Linda Brant talked about
memorializing the deaths of animals that we normally don’t grieve over and what
it could mean to humans by introducing the word “grievability” .The grievabilitiy
of an animal’s death depends on the context of the animal (whether it’s a predator
or prey). The more innocent an animal is, the more reason there is for their
death to be something to grieve over. Listening to her lecture made me think,
and although she made some good points about the grievability of animals, I had
a different take on the idea. Personally for me, it doesn’t matter what the context
of the animal is, but more about what you personally feel for that particular
animal. A stranger’s death doesn’t make one grieve. Although its sad, its only
sad because the concept of death is a sad one in itself. People die everywhere
all the time, but people only truly grieve over the deaths of loved ones. Pet
cemeteries are so popular, not because of the animals’ deaths’ grievability,
but because of the personal connection one felt for that pet. Rats are
typically not grieved over, and most people have a negative connotation of rats.
But rats are also very popular rats, and when a pet rat dies, someone may hold
a small ritual for the death of their pet rat and grieve. The reason why the
connotation of the animal and its innocence plays a factor in the grievability
of its death is because it is easier to imagine ourselves having a relationship
with an animal that is perceived as innocent than it is with an animal with
sharp teeth that can eat a person in a couple bites. Seeing a cute squirrel on
the side of a road and thinking, “I could have that squirrel as a pet” is what
causes us to empathize with that animal and grieve when we see one dying a few
days later.
