The dominant ideology of our time argues that man is separate from nature. That view, which most of us accept as 'normality,' claims that human beings are superior animals -- indeed, it claims that human beings are not even animals, nor of nature.* In many circles -- (following the ideas of Descartes, who died in 1650) human beings are held to have immortal souls, while 'brute animals' none. 'Brutes' are declared inferior and unfeeling. The same belief maintains that we can inflict pain on non-human animals, because they do not feel pain -- or if they do, not as we do. If they respond, when injured, the sounds they make are merely mechanical reflexes and vocalisations.
Similar beliefs are still held by some scientists who advance them to justify vivisection (experimentation on live animals). Derbyshire, a pro vivisectionist, recently wrote that, 'animals are absent pain and suffering... animal behaviour is mechanical, driven by the dictates of nature...it is a black, silent existence that is not conscious of its own processes, or, at the very most, a dark murky experience that does not compare with our own.' Derbyshire argues that we project our expectation of feeling on to the animal.' Psychoanalysis could counter that argument by saying that in his case, projection is at work: instead of saying 'I don't feel a thing,' he thinks 'they don't feel a thing.' Those who have a close relationship with animals would find Derbyshire's claims to be acutely lacking in perception and insight.
Some quasi sacred writings, written, of course, by men, have declared that animals are evil human beings reborn. Or that God has granted man dominion over animals, for exploitative use (a condition akin to the worst slavery), for experimentation, entertainment, consumption or extermination. The latter ideology is not only espoused by Christians; most people continue to uncritically accept this ideology, such is the extent of the prevailing anthropocentrism.
Plato declared that the phenomena of nature are no more than imperfect copies of a divine idea or Form. Read Nietzsche's criticism of that. In essence, Plato declares symbolic thought to be superior to nature (nature is viewed as a copy of thought), rather than thought being a copy, a representation, of nature. The development of this notion is explored in the essay Greek Gods to Ideal Forms.
The outcome of these notions are disastrous for the well being of human beings, animals, and the ecosystem. Nature, women, and animals are relegated to the lower end of a hierarchy of spiritual importance or value.
According to Freud, 'Civilisation' suppresses the instincts. In a patriarchal society reminders of our instinctual life -- nature, animals, the feminine (primarily because women bear children, which is an irrational, natural process), the body, the here and now Real --- are suppressed, while images, representations, and all the paraphernalia of symbolic thought are idealised, in some cases to the point of worship. For example, art is highly valued: Van Gogh's representation of Sunflowers is construed to be of much greater value than a bowl of real sunflowers.
* 'The animal world is a constituent part of nature but our world is not' - Prof. Stuart Derbyshire in 'Why animal rights are wrong.' in Animal Experimentation: Good or Bad? (Hodder & Stoughton, Oxford, 2002)
Man has often identified himself with a god, or gods. The Roman emperor, Augustus, was declared a god, and many of his successors. Divine authority is often used to maintain political power or to sanction ideological 'truth.'
The common man, too, is the possessor, according to the Greeks, of the divine nous, or spark. In time, immortality and quasi divinity became a self-appointed acquisition, not just of Caesars and certain rulers, but of every man. He crowned himself with quasi-divinity to give each succeeding generation a rationale to enslave 'inferior' species. This self imposed 'superiority' over nature supplies mankind with a carte blanche to imprison, enslave, experiment on, and kill, healthy, live animals. The ideology is so entrenched that most human beings think such cruelty is 'natural,' and 'necessary' for human well-being.
A case of vivisection
It is, of course, not 'natural' at all, but a clever con job. Remember that years ago, those who supported human slavery believed it natural - it was justified by scripture, it was economically necessary, and so on. The same applied, for a time, to medical experimentation on certain groups of human beings who were viewed as unfeeling or inferior.
At this time, we must realise that every day, animals suffer in a holocaust we have created.
It is time to end the practice.