The four-eared cat speaks

[imomus]

I 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.

Comments

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

People seem comfortable enough with the intentional ("unnatural") alterations made to cats through domestication and breeding for special traits. Strange biases.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_lilita/]

if you were my kitten, I'd show you off.

Fanciful post.

[lord-whimsy.livejournal.com]

Most mutations tend to be disadvantages, which is likely why evolution is such a painstakingly slow process. Genes are without question a double-edged sword. Yesterday's advantageous gene becomes a liability under different circumstances: for instance, the Azkenazi (sp?) Jews who hail from Eastern Europe possess a high incidence of a specific gene that once prevented their city-dwelling ancestors from completely succumbing to dreaded cholera outbreaks; today this very same gene makes them prone to breast cancer in elevated numbers (this of course was not a problem in a time when one was not expected to live past 35). Waxing a bit more anectdotal: I am an appalachian by birth, and it has been generally noted that as a group we are known to recover from physical trauma remarkably well, but as a suspected result of our physical isolation over the past four centuries within one of the most favorable natural living environments on the continent, we do not possess as great a resistance to communicable diseases as those who hail from more cosmopolitan lineages. Living in the cramped Northeastern US, I have grown to dread the "cold and flu" seasons, and I have noticed that I do seem to contract the lion's share of contagious ailments--although I'd likely recover from a bear attack or tomahawk blow faster than my friends who derive from the constitutionally hardy Ellis Island stock. Sadly, this notion is of little comfort on most days (I am off to Africa in a couple weeks, so I may soon find the endowments bequeathed unto me by Bounteous Nature to be at last earning their keep).

At the risk of sounding callous, all creatures have an instinctive repulsion to those of their kind who display obvious deformities or mutations. In fact, it has been found (the reader can find information on this without too much difficulty) that the more snugly an individual creature resides within its species' phenotype continuum, the more appealing that creature is to others of its species, because such features are taken (consciously or subconsciously) as indicators of good health. It turns out that notions of "average-ness" (and hence beauty) cannot be dismissed as being merely a social construct, but are, at least in part, something which is innate. I would even go so far as to suggest that an appetite for the unusual itself is largely a sort of social construct--which is not to devalue or disparage such leanings, but suffice it to say that none of us would physically exist if our predecessors were all genetic novelty seekers. The more enlightened among us seem to transcend our initial repulsion towards such afflicted beings (Such altruism has a long history: those born with deformities were often revered in neolithic societies, and were perceived as being "touched" by the divine).

I would not be surprised if this particular feline might be especially prone to ear or sinus infections as it ages. I certainly hope that its new owners are especially attentive in this regard. I'd say that our four-eared friend should enjoy its notoriety, as long as a bottle of ear drops is kept handy next to its bejeweled dish of cream and stone altar.

W

Re: Fanciful post.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that mutation is a mixed blessing, Whimsy. However, I disagree with the drift of your argument... or rather, I see your statements about the repulsiveness of deformity to be symptomatic of the ideology of our times, which has a major problem with the idea of the good difference, in other words, with pluralism. Our society both abhors difference and is fascinated by it, hence the odd treatment Reuters/MSNBC gives the 'freaky cat': the headline and photos give us a freak show, but the article itself manifests what I've called elsewhere 'pretentious universalism', asserting that there is some kind of moral imperative to overlook the cat's particularity. The article of course is not practising what it preaches, hence my accusation of hypocrisy.

Darwinism teaches us that our genes depend on exogamy -- an attraction to, and encounter with, that which is different from us -- to maintain a healthy stock. Your equation of 'averageness' with 'beauty' may explain why Britney Spears sells so many records, but fails to convince me as a universal principle.

Do you tell potential mates that you adore them because they 'reside snugly within their species' phenotype continuum'? When your typical-specimen beloved then presses you with 'But what, in your opinion, makes me special?' do you reply 'Darling, do not concern yourself with difference, for an appetite for the unusual itself is largely a sort of social construct. You would not physically exist if your Mama and Papa had been genetic novelty seekers. However, as I am an enlightened soul, I will transcend my initial repulsion towards such things as do make you different... because I love your utter normality, I am prepared to overlook your four ears, for instance.'

