--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_y..., "Leo Tokarski" <technogeek83_at_a...> wrote:
> RedFox, a friend of mine, posted this on a message board I
frequent, and I thought you might like to see it.
>
> I have permission from him, of course.
>
> Sorry about the cross-posting, but I wanted to make sure everyone
got this. It's really interesting anyway.
>
> ---
> Since the dawn of time, humanity has had a strong link to animals -
envying their strength, speed, stamina, cunning, agility, endurance,
whatever. Arguably the first form of religion amongst humanity was
worship of some sort of anthropomorphic pantheon - the notion that
these hybrids of man and animal had the best qualities of both. It
was a method of drawing strength; of identifying with he
characteristics that one most desired to emulate, and often gave a
focus to allow someone to transcend normal psychological limits.
>
> With the development of agriculture, settlement, and a movement
away from hunter-gatherers, the old animist religions mutated into
more formalized rituals and codified beliefs - the first "true"
religions. These too carried the elements of anthropomorphics - the
presence of anthropomorphic deities in Sumerian, Babylonian, Tolto-
Olmec, Egyptian, Mycenaean, and even proto-Hindu and Shinto beliefs
is plain as day. The animalistic nature of these beings set them
apart from humanity, as again possessing something better - a
characteristic that was somehow more refined and elevated than those
that were attainable by "mere" humans. The animals became a symbol of
association with the strengths that humans often desired. Consider
the wisdom of Athena's owl, or the strength and savagery of Artemis's
hounds, the proclivity of Tiamat, the serpent mother of Sumer who
gave birth to the World Egg, or the cunning and strength of the
jaguar represented by Tezcatlipoca, Keeper of Secrets and Smoking
Mirror of the Aztec.
>
> As societies became more and more strict, a second urge was born -
that to separate from the mass of humanity around oneself. This was
the birth of the "back to nature" groups - the ones that sought a
measure of individuality by leaving the bounds that a growing society
was imposing on them. In a world of increasing complexity and
codification, there was an added allure to the animalistic nature -
that of wildness, of freedom without forethought, of a sort of savage
innocence. Free from moral concern, the hunter-cum-wolf could revel
in the thrill of the chase, without the fear of guilt or morality in
the simple pursuit of biological imperatives.
Unfortunately, in order for humanity to take advantage of its
collective strengths of planning and use of tools to overcome
nature's obstacles individuals need to think instead of just react.
That increasing complexity and codification is necessary for
societies to organize and survive.
>
> Fairy tales and children's stories have long capitalized upon the
primal associations that animals are somehow less constrained and
freer to express themselves. Often these stories also contain some
measure of a warning of the consequences - the Big Bad Wolf gets
killed in Little Red Riding Hood, for example. But the animalistic
iconography is evident at the base levels of our psyche, common
mythology, and our society itself.
>
> In this day and age, with a swirling mass of increasing confusion
as to what rules apply (The Constantans had nothing over the US legal
code for "Byzantine"), with conflicting moral statements growing
increasingly more conflicting and drifting towards the extremes (Li'l
Kim vs. Rev. Phelps, for example), there is a certain simplicity
in "transcending" conflicting moral codes. The simplicity of
existence driven by imperatives - When one is "acting like an
animal", it is without restraint, without thought to consequence.
Living in the moment, instead of for tomorrow.
Living for today is fine, until you realize that the bridge you just
burned was necessary to get out of the lethal situation you just
walked into. Organization is not a bad thing in and of itself; it
helps people work together in a group with as little friction between
them as possible.
>
> The draw of modern anthropomorphic fandom is often that element -
the natural being simpler, yet transcending that which we can attain
in society because of the very weight we carry around known as "the
future". It is indeed a mask - one that most people can put on and
take off freely, drifting from the unrefined state to normal
civility. In a society where sex sells, but is "wrong", it is a
simple way for some people to avoid guilt in physical expression -
the comforting touch of another being, covered in the iconography of
animalistic expression - most people will seek some sort of physical
contact internally, but cannot come up with any way to express it in
a "socially acceptable" manner - or how many stilted forms of
physical contact we have developed as global societies to express any
sort of physical contact while keeping it totally restrained and
refined. The handshake, the peck on the cheek, holding hands...
Simpler does not always mean better. Which is better when it rains,
living under a tree or in a watertight house with a source of heat?
Also, socially acceptable does not always mean bad; self-control is
one of the core values of civilized behavior.
