Familiar Lessons on Physiology and Phrenology (1847)

AUTHOR: Fowler, Lydia Folger

In these volumes, Lydia Folger Fowler promotes animal welfare on the basis of physiology and phrenology. She also advocates for Temperance. For Fowler the human is the highest achievement of evolution and differs from other animals through the capacity for morality and for judgment (versus instinct, which humans have in highly developed form). However, she draws on the discourse of phrenology to present attributes that are traditionally applied only to humans – such as the capacity for speech, will, and emotion – as grounded in physiological processes. Thus these attributes are available, in various degrees, to any animal that possesses the “organs” needed to perform these attributes. Fowler compares the skulls and brains of humans and other animals, and maps moral and behavioral characteristics on to her physiological observations, such as “organs” in the head (areas in the brain) and the shape of specific regions of the skull. The notion of “intellect,” however, remains immaterial for Fowler (I 84-95).

She uses the discourse of phrenology to justify a welfarist animal ethics. Her accounts of animal physiology and behavior anthropomorphize nonhuman animals which, in the case of birds, leads to the explicit argument that children should treat them kindly: “Children, never be cruel to birds! Remember they are innocent, happy songsters, and that we ought not to destroy any of the melody which there is in nature” (II 165-166). Fowler’s phrenological lexicon also provides an explanation of the causes of gratuitous violence ("Destructiveness"), both against animals and among humans. In contrast, "Philoprogenetiveness" is the organ responsible for the love of offspring and animals (II 31-34). Fowler links the propensity for violence – "Destructiveness" – to carnism, though only in animals; the animals that are not traditionally domesticated (lions, bears, etc.) have long, sharp teeth and are therefore carnivores, whereas, for example, sheep are not (II 50-54). While she does not explicitly advocate for veg*ism, Fowler is convinced that “water and simple food are better for the blood than tea, coffee, and all kinds of spices and rich food” (I 24). Likewise, she condemns the use of alcohol and tobacco (II 56-57).

In her representation of animals, Fowler recognizes their agency but discounts their individuality. She refers to intellectual cognition (“to know”) and intentionality (such as when she tells of an elephant taking revenge on humans; I 91). She also uses simile to interpret the behavior of animals as human-like.

One should note that Fowler’s work aligns with contemporary scientific racism. Thus, she claims that “[t]he Indian has Constructiveness joined with Combativeness and Destructiveness; hence his mind is exercised in manufacturing implements of war” (II 120). She also avers that “[t]hose persons in whom the Motive or Muscular Temperaments predominate, have black hair, dark skin” (II 199).

Last updated on August 29th, 2024

SNSF project 100015_204481

@VLS@veganism.social | VeganLiteraryStudies | @veganliterarystudies |