The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths is a title that comes about wondering: ‘what is it about humans that makes them alone in the animal kingdom in being unable to sit in contented silence?’ In defining progress, Gray distinguishes between the progress of science and technology — which he sees as cumulative, and ethics and politics — which deal with recurring societal dilemmas. Similar to Sigmund Freud’s pessimism that suggested the natural state of humanity is sickness, and that one may only accept that and perhaps be aware of its limitations (provided therapy), comes this latest work by John N Gray (also the author of Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia).
Gray deploys a series of aphorisms that are supported through personal narratives of rebellion and exploitation from the last two centuries to make his points. Whether finding confirmation from the viewpoint of a burned-out communist (Alexander Herzen), or the viewpoint of a burned-out imperialist (Joseph Conrad), Gray seeks to expose the different faces of what he calls the ‘myth of progress.’ From the premise, “Evolution has no end-point or direction, so if the development of society is an evolutionary process it is one that is going nowhere,” Gray argues that those who claim to be able to banish the wickedness of mankind really just want to replace humans with figments of their imagination. For Gray, it is delusional to think that barbarism can be excised from humans (and foolish to think that such efforts would not likely entail their own barbarism).
In describing his opposition, Gray borrows the phrase ‘Ichthyophils’ from the Russian Radical journalist Alexander Herzen (1812-1870): “Ichthyophils are devoted to their species as they believe it ought to be, not as it actually is or as it truly wants to be.” Gray goes on to elaborate:
“Ichthyophils come in many varieties – the Jacobin, Bolshevik and Maoist, terrorizing humankind in order to remake it on a new model; the neo-conservative, waging perpetual war as a means to universal democracy; liberal crusaders for human rights, who are convinced that all the world longs to become as they imagine themselves to be.” (p. 60)
This broad indictment of much of the descendants of Platonic idealism has its limits in understanding the individual movements at more detailed levels. However, Gray is entertainingly persuasive in going after largely unchallenged foundational assumptions of opposing thought.
Gray also contrasts himself against atheist-humanists like Richard Dawkins, by describing what he thinks are contradictions in atheist-humanist assumptions about human beings:
“They exalt nature, while insisting that humankind – an accident of nature – can overcome the natural limits that shape the lives of other animals. Plainly absurd, this nonsense gives meaning to the lives of people who believe they have left all myths behind.” (p. 80)
The quietism that Gray seems to favor in his criticisms of other popular philosophical trends is probably most reminiscent of Blaise Pascal. The philosopher-scientist of the 1600s who once remarked, “All man’s miseries derive from not being able to sit quietly in a room alone.” There is something to be said for emphasizing negative morality, on trying to stay out of trouble. However, to exist solely in a state of contemplation one wonders what would become of everything/everyone else (who’s carrying the water and hoeing the garden so to speak). This is perhaps why Gray sees the utility in the religions of the past, of quiet sacred spaces that act as temporary refuge from the worldly life.
Far from looking to abandon myth, Gray sees life without myth as like life without sex or art. In assuming that humanity is not able to ‘rise above’ myth, Gray reformulates perspectives as competing over a better depiction of reality gained from experience:
“In comparison with the Genesis myth, the modern myth in which humanity is marching to a better future is mere superstition. As the Genesis story teaches, knowledge cannot save us from ourselves. If we know more than before, it means only that we have greater scope to enact our fantasies. But – as the Genesis myth also teaches – there is no way we can rid ourselves of what we know. If we try to regain a state of innocence, the result can only be a worse madness. The message of Genesis is that in the most vital areas of human life there can be no progress, only an unending struggle with our own nature.” (p. 79-80)
Gray’s build-up and breakdown toward this ‘beginning where we start’ aspect is an overall entertaining journey. On a spectrum of popular pessimistic philosophy one could easily contrast Gray’s stance to Slavoj Zizek, a self-proclaimed Marxist psychoanalytic, who thinks that humanity should seek to become more artificial, more cut-off from its roots in nature. If what is meant by conservative is an understanding of the human animal as one with biological limitations just like every other animal, and that’s ok, then Gray is indeed a conservative for the contemporary era. I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars, and 240 pages seems like just the right length for the aphoristic style that Gray employs.
considering the three year grind that is law school in the United States.