>
> This form of reassurance is biologically driven - the touch of
another IS comforting. Yet the restraints society imposes makes
finding it very difficult. By shedding humanity" by covering it in
the iconography of zoomorphism, one can more easily express this need
for touch - for play. One can see this sort of "more acceptable"
physical contact in most sci-fi fandoms - consider the "backrub
chains" that form at some cons, and the free expression of hugs, with
no sexual connotations, in many fandoms. Since they are
already "outside the mainstream", there is a bit more license to
express these normally restricted desires for physical contact. By
embracing a more raw, natural sexuality inherent in animals, there is
indeed a more directly sexual element to furrydom - but only because
the choice of iconography is both so powerful and so drawing to many
people on a basal level.
>
'Shedding Humanity' can be a bad thing if you do so out in the open
when a thunderstorm rolls on through and you are reduced to a soaked,
freezing person with no shelter or heat from a fire. The sexuality
in nature is more of a controlling element than a liberating element
because the animals are a slave of their own bodies. Any sexuality to
be seen in the animals is more of what the observer sees rather than
what might be inherent in what is being observed. Becoming one with
the animals is to give up any freedoms that come with exercising
one's intelligence and capacity for reasoning and being apart from
nature.
> Consider on the reassurance factor as well - when we're children,
we are exposed to thousands of images of animals and anthropomorphs
in comforting, reassuring, fun and carefree roles - Robin Hood is a
good example of this, and the one most often cited. Many people in
Furry Fandom are very expressive, creative types or very technically
oriented - people who spend a lot of time dealing with constant
strictures and barriers imposed seemingly ad hoc by society. In such
a group, where individuals are constantly running up against the
restrictions of society, the allure of a strong level of reassurance
and the inherent freedom of therianthropism
(the "spiritual"/psychological process of expressing an
animalistic 'totem') can be strong indeed. But just as the freedom
associated with it can be a strong draw, it can also cause a lot of
fear and negativity - those who fear the "irresponsible" expression
of anything, or that fear in a more personal sense their own
potential to "lose control."
>
The Robin Hood I have read of is definitely not the Disneyfied anthro
version. Robin Hood was temporarily on the loosing end of a political
war and took to outlawry as a form of guerrila warfare, but he was
not a 'comforting, reassuring, fun and carefree role'. Not even
Raven or Coyote could be considered such; they could be just as
vicious and nasty as any.
'Loosing Control' is justifiably negative; just look at what drunk
drivers are capable of when alcohol removes their self-control.
When 'self-expression' is carried out in the absence of self-control
it can be as destabilizing a force as any outside subversive force.
Self-control is at the core of civilized behavior and the ability to
work together with others. Losing control is a fragmenting force in
society and inherently destructive.
> We are taught to fear our instincts, to fear becoming "the beast" -
yet the chemistry that drives this is still a part of us. This
conflict is often unfortunately resolved through sudden, violent
expression in strongly repressed individuals. Furries, in general,
express these feelings more readily, and while this often gives an
outlook at a crystallized society (and the sneering "mundane" title)
as somehow separate, confining and antithetical to existence. If the
fear of "the beast" in every man was actually what it is said to be,
wouldn't there be more concern over Furry mass-murderers than about
people who dress up in suits and have sex? The reactive fear is that
of toppling assumptions - people who express such animalistic
tendencies should be violent, depraved, lawless and dangerous, yet
they tend to be docile and passive more often than not in society.
Consider the question of: which do you want more in society, violence
or sex? Which one of them is really the bigger threat? And why is it
that you can rent a movie that shows graphic dismemberment from any
Blockbuster (Hannibal), yet to rent anything involving sexual
penetration you need to go to a specially licensed retailer in a
seedier part of town?
'The Beast' is just that. Most furrie fans tend to ignore the fact
that nature is in general 'red of tooth and claw' and even more
Darwinian than most societies. The anthro community has already
started to form it's own society, but it must be able to interact at
some level with the society it is a part of (the 'mainstream'). The
people who form 'the mainstream' of U.S. society in general are not
card-carrying members of the 700 Club but still see the Furry fans as
outside the norm and therefore suspect.
> ---
>
> --
> Takel Windfeather - Gryphon Wizard
>
> Takel on FM and Tapestries
> ICQ# 145608211
John Dunkelburg
I enjoy watching animals, but I would rather remain human myself.
Received on Thu Jan 10 2002 - 22:19:02 CST