On the 'Take' - part two

1503: 

  

Edited by CJ Tointon

Maybe you and I don't have a shred of this 'wanting to take' in us, but unfortunately we're surrounded by those who have more than a shred.  They don't care how they make a living (although to be fair, we're all  trying to make ends meet).  But some are trying to get a lot more dollars than they should.  We're all doing whatever it is we're doing, to keep control of our lives.  There's nothing new about this, except for the fact that even with all our excellent education nowadays, we're still letting 'them' control our lives.  And here's how their ego-appealing method works. They let us be persuaded that we are great, superior, deserving of only the best for ourselves.  We are led by the throat, to side with what we so aptly name 'The System'.  

But some escape because they say:  "Maybe I don't want to prop up this sort of system.  In fact, I want to destabilise the whole hierarchical setup.  I don't like it.  Them on top, us underneath with the impoverished under us and the 'edible' animals under all of us.  I want to walk naked through that grand archway of human self image and do spectacular things!  I want people to look within themselves and not look down on 'lower' forms of life nor feel superior to them". 

This superior attitude is deeply inculcated into our attitudes.  "What is it about YOU that tells me I am better than you?"  Or put the other way around, "What is it about YOU that tells me you are better than me?"  Take a dog, for example, a companion animal with whom we're close friends.   "Is that dog lesser than me?  Or better than me?"

But don't humans always have to be 'top dog' in the pack?  In most households where humans are living with animals (or anywhere near animals) the animals invariably come off second best.  The dog, like all other animals, cannot communicate with us in our 'human' language.  They can't voice their feelings.  So if we don't know how they feel, how can we know if they're unhappy?   But since we 'own' them and pay for their board and lodging, they're ours to 'control'.  We build a slave-master relationship, strengthened by knowing they won't threaten us, because they've learnt to be submissive.  We have, in effect, 'domesticated' them to suit our needs.  We talk to them as if they're slightly stupid, even when we're being affectionate (as some might talk with small children).  Our whole relationship with the dog (or with any animal) is based on making sure they know who's boss.  This upper-lower nexus exists in most relationships unless there's subtlety and sensitivity and the 'control' thing is defunct.  But mostly it's twitchingly alive - those who control and those being controlled.  Everything hinges on some being greater and more entitled and some being lesser and less entitled. 

I often wonder what causes people to want to be 'better' than others - stronger, sexier, brainier - whatever.  I conclude that it's just fragile ego comparing itself to others' egos, one-upmanship over other people, all the way down the line until it crosses the species barrier.  That's when things get really nasty and human nature shows its true colours!   

Some people turn a corner. They examine the relationships they have.  They ask: "How is it between me and the family dog?" for instance.  The dog is not stupid even though he/she has no ability to talk or write.  But, as usually happens between dog and human, it depends on 'control'.  Ultimately, humans need the dog to reflect the fact that the human is in control.  'Control' is what humans do.  It might be the dog, the kids or the weeds in the garden, but the mantra of 'control' is oft repeated.  It helps in the scramble towards the top, if only to reinforce the belief of being part of 'the greater'.  That thought supports their very being, as a lifejacket supports a body in water.  My friends living in Great Britain, have that notion reinforced daily, every time they hear their country's name mentioned.

Believing in a sense of one's own greatness, strengthens our sense of anthropocentric superiority.  We know not to entertain the idea of égalité.