[imomus.livejournal.com]

We can propose a parallel world where this article appears with a very different emphasis. Let us imagine the animal shelter worker seeking an extraordinary family for an extraordinary animal. Let us imagine the local community celebrating the birth of this cat as an auspicious omen. Let us imagine the vet giving a little lecture on the crucial genetic value of diversity instead of speaking of 'malfunction'. Now, let us ask, is that parallel world wrong about difference? Is that parallel world a better or a worse place to live in?

Our world is not blindfolded to difference. It fixates on difference, puts difference in the headlines. But the attention it pays to difference is an anxious attention. It is riddled with bad faith. We draw attention to difference only to draw attention away from it. I notice this daily because I wear an eyepatch. Children react in a way which seems to me natural. They stare and say 'Look, a pirate!' Look, something interesting and exceptional! But their parents immediately intervene. 'It's nothing unusual. There's probably some explanation. Don't stare, no matter how interesting you find it. Pretend to look the other way!'

In between the child and the adult there, some sickness has intervened, and I am interested in identifying the sickness.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

By the way, one of the most poetic resonances in the article is the fact that the kitten was

born on a farm near the winter resort town famous for hosting the 1936 Winter Olympics

The Olympics! Germany in the 1930s! Immediately we are in a minefield of potent symbolism. For a start, competitive sports is a field riddled with paradoxes. Here, the quest for bodily perfection creates freaks! Here, freaks 'represent' their nations! Here -- even in the 1930s -- a white nation can be represented by minority black athletes, much to the disgust of Herr Hitler, who has a eugenics program of his own (hint: performance is not a criterion -- Nazism is not a meritocracy)! Here, 'the good difference' is measured in fractions of a second. And here in 1930s Germany, difference is mostly bad. If you are different we intern you or we invade you.

Strangely enough the discrediting of Nazism has not resulted in a discrediting of its views on difference. For some it seems that Nazism can be used as shorthand for the idea that all difference (not just a difference that abhors difference more than we do) must be, and will be, crushed as the Nazis were. Rather than regarding Nazism as an attack on difference, we regard it rather in the way that Nazism regarded everyone else: as a symbol of the unacceptability of difference. Rather than banishing the eagle and allowing a thousand birds to flourish, we have replaced Nazism's iron eagle with our own. We call it transparent-sounding things like 'the International Community' and 'Normality'.

[charleshatcher.livejournal.com]

I’m rather uncomfortable with your current trend of idolising the other, weird or strange. Not because I don’t accept or adore variation, but because you dismiss or ostracise its alternative.

For instance. My cat has been spayed. What makes this cat's genes so much more special (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/furballs/html/Cat%20Facts.htm) than every other's?

Re: Fanciful post.

[lord-whimsy.livejournal.com]

(I sincerely wonder how the protean Mr. Merrick might have felt about this subject.)

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.

[charleshatcher.livejournal.com]

Lord Whimsy, you rather trampled my point there. Like a large oak tree falling on a delicate, oriental flower… but I love you all the same… I just hope you aren’t implying that our anxiety and attraction/repulsion towards difference is purely genetically based, as if culture and intellect doesn’t dictate what is considered normal.

hm

[veroniq.livejournal.com]

if I remeber correctly, Darwin desn't tell us that gene mutations are adaptive - mutations are always purely random, but those which stay in generations are the ones which give some advantage, thus adapting the species to something by natural selection. This doesn't rule out some absolutely useless mutations of extreme beauty.

there is a cat circus in moscow, by the way.

[niemandsrose.livejournal.com]

Re: "transparent-sounding" norms: Reminds me very much of tatemae and honne. I've always held that in America our tatemae is that we *have no tatemae*. (We run around acting like we wear our honne nonstop. We must smile all the time for perfect strangers and convince them that we are utterly sincere about it!)

