Search Salon

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Recently in Salon Books

Oversexed, talky and inspired
Three new cookbooks run the gamut from the ridiculous to the truly essential.
By Ann Hodgman
[02/04/00]

Reviews
"Playing Botticelli" by Liza Nelson
Fans of Anne Lamott will go for this novel about the inevitable clash between an ex-flower-child mom and her desperate, rebellious daughter.
By Fiona Morgan
[02/03/00]

My favorite author, my worst interview
I worshipped militaristic Mormon science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card -- until we met.
By Donna Minkowitz
[02/03/00]

Reviews
"The Verificationist" by Donald Antrim
Another tour de force of antic surrealism mixed with melancholy, this one viewed from the ceiling of a pancake house.
By Andrew Roe
[02/02/00]

Interview
From the New Yorker to the rez
Former "Talk of the Town" reporter Ian Frazier talks about hanging out with the Oglala Sioux.
By Craig Seligman
[02/01/00]

Complete archives for Books

- - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - -

In recent years, serious arguments have been made that we should do just that for our fellow anthropoids. As editors of "The Great Ape Project," published in 1993, animal rights advocate Paola Cavalieri and philosopher Peter Singer argue that we should grant legal equality to orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees (presumably including pygmy chimpanzees, also known as bonobos). Now, in "Rattling the Cage," animal rights law professor and litigator Steven Wise argues for granting personhood to chimpanzees and bonobos because they are so like you. (What happened to the gorillas and orangutans? He doesn't say.)

Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights for Animals By Steven M. Wise, foreword by Jane Goodall Perseus Books, 332 pages Nonfiction Buy this book at B&N.com

He principally addresses their consciousness and intelligence -- their autonomy -- touching only briefly on their genetic relationship to us. (It's estimated that we have 98 percent of our DNA in common with chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives.) Wise examines the comparison of great apes with such categories of legal persons as children, unborn fetuses and the mentally incompetent, arguing that chimps and bonobos "are entitled to the rights to bodily integrity and bodily liberty if humans with similar autonomies are entitled to them."

Why on earth should we involve innocent apes in our zany legal system? What could they possibly have done to deserve that? The answer is that many great apes are already enmeshed in our legal system, which defines them as property.

Lawyers struggling to prevent cruelty to animals -- a small but growing band -- are repeatedly frustrated by the limitations of feeble anti-cruelty laws. They cobble together innovative strategies revolving around charges like veterinary malpractice.

In the case of a Massachusetts couple whose seven beloved sheep were killed by a neighbor's dogs, Wise requested compensation beyond the market value of the sheep -- emotional damages. "I am talking about people who let their sheep in the house and baked them muffins," Wise told the New York Times.

Anti-cruelty laws written to curb the worst practices of farmers or pet owners seldom address the nature of different kinds of animals. While they may specify that animals can't be starved, they are unlikely to have anything to say about putting a chimpanzee alone in a small metal cage and leaving it there for a decade or two.

In 1998, a lawsuit was filed appealing to the Federal Animal Welfare Act to get companionship for an isolated chimpanzee at the Long Island Game Farm Park and Zoo, arguing that his solitude violated "the psychological well-being of primates." In what was called a groundbreaking ruling, the court ruled that a zoo visitor had standing to sue. Two years before the ruling, while the case was grinding through the courts, the chimp, Barney, escaped, bit a person, pulled up a sign and threw it at a carousel and was shot by a zoo employee.

Such legal strategies are stopgaps. It might seem that the obvious remedy is to put teeth in laws against cruelty to animals. But Wise points out that this does not address the essential conflict with the property rights of those who own the chimps. If apes are property, then owners will wish to maximize their return on their property and generally dispose of their property as they see fit. Gary Francione, an attorney who directs the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic, writes, "Animals can virtually never prevail as long as humans are the only rightholder and animals are merely regarded as property -- the object of the exercise of an important human right." You lose, Bonzo.

The next obligatory part of the argument centers on how smart and lovable and reflective apes are. Almost every person who spends time with great apes becomes increasingly certain that they have mental and emotional qualities startlingly similar to our own. Bernard Rollin, a philosopher and biologist, describes an encounter with a zoo orangutan. Rollin was taken on a behind-the-scenes tour. It was a hot day and he had his sleeves rolled up. As he entered the cage, the orangutan grabbed his left hand. She ran her finger along a "deep and dramatic scar" on his left forearm, gazing into his eyes. She took his right wrist, and traced her finger along his unscarred arm, looking at him quizzically. Then she touched the scar again.

Next page | But man can dance backward in high heels