The four-eared cat speaks
Mar. 29th, 2004 12:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomusI am a four-eared kitten. MSNBC has published an article about me. I must admit I find it rather perplexing. In fact, it's a screaming example of what Momus calls pluricide; the terror you humans have of difference, and your attempts to eradicate it.
The article draws you in with the exceptional. You only read it because it's about a four-eared kitten. As news stories go, a two-eared kitten would be strictly 'Dog Bites Man'. Nevertheless, within a couple of lines the story establishes its shrill, moralistic tone. You are not here to praise the exceptional, you are here to advertise the virtues of the normal:
“We wanted to make sure the people were looking for a normal cat and not a gag to make an exhibition out of her,” Enrico Schlag, a worker at the Garmisch-Partenkirchen animal shelter, said Thursday. “We’ve found a completely normal family for her that has already adopted cats from us in the past.”
Schlag assures you that normality is to be found on both sides. I, the cat, am normal, and the family taking me home is normal too. No Von Trapp, Addams or Windsor families here, thank you! And yet something very odd has happened. This normal family looking for a normal cat has taken me home -- an exceptional cat, a cat with two extra ears. Has Schlag fobbed the family off with a furry freak? Does the family only think it's a normal family, and does the animal shelter only think I'm a normal cat because, like the Woody Allen character whose brother thinks he's a hen, they need the eggs? Is there some collective advantage to be had from the collective illusion that everything here is normal? Or are the shelter people and the family hypocritical nutcases using protestations of 'normality' as a kind of fig leaf?
Why would it be so terrible to give me to a freak-loving family intent on displaying me in a circus or as a travelling sideshow? I mean, isn't the MSNBC article a sort of Bill Gates And His Fabulous Furry Freak Circus itself, with, instead of a loud poster, a big red headline about a 'four-eared kitten'? Why isn't Schlag from the Cat Home -- so concerned to find a normal family for the normal cat -- equally concerned to 'vet' the press to find a normal journalist who will write a normal article completely ignoring the fact that this kitten has four ears?
Schlag must be very upset at the way the article has turned out. I imagine him logging on to MSNBC only to utter a horrified cry: 'Oh no! I can't believe this! They've stitched us up! They promised me they weren't going to mention the four ears thing, but they put it right in the headline! They just had to run a photo focusing on the ears when they could quite easily have shown this animal's perfectly normal limbs or tail! They've made our cat look like a disgusting freak! Our reputation as an impartial, blindfolded kitten clinic with equal opportunities for all animals lies in tatters!'
If Schlag is angry, though, I'm furious. The article calls me 'ordinary' rather than 'extraordinary', which is what I am. The vet is quoted as calling my ears 'a gene malfunction'. But doesn't Darwin tell us that gene mutations are adaptive, a crucial part of the evolutionary process? It's quite possible that one day all cats will have four ears, and that I am just the first, the prophet. Why is my magical mutation a 'malfunction' and not an epiphany? Why does Schlag point out that other cats haven't ostracised me -- a denial which suggests that somehow they should be snubbing me? I have two more ears than those fuckers! Shouldn't Schlag be saying instead something like 'So far the other cats haven't worshipped the four-eared kitten as some kind of cat god, but given time they surely will'?
Worst of all, though, is the fact, casually let slip in the course of the article, that I am to be neutered. My difference will not be passed on to future generations. It's rather surprising that there are no plans for the surgeon to slice off my extra ears when he's slicing out my reproductive system, considering that my reproductive system is normal whereas my ears are abnormal. But I guess there must be some logic in their decisions.
They have decided to leave my difference intact while declaring it undesireable. They wish, simultaneously, to stare at my difference, fascinated, and declare it completely unimportant, turn a blind eye to it. They wish, simultaneously, to escape their deep boredom with normality and also to deliver homilies to it. They wish to point out my ears, and then, in the very next breath, point out their complete obliviousness to the two extra ones that make me special, declaring quite falsely that all they see in me is a normal cat.
