Good to love or good to eat? Ethical and ideological implications of hunting, killing and the consumption of anthropomorphic animals in popular picturebooks

• Authors: Hübben Kelly
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper discusses the visual and narrative construction of species difference in a selection of Little Golden Books, as well as its ethical and ideological implications. I will focus on how certain picturebooks encourage thinking about species in terms of difference and hierarchy, while simultaneously blurring species boundaries through visual and/or verbal anthropomorphism. From an early age, children are taught that animals come in different categories, some of which are good to love, and should be treated with due respect (pets) and others that are good to eat, and, at least in Western cultures, less deserving of our compassion. Focusing on a selection of Little Golden Books, American merchandise books aimed at young readers, I investigate how children learn to distinguish between these two classes of animals.

Keywords

EN

anthropomorphism; anthropocentrism; commercial picturebooks; Little Golden Books; Literary Animal Studies; species difference

PL

antropomorfizm; antropocentryzm; komercyjne książki obrazkowe; Little Golden Books; literackie studia nad zwierzętami; różnice międzygatunkowe

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Gdański
• Journal: Problemy Wczesnej Edukacji
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 3(34)
• Pages: 48-57

Dates

published

2016

Contributors

author

Hübben Kelly

• Stockholm University (Sweden)

References

• 1. Björck A. (2013), Metaforer och materialiseringar: om apor hos Vladimir Nabokov och Sara Stridsberg. “Tidskrift för litteraturvetenskap” (1988. Print), pp. 5–20.
• 2. Daniel C. (2006), Voracious children: who eats whom in children’s literature. New York, Routledge, Jackson K., Scarry R. (2005, 1950), The Animals’ Merry Christmas. New York, Random House.
• 3. Jackson K., Tenggren G. (1952), Tawny, Scrawny Lion. New York: Random House. doi: 10.1515/9781400871865-115
• 4. Killing animals (2006). Urbana, University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1093/envhis/12.1.182
• 5. Scarry P., Scarry R. (1954), Pierre Bear. New York, Simon and Schuster,Weil K. (2012), Thinking animals: why animal studies now? New York, Columbia University Press. doi: 10.1002/sce.37304104150
• 6. Wolfe C. (2003), Animal rites: American culture, the discourse of species, and posthumanist theory. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226905129.003.0001

Identifiers

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0009.4842