Albusilan.

1
Note: This is a strong draft here, but the argument needs more foundation what
evidence do you have of our speciesism? Establish that early on in the essay to
make it clear youre responding to an existing and popular mindset.

Abdulrahman Albusilan
Timothy Greenup
English 101
19 November 2015

Humans Are Animals, and Animals Are Humans

In the history of mankind, there has been a general tendency to place humans above
all other species on the earth. In reality, the tendency is so great, people disassociate
themselves from animals altogether, instead claiming themselves to be especially different.
Say more about this. How is this thinking dangerous?
From studying a collection of works, including Karen J. Fowler's We Are Completely Beside
Ourselves - a 2013, unique novel which requires its readers to look deeply into it - however,
it can be determined that the speciesism that is in favor of the human race is widely incorrect.
Firstly, there are many accounts which elucidate upon and grant great complexity to
human nature. This is seen, for instance, in a number of films, songs, plays, and books, the
latter of which can be found in Fowler's novel.
Examples?
Nonetheless, We Are Completely Beside Ourselves is different in the sense it gives a
lot of attention to the possible exploration of finding such a complexity in other creatures as
well. In this case, it is through Fern - Rosemary's adopted chimpanzee twin sister -who is

Albusilan.2
given such an attention. In fact, it is given in almost the same way as are humans in other
stories. One strong way that this occurs is through the manner than Rosemary explains the
family dynamics: "I was our mother's favorite child. Lowell was our father's. I loved our
father as much as our mother, but I loved Lowell best of all. Fern loved our mother best.
Lowell loved Fern more than he loved me" (pg. 8). Simply put, Fern is no longer an "animal"
living with the family, she is a part of it. Interestingly enough, the identification of Fern as
being a part of the family accomplishes two things: that Fern is more "human" than other
"animals", and that Rosemary's family is more "animal-like" for associating with Fern in such
a fashion. And yet, as it is come to be understood, everyone in the family, as well as everyone
else in the world, is merely becoming aware of, or is at least acting by a means which
suggests such an understanding of the fact that they are equal to other animals because they
are just that. Moreover, by doing such things, humans are not admitting to being less than
what they have thought themselves to be, but are accepting that animals are equal to them,
and vice versa. Whether or not Rosemary's family is aware of this is besides the point. The
fact that this is being discussed in such a novel, and that that component gives the novel
another facet of power which it gives readers, means that it is truthful. Therefore, it is from
just this work alone, and not from any others which are to be discoursed, that brings this idea
of equality to light.
Also, it is important to point out that Rosemary displays traditional "animal" behavior,
blurring the popular preconceived idea that a definitive line between humans and other
animals exists. Rosemary shows such behavior from even the beginning of the novel. When
she is having a fight with her roommate, which has garnered the attention of a cop
Inaccurate Step, who has entered the apartment, she reacts in a physical manner: "I threw
the glass onto the floor. I didn't just let it go. I threw that glass as hard as I could" (pg. 7). It is
here that wild behavior can be witnessed. While it could be argued that she would possess

Albusilan.3
such a quality after being raised as a twin sister to a chimp, her roommate, who had not been
raised in this odd mode, showed a similar "animal-like" aggressiveness, which comes to
fruition physically This is seen just before the protagonist threw the glass of milk onto the
floor: "She hoisted the chair over her head . . . She launched it away from me and the cop,
toward the door" (pg. 7). This is violent behavior that one would see in nature. Except,
readers are witnessing such ways of acting in an environment that suggests civilized life.
Tie back to the thesis.
If the behavior as just addressed is not only the kind which those who have been
raised with a chimpanzee exhibit, then humans, as the novel proposes, are more "animal-like"
than what is continually taught and practiced in modern society, and are even equal to them.
Again, this does not "lower" the human race's idea of itself. The equality of humans and other
nonhuman animals is explained in Peter Singer's essay All Animals Are Equal. In it, he states
that equality des not "depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar
matters of fact." (3). In essence, it is intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, and more,
which are the things that people use in their arguments for proving the incorrect inequality
concept. In truth, equality is not a "simple assertion of fact", but rather a "moral ideal" (3).
That is to say, equality is often something that people try to establish as being a fact or law.
Realizing that it is not this, but is instead a way that people should treat other beings permitting nonhuman animals - as well as themselves is the way in which society will reach
equality, especially since many worldly issues would be fixed if mankind would realize this
truth.
Furthermore, the University of Adelaide also supports the idea that humans are not
superior to other animals. Instead, the two are simply dissimilar to one another. Science tells
experts at the University that animals "can have cognitive faculties that are superior to human

