Tina Chen

Distance

Consider what we believe separates man from animal. Is it our “superior” sense of self?

Or our perceived lack of similarity? John Berger, in Why Look at Animals, believes that it is the

animals “lack of common language… That guarantees its distance, its distinctness, its exclusion,

from and of man.” Due to a language barrier, man may never know animals’ true thoughts and

intentions through conversation. This results in the tendency to immediately assume that these

animals do not have a “say” at all in human-animal encounters, often resulting in our illusion of

power in such interaction. Berger makes a point that “animals are always the observed” (253).

The fact that they can observe us has lost all significance. There is a one-sided nature of human

to animal interactions where we fail to take account of what the eyes staring back at us see.

Humans must put thought into understanding and acknowledging rather than observing animals’

actions in order to come closer to connecting with animals as individuals. Only then will we

realize our common language. This language could be achieved through a language of non-

communication. We blame the language barrier for our distance, but are ignorant to acknowledge

or try other forms of communication that may be shared species to species such as the power of a

simple gesture.

Berger’s definition influences how I will read Combats of the Elephants in the way that I

will observe the interaction between mankind and animal. Because of the language barrier

Berger referenced, humans have a disassociation with animals. Using excerpts from the passage,

we will reveal the lack of connection humans create with animals due to the dismissal of the

possibility that animals have the ability to communicate with mankind.

 In Combats of the Elephants, Pliny the Elder describes the Roman circus attacking

elephants with javelins as entertainment. It did not matter to the circus men whether or not the

elephants lived as long as the circus attendees had a good time. The elephants are seen as

disposable entities rather than individuals in the setting of the circus. Somehow, mankind has

come to surpass the emotional toll death has on a being. Such as the death of a pet dog. Where

does the death of a pet dog and a circus elephant differ? It is the distinction between an animal

with the assigned role as a companion and one as an entertainer. If humans were to look past the

roles society has assigned to animals and understand each animal with a fresh set of eyes, how

would we view animals then?

After being stabbed in the foot, an elephant proceeded to seize and whirl several men in

the air, while the spectators were “greatly amused” (196). Again, the elephants were reduced to

nothing but entertainment. If only the elephants could speak: “What are those sticks? OW, that

hurts!” How would the crowd react then? Probably with pity for the elephant’s inability to speak.

Or possibly with disgust towards the creators of the circus. Animals may not be able to

contribute their exact thoughts towards humans with words, but that does not mean they do not

have thoughts at all. Man neglects to acknowledge the issue and put forth the effort of

understanding an animal’s perspective. The elephant did not swirl the men up in the air as a show

of “skill” as Pliny described, rather as retaliation for being injured (196). In the setting of the

circus, humans were blind to the reality past the spectacle, as the elephant was assigned. They

did not stop to think about the individual elephant: what he is thinking, how he is feeling, or even

what he is seeing. If mankind were to ask himself these three questions each time he saw an

animal, how would that change how we view them? While these are the questions we should be
asking, we tend to the exact opposite: what am I thinking, how am I feeling, and what am I

seeing?

Later, the elephants find that there is no way of escaping the enclosure and enter a state of

“lamentation” which provoked the crowd to “(rise) up in tears, and (shower) curses” on the

circus owner (196). It was only when people took time to relate the animals’ action with emotion

that the crowd realized the elephants behavior was not a simple reaction, but a show of the

elephant’s true feeling. How would a man’s understanding of an animal change if humans

viewed all animals as those with emotion? In the atmosphere of the circus it was accepted, but

when spectators took a step closer, they could see the true darkness of what the elephants were

seeing in their eyes. There was no need for communication here. All it took was a deeper look at

the animal to gauge their thoughts.

Upon further examination, we see that elephants are complex creatures. Their intelligence

is evident and consistent in the actions they take. The elephant is known to “never do any

mischief except when provoked” as a fact (196). This behavior is seen in the rink full of javelin-

wielding men. Their “entertaining” acts were those of fury; reactions to the pain inflicted on

them. Although they did not have the words to explain their feelings, their physical actions are

enough for humans to piece together an outline of their thoughts. Pliny also notes that “When

they are taken captive, they are very speedily tamed, by being fed on the juices of barley” (196).

At first glance, they are in submission to man. However, looking deeper it is seen that the

elephants are aware that they are held as prisoner. Knowing the keepers will feed them, they

obey the orders of their owners with no hesitation. Man is quick to assume the elephant’s

gullibility, failing to see the elephant’s action as a calculated decision. If humans were to
interpret these actions into thoughts, they would see the elephants and all other animals in a

different light.