A Discourse on the Relationship of Humans and Nonhumans

Humans and animals have long been living in the same land for over thousands of years.

The two species are able to maintain a relationship with one another and thus, ponders on the

thought of how two widely different species maintain a relationship. This paper aims to raise

questions and attempt to provide answers to the nature of the relationship of humans and

nonhumans—its similarities and interactions amidst the obvious barrier that separates the two

species—through the works; Franz Kafka’s “Metamorphosis” and Wilfredo Pascual’s “Animalia.”

The two works of fiction and nonfiction show instances of how humans interact with animals or

nonhumans when placed in a position. Moreover, the two works show that despite being two

widely different species, humans and nonhumans have overlapping characteristics. However, it is

certain that humans are the dominant species as they are equipped with a highly advanced form of

thinking unlike nonhumans.

The differences between the two are not only limited to appearances or form. Their

differences are exhibited in Animalia wherein the two species have their own form of

communication from which the other cannot understand because of a barrier that separates the two.

“Down there, something huge and noble moved and left us breathless… what we felt turned out to

be the vibration made by a herd of elephants communicating with one another, a rumbling low-

frequency sound, an octave lower than the human male’s voice. We felt it drumming our chest”

[23]. As such, communication is clearly the barrier that separates the two species. Humans and

nonhumans alike maintain a relationship of egoism of indifference or hostility to the other species.

Despite clearly living on the same land, humans and nonhumans have their own worlds—

something the other cannot fully traverse, and that in itself lies their resemblance. Both are
conscious that they are unconscious of the world that is outside the boundaries of their own world

and thus, they are unable to understand the other.

A passage in Animalia portrays the similarities of the two species; “But I thought if their

hearing could tell the difference between the solid echoes bouncing off electric posts and the light

fluid echo of a falling leaf, surely they could echolocate pain, fear and death. I remember one of

them opened its mouth again and again and I knew it wasn’t snarling. It was making sounds,

yelling, shouting and listening to echoes because it knew no other way to find its place in this

world” [19]. The unpassable barrier is evidently shown in this passage especially with nonhumans

who have a lower form of thinking. They succumb to their primal instincts in order to escape the

chaos from which they are ignorant of how it ensued. As opposed to humans who have the

capability to understand the situation, nonhumans are unable to make sense of the world as apart

from their instinct to survive yet also feels “pain, fear and death.” As such, nonhumans have the

capability to impart their own feelings, yet are only heard in their own world; it is inaudible to

human beings. With all these notions in mind, it begs the question onto what extent humans would

do when faced in a peril, armed with an advanced form of thinking and a primal instinct of survival

and even also the extent of selfishness humans shall exhibit when nonhumans, such as animals and

insects, would jeopardize the privileges of humans.

Armed with both would result to the inherent egoistic or selfish nature of humans. This

nature especially shows when their privileges are endangered. “‘We really must try to get rid of

it,’ Grete repeated, now directing her remarks exclusively to her father, as her mother was coughing

too much to be able to hear. ‘It’ll be the death of you, I can see it coming. If you have to work as

hard as the three of us do, you shouldn’t have to put up with this constant ordeal at home as well.

Even I can’t stand it anymore.’”[104]. Their sentiments to dispose of Gregor further advance the
notion that humans would will prioritize themselves first implies their total indifference to other

humans. The thought is even emphasized as they were ready to eliminate a family member who

has given them a luxurious life, and much more to Grete, whom Gregor had loved very much when

he had planned on sending her to a music conservatory in order for her to pursue her passion in

the violin, when Gregor’s circumstances endangered their wellbeing. This raises the thought as to

how instantaneous would humans think when their position is jeopardized by a nonhuman—that

to be an insect means to be disposable. The extent of selfishness humans have is shown in Animalia

when the author’s father—despite owning a dog meat shop—relied on a ritual that expected a

dog’s loyalty to cure his sickness. “The cure, the faith healer recommended, involved a ritual. A

stray dog would be captured and wounded with a small cut on its leg. Blood should trickle and

only then would they let the dog go. The evil spirit that caused my father’s suffering would be

attracted to the dog’s trail of blood and follow him and leave my father alone. What struck me was

what the faith healer said about the dog. ‘There will be no healing,’ he said, ‘until the wounded

dog had returned home’” [27]. This meant that humans, despite their egoistic nature to prioritize

themselves, are—to an extent—able to tolerate the idea of ironically sacrificing nonhumans for

their own wellbeing—and they have the capability to do so. Another point to raise is the

relationship of humans and nonhumans—here, a dog—that humans are the dominant species and

thus, the masters of the animals; the relationship is a master to slave. The term “slave” connotes

that nonhumans are reduced to material objects. This is how humans can identify themselves with

nonhumans, and this is further shown in Metamorphosis.

Franz Kafka portrays what it is to be like a nonhuman—here, an insect. Gregor Samsa who

had once been a human and now an enormous bedbug, had his most prized possessions and

collections taken from him [86]. This shows how much he had been reduced from a human to a
nonhuman—that he had no right to own anything, as possession is attributed only to humans, and

only humans are able to bestow upon possession to nonhumans. Furthermore, he also shows how

much humans have a notion that nonhumans are inferior to them in terms of thinking. This is

shown when Herr Samsa uses forcefully send Gregor back to his room, with only the notion that

nonhumans cannot think or interpret language but can feel “fear, pain and death.” Moreover, for a

nonhuman, it is shown that they are unable to make decisions for themselves and thus, needs

permission from their masters in order to move. This is shown when Gregor repeatedly thinks of

thoughts as to if he is allowed to do something or not, even as natural and typical as turning around

or walking [106]. Lastly, Franz Kafka’s choice of silencing Gregor despite having thoughts and

feelings throughout the whole short story portray that Gregor, who was once a human, had been

reduced to merely a nonhuman—a creature whose life is no longer of importance. However, it is

clear that is he conscious of everything that is happening in the household. This implicates the

perceived nature of nonhuman beings, that they are subject to the whims and dominance of

humans. This also symbolizes the worlds of nonhumans from which is untraversable. Furthermore,

it lastly points out a characteristic of the relationship of a human and a nonhuman; both are

unconscious of the world of the other.

This begs the question as to how can a human traverse the barriers placed. In Animalia, an

attempt to traverse such a boundary is shown, “Look, he said, lifting a big wet rock. He showed

me something underneath it—a gelatinous mass. He scraped it using his hand and asked me to

look closer at the frog’s eggs. “Open your mouth,” he said, and I ate it, fresh and wild, straight

from his glistening fingers to my hungry bird throat [32]. This implicates a pessimistic

understanding and conclusion that the only way to traverse such a barrier is to be able to become

a nonhuman. In conclusion, we cannot fully understand what is not of the human world as we are
inherently humans. To attempt to understand such a world is to become nonhuman. However, why

are we so fixated on understanding the nonhuman worlds in the first place? Is it not our

preconceived notion that anything that is nonhuman is not as significant as a human?

 Bibliography

Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis and Other Stories. London: Alma Books, 2015.

Pascual, Wilfredo. Kilometer Zero: Personal Essays. Quezon City: 2017.