Albusilan.4
beings" (para. 3). This means to say that animals have thinking abilities which are better
humans'.
Examples?
Of course, keeping Peter Singer's words in mind, it is crucial to state that this does not
ascertain to an idea that nonhuman animals are better than humans. Significantly, the fact that
"[animals] may not understand us, while we do not understand them, does not mean our
'intelligences' are at different levels, they are just of different kinds."(para. 8) In other words,
just because humans have managed to build cities and form many other things associated
with the race's history does not mean that they are more intelligent. Rather, mankind has
decided to use their intelligence for different reasons. Thomas Suddendorf, the author of the
CNN article titled "Are we really different from animals?" also comes to this conclusion,
albeit through a different method. Instead of defining equality, Suddendorf reveals the truth in
a sort of process-of-elimination way. In addition, this is accomplished by looking into
different aspects of mankind that have been used to solidify humans' tendency to claim
superiority over the years. Such things comprise the physiological traits that humans carry
which have distinguished them from even "our closest animal relatives", the size of the race's
brain, and the possible reasons why the planet is dominated by humans. To summarize, it is
shown that while humans possess some traits that prove to be advantageous, they lack others
which other animals possess. Namely, humans do not have the biggest brains
Does brain size = intelligence?
elephants and whales do, which can weigh 4 and 9 kilograms, respectively (para. 7).
The article mentions mankind's physiological evolution, and even points out the fact that the
species may even be the reason why similar species, such as the Neanderthals, have gone
extinct. Lastly, they state that "all our closest animal relatives today, the apes, are endangered
because of human activity. They may eventually join Neanderthals and Parathropus as half-

Albusilan.5
forgotten creatures of the past."(para. 22) To put in different words, humans may have wiped
out other human-like cousins. Indeed, this is an interesting point to make. Perhaps, the reason
why humans feel superior is due to a lack of similar species which can be related to. Of
course, it is now known that they should not.
Necessary? Seems out of place.
To conclude, humans are equal to nonhuman animals. While there are certainly
differences in between humans and animals, it is prudent to notice that this does not denote a
certain hierarchy. While humans have used their intelligence to form a large number of
technologies and languages, other animals have used their intelligences to perform other
tasks. Humans are just as "animal-like" as they are "human", which is to say, similar to
Rosemary from Karen J. Fowler's novel, they too exhibit bursts of aggressive and other types
of "nonhuman" characteristics. At the same time, animals can display other "human"
qualities, making them not as "animal-like" as well. Thus, equality between species cannot be
determined in the same fashion that can a fact, but rather a respectful and compassionate
attitude with which humans are to treat other species.

Albusilan.6

Works Cited

Fowler, Karen J. We Are Completely Beside Ourselves. New York: G.P. Putnam's
Sons, 2013. Print.
Singer, Peter. "All Animals Are Equal." University of Minnesota Twin Cities. N.p.,
1974. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
Suddendorf, Thomas. "Are We Really Different from Animals? .com." CNN.com. CNN, 21
Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.
University of Adelaide. "Humans Not Smarter Than Animals, Just Different, Experts Say."
Phys.org - News and Articles on Science and Technology. N.p., 4 Dec. 2013. Web. 8
Nov. 2015.