I may have four ears, but they have two faces. These people are clowns. At the first opportunity I will escape them and run away to join a circus. Only there, performing tricks in a blazing sawdust ring, will I be seen for what I am: truly exceptional.
The article draws you in with the exceptional. You only read it because it's about a four-eared kitten. As news stories go, a two-eared kitten would be strictly 'Dog Bites Man'. Nevertheless, within a couple of lines the story establishes its shrill, moralistic tone. You are not here to praise the exceptional, you are here to advertise the virtues of the normal:
“We wanted to make sure the people were looking for a normal cat and not a gag to make an exhibition out of her,” Enrico Schlag, a worker at the Garmisch-Partenkirchen animal shelter, said Thursday. “We’ve found a completely normal family for her that has already adopted cats from us in the past.”
Schlag assures you that normality is to be found on both sides. I, the cat, am normal, and the family taking me home is normal too. No Von Trapp, Addams or Windsor families here, thank you! And yet something very odd has happened. This normal family looking for a normal cat has taken me home -- an exceptional cat, a cat with two extra ears. Has Schlag fobbed the family off with a furry freak? Does the family only think it's a normal family, and does the animal shelter only think I'm a normal cat because, like the Woody Allen character whose brother thinks he's a hen, they need the eggs? Is there some collective advantage to be had from the collective illusion that everything here is normal? Or are the shelter people and the family hypocritical nutcases using protestations of 'normality' as a kind of fig leaf?
Why would it be so terrible to give me to a freak-loving family intent on displaying me in a circus or as a travelling sideshow? I mean, isn't the MSNBC article a sort of Bill Gates And His Fabulous Furry Freak Circus itself, with, instead of a loud poster, a big red headline about a 'four-eared kitten'? Why isn't Schlag from the Cat Home -- so concerned to find a normal family for the normal cat -- equally concerned to 'vet' the press to find a normal journalist who will write a normal article completely ignoring the fact that this kitten has four ears?
Schlag must be very upset at the way the article has turned out. I imagine him logging on to MSNBC only to utter a horrified cry: 'Oh no! I can't believe this! They've stitched us up! They promised me they weren't going to mention the four ears thing, but they put it right in the headline! They just had to run a photo focusing on the ears when they could quite easily have shown this animal's perfectly normal limbs or tail! They've made our cat look like a disgusting freak! Our reputation as an impartial, blindfolded kitten clinic with equal opportunities for all animals lies in tatters!'
If Schlag is angry, though, I'm furious. The article calls me 'ordinary' rather than 'extraordinary', which is what I am. The vet is quoted as calling my ears 'a gene malfunction'. But doesn't Darwin tell us that gene mutations are adaptive, a crucial part of the evolutionary process? It's quite possible that one day all cats will have four ears, and that I am just the first, the prophet. Why is my magical mutation a 'malfunction' and not an epiphany? Why does Schlag point out that other cats haven't ostracised me -- a denial which suggests that somehow they should be snubbing me? I have two more ears than those fuckers! Shouldn't Schlag be saying instead something like 'So far the other cats haven't worshipped the four-eared kitten as some kind of cat god, but given time they surely will'?
Worst of all, though, is the fact, casually let slip in the course of the article, that I am to be neutered. My difference will not be passed on to future generations. It's rather surprising that there are no plans for the surgeon to slice off my extra ears when he's slicing out my reproductive system, considering that my reproductive system is normal whereas my ears are abnormal. But I guess there must be some logic in their decisions.
They have decided to leave my difference intact while declaring it undesireable. They wish, simultaneously, to stare at my difference, fascinated, and declare it completely unimportant, turn a blind eye to it. They wish, simultaneously, to escape their deep boredom with normality and also to deliver homilies to it. They wish to point out my ears, and then, in the very next breath, point out their complete obliviousness to the two extra ones that make me special, declaring quite falsely that all they see in me is a normal cat.
