Animals

Critically reading Amitav Ghosh’s Sea of Poppies, the present paper attempts to explore the impacts of colonization on indigenous subjects, plants and animals. To trace the detrimental effects of colonialism on both environment and people in Sea of Poppies, this study foregrounds the reflection of the obligatory cultivation of poppy under the rule of British colonizers in India. Sea of Poppies is indeed a portrayal of the catastrophic policies enforced in India by British colonizers in the nineteenth century. In his seminal novel Ghosh deals with the changes brought about by the lucrative cultivation of poppy in the exacerbation of the financial status of indigenous subjects. Environmental devastation and the changes in the normal behavior of animals are also dealt with. Focusing on the theoretical frameworks proposed by Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin, this paper explores the convergence of postcolonialism and ecocriticism in Ghosh’s Sea of Poppies to indicate that not only were native people impoverished during colonialism in India, but also the ecosystem was severely damaged.

We use the term “good” in two contexts: as the most general term of evaluation, and to refer to the final ends of life and action. I start from the question what evaluative and final goodness have to do with each other. Do we use the same term because when we talk about final goods, we are evaluating ends and lives? If so, how do we go about doing that? Most things are evaluated with respect to their fitness to perform their function, but ends and lives do not have functions. I contrast three theories of the final good: the intrinsic value theory, the hedonist theory, and Aristotle’s account, which identifies a being’s final good with its well-functioning, a form of evaluative goodness. Aristotle’s theory suggests an illuminating relationship between evaluative and final goodness: a conscious being has a final good when she functions by having conscious states that track, and so enable her to pursue, her functional or evaluative goodness. It is therefore the nature of an animal to have a final good, and there are such things as final goods because there are animals. This theory explains the existence of final goods without any metaphysical appeal to intrinsic values.

Neolithic and food production from domesticated species has been one of the most important topics discussed and studied about prehistoric archaeology. Since the 1920s, or even much earlier, archaeologists tried to explain this great event that changed human life after millions of years of hunting-gathering. During these years, various theories based on technological, environmental, economic and sustenance, demographic, social, and evolutionary and, in recent decades, ideological, have been proposed by researchers. Some believe that Neolithic and food production is not an absolute and sudden process, but a long-term process, from knowing and choosing of species, management, and domestication of interdependence; this process is called Neolithization. The Neolithization process is not just the adoption of a new way of life due to environmental and demographic changes, but the beginning of human mental and worldviews changes. In this period, human manifests new behaviors, including rituals, which can be seen in burials, handicrafts, and architecture. Placing animal horns (domestic/wild) in the architectural space is one of these ritual behaviors. This symbolic behavior has been found in Fertile Crescent sites, from the Levant in the westernmost to Iran’s easternmost borders. Some researchers believe that this behavior is to gain authority, while some believe that humans tried to use these ways to control the wild in their inner domestic world. In this research, the authors have tried to analyze this type of behavior from the perspective of Neolithization ideological theories.