Perhaps this is why I prefer Japanese, and theatre, both of which have the distinction between tatemae and honne embedded into them.

Re: Fanciful post.

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that any other animals have achieved the level of self-programming that humans enjoy. Not only are we (now) aware of the existance of instinct; but we've gone some distance towards mapping and understanding the mechanics of our biology -- to the point that in many cases we are able to alter and re-engineer psychological structures and "subconscious" behaviors, both through medication and simply sitting down and thinking out problems.

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.

Re: Fanciful post.

[lord-whimsy.livejournal.com]

I probably have not made my point clear, despite my verbose rants; perhaps I've over-emphasized the biological at the expense of the cultural?

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

[lord-whimsy.livejournal.com]

(Culled from an extremely sloppy previous rejoinder, which has been deleted):

Difference, you say? It depends on what one means by difference: If you are speaking of a rich diversity of lifestyle, perceptual, cultural, theoretical or relatively cosmetic differences, et al, then naturally I am in favor of celebrating such divergence. Of course, one should have a sleeve-bouquet in place of a hook, if one is so inclined. Scrimshaw peglegs and silver-inlaid prostheses all around! Delightful.

There are limits, though: I can say with a certain degree of confidence that diabetics or those with Gray's Syndrome don't relish their "difference". Are we to assume that, by your rationale, we should banish modern medicine because it eliminates "variety"? I for one do not wish to paint festive decor about my tumors or melanoma, thank you very much.

W

[darthhellokitty.livejournal.com]

As someone somewhere said, "Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail." The four-eared kitten is indeed special.

I suspect she is being neutered not specifically to prevent four-eared offspring, but because most shelters neuter all pets to be adopted, since there are so many unwanted kitties wandering the lonely streets of our planet.

One way cats express affection to one another is ear-licking; I wonder if this little darling would be especially loved?

Furthermore...

[(Anonymous)]

According to Stellarc, "the ear is a beautiful and complex structure....To have an extra ear points to more than mere visual and anatomical excess."

http://www.stelarc.va.com.au/extra_ear/index.htm

some other mutations...

[gorillabiscuit.livejournal.com]

Re: some other mutations...

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

If you accept macroevolution, every living organism is the product of mutation.

[(Anonymous)]

The kitten is adorable, but what about the three-headed frog found in the UK a few weeks ago? Not so charming.

[niemandsrose.livejournal.com]

Not likely she could pass on the ability to listen in quadriphonic stereo to her kittens anyway. It's not that she has the genes for four ears, her proto-ear cell split once too many times on her embryo. But anyway. An hour earlier and she might have been two identical two-eared kitten-twins instead. Or like the baby girl with the vestigial extra head a month or two ago.

I think Lilly is a very lucky furball. And she is extra-loved...by me!

forgetting humans for a moment

[defenderofpants.livejournal.com]

i wonder what other two-eared cats think of this four-eared kitty.

Vive le difference!

[(Anonymous)]

Momus, out of the unlikeliest places you find materials to construct your daily soapbox. I salute you!

You must check out my old hero, Charles Fort, and the Fortean Times: http://www.forteantimes.com/mag_info/about.shtml. (Consult the Oracle of Wikipedia for a good synopsis of Fort's life and work.) Four-eared cats were a matter of course for Mr. Fort, who probably questioned what is "normal" and what is not better than any conventional science-based belief-system I know of. The Fortean world is perhaps closer to my conception of what "reality" is than any organized religion's or scientific establishment's could be, being derived half from Jarry and half from Darwin.

Charles Fort celebrated "difference" and "weirdness" and "freaks" in a healthier manner than even the most avant-garde artist might. All that, and it's a lot of freaky fun!

[la-bella-erato.livejournal.com]

I thought it was VERY CUTE from the minute I saw it!
Hell, it's a kitten after all.