I may have four ears, but they have two faces. These people are clowns. At the first opportunity I will escape them and run away to join a circus. Only there, performing tricks in a blazing sawdust ring, will I be seen for what I am: truly exceptional.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Fanciful post.
Date: 2004-03-29 04:25 am (UTC)It is something of a paradox that "normality" in nature, for lack of a better term (perhaps "genetic consensus"?) is achieved through variety; they are intimately linked, and it is the interplay between the two that makes life possible. Indeed, many congenital abnormalities (forgive me, but they are) reveal to us our evolutionary history. The association of beauty with average-ness is not of my choosing: there is scientific research on the phenomenon of beauty in humans and other vertebrates (check out Fibonacci for starters). This is not an ideology to be debated; it is quantifiable, observable phenomena. If the data didn't support it, I would not be defending it; the facts care little for our sensibilities (yes, facts exist--albeit conditionally. Try having a safe flight to Copenhagen without them.)
Despite whatever thoughtless inconsistencies were (surprise) committed by Reuters/MSNBC, anxiety and attraction/repulsion towards difference is ingrained within us, as it has been instrumental to our survival as a species. We can tut-tut Reuters/MSNBC for such infractions (or symptoms), but we all use this awareness as a cognitive tool, or even a toy ("Look, a pirate!"); to not admit this is dishonest. Of course, one's intellectual, cultural or aesthetic leanings often mute such instincts, some for the better (as in the case of Britney Spears), but they exist nonetheless.
Attraction--or even love--is not a purely cerebral exercise: human attraction at its core has a subconscious, biological component of which the two parties are not always consciously aware. These biological factors tend to recede in emphasis as a relationship grows in strength and complexity, but all relationships build out from this initial core. I do not feel dismayed that my mate of 15 years likes my musk or is intuitively drawn to my frame or the shape of my hands (all of which are quite lovely); the fact that we have a cerebral cortex that affords us the higher pleasures and complexities of emotional attachment does not mitigate the most ancient aspects of initial attraction that brought us together in the first place.
Is this what is foremost in our minds when relating to each other? No--but there exists the precondition that we are not disembodied, ethereal entities; we are vulnerable organisms. Is there no beauty in such fragility and impermanence?
When we are apart, my mate sleeps with one of my (slightly) used shirts, as she finds it a comfort. I know the biological reasons behind such behavior, but I do not find such a practice to be dehumanizing--quite the contrary, I find it to be utterly human.
W
PS: A good book to read on the subject is "Mutants", by Armand Marie Leroi. Gets into the particulars of what makes us, us.
Re: Fanciful post.
Date: 2004-03-29 05:06 am (UTC)Re: Fanciful post.
Date: 2004-03-29 10:16 am (UTC)Culture and intellect are outgrowths of nature and are indirectly informed by biology, but that isn't to say that culture and intellect do not play a dominant role in determining human affairs. They do. I was merely asserting the fact that there is a biological component that should not be dismissed out of hand. We are not genetic automatons, but we are not bloodless ghosts, either. As with most things, I suspect the answer is somewhere in between.
I apologize to all for the verbal tonnage.
W
Re: Fanciful post.
Date: 2004-03-29 09:01 am (UTC)From our perspective (which is itself necessarily limited, as we have trouble conceiving of organisms more advanced than ourselves), our ability to perceive and alter our very natures is unique, and sets us somewhat apart from the observations of "random" natural selection that we see in the wild. The natural selection that operates through human society -- as well as through "random" genetic procreation -- is, probably for the first time in the animal kingdom, a largely conscious process. Through the magical technology of the consciously organized civilization, we are, perhaps for the first time, capable of purposely preserving and promoting genetic changes which do not advance the cause of survival.
With all appropriate respect to the demonstrable biology of beauty, I suspect that humanity's aesthetic slavery to biological considerations of suitability and survival strength will begin to wane. If it hasn't already.