Through culture, religion and representation the tiger is seen in many different ways. Scapegoating, the sacrificial victim and the history of mimetic rivalry all involve these many different ideas. Elsie Cloete digs through the idea of animot and the perception of “absolute hospitality” as regards to the other. Her article “Tigers, Humans and Animots” prove her research and focus on Yann Martel’s Life of Pi (2003). Elsie demonstrates in general , comparing and contrasting each idea, depending at which end you are standing, sometimes finding yourself at different ends at the same time. She parallels all of the diiferent points of view clearly into detail, step by step to how these ideas develop.
She illustrates how tigers are the most highly developed in the animal kingdom. At first it seemed very confusing asking what did all this have to do with how a tiger is seen between culture and religion. After going through the whole article it all made sense to why she goes into very deep characteristics of the tiger and its representation. For example: it is comprehended that some governments symbolize victory through a tiger as opposed to others who sees it as destruction. Another thing acknowledged is that tigers can be tamed bringing a whole other form of representation. What Elsie is trying to prove is that it depends on humans culture and religion to the way they see others and things in general.
Every being is different whether it be animal , or human. No one knows what it is actually like to be the other. We like to assume in overall that all of the same kind are the same depending on species per say. Elsie Cloete is trying to point out that every living thing is a different world yet are still a being for that sole fact. Is she really questioning how humans see others and other species? Subsequently analyzing her thoughts one could say that she is wrong. Her research on Elizabeth Costello shows how humans cannot imajine themselves in someone...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document