disgust felt towards the animal to the person. [4]
There are many phrases such as 'snake in grass' and 'pond life' that when attributed demonstrate this transference of disgust towards an animals onto a human. The idea of snakes as deceptive originates from the Biblical depiction of the snake in the garden of Eden, adding to the connotations of disgust. When we use 'pond life' to describe someone as stupid or foolish, this can be said to say more about our opinions of the creatures who inhabit ponds than it does about the person we are attributing this term to.
Such a view is not only damaging to our fellow humans, but to our fellow animals, as we are, after all, animals too, something ecocritics and promoters of animal ethics argue we should remember.
[1] John Doyle, A Swinish Multitude, 7th October 1835. <http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw217096/A-Swinish-Multitude> [accessed 22nd April 2017].
[2] Darren Howard 'Necessary Fictions: The "Swinish Multitude" and the Rights of Man', Studies in Romanticism, 47 (2008) 161-178 (pp.162-162).
[3] Ibid, pp.162 & 165.
[4] Nick Haslam, 'Why it's so offensive when we call people animals', The Conversation, April 18th 2017 <http://theconversation.com/why-its-so-offensive-when-we-call-people-animals-76295> [accessed 18th April 2017].
Bibliography
Bingham, John, 'Calling animals pets is insulting academic claim', The Telegraph, April 28th 2011 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8479391/Calling-animals-pets-is-insulting-academics-claim.html> [accessed 18th April 2017].
Doyle, John, A Swinish Multitude, 7th October 1835. <http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw217096/A-Swinish-Multitude> [accessed 22nd April 2017].
Haslam, Nick, 'Why it's so offensive when we call people animals', The Conversation, April 18th 2017 <http://theconversation.com/why-its-so-offensive-when-we-call-people-animals-76295> [accessed 18th April 2017].
Howard, Darren 'Necessary Fictions: The "Swinish Multitude" and the Rights of Man', Studies in Romanticism, 47 (2008) 161-178.
Huggan, Graham and Helen Tiffin, Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment (Oxon: Routledge, 2009).
Sopher, Kate, What is Nature? (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1995).
Swift, Joanthan A Modest Proposal (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, 2008). <http://www.secret-satire-society.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Jonathan-Swift-A-Modest-Proposal.pdf> [accessed 22nd April 2017].








