Call of the Wild- Chapters 1-2
Toward the end of Chapter 2, London makes statements about the protagonist, Buck, and about changes in his value system as he struggles to adapt to his new environment.
"He swiftly lost the fastidiousness which had characterized his old life. A dainty eater, he found that his mates, finishing first, robbed him of his unfinished ration. There was no defending it. While he was fighting off two or three, it was disappearing down the throats of the others. To remedy this, he ate as fast as they; and, so greatly did hunger compel him, he was not above taking what did not belong to him. He watched and learned. When he saw Pike, one of the new dogs, a clever malingerer and thief, slyly steal a slice of bacon when Perrault's back was turned, he duplicated the performance the following day, getting away with the whole chunk. A great uproar was raised, but he was unsuspected; while Dub, an awkward blunderer who was always getting caught, was punished for Buck's misdeed.
This first theft marked Buck as fit to survive in the hostile Northland environment. It marked his adaptability, his capacity to adjust himself to changing conditions, the lack of which would have meant swift and terrible death. It marked, further, the decay or going to pieces of his moral nature, a vain thing and a handicap in the ruthless struggle for existence. It was all well enough in the Southland, under the law of love and fellowship, to respect private property and personal feelings; but in the Northland, under the law of club and fang, whoso took such things into account was a fool, and in so far as he observed them he would fail to prosper.
Not that Buck reasoned it out. He was fit, that was all, and unconsciously he accommodated himself to the new mode of life. All his days, no matter what the odds, he had never run from a fight. But the club of the man in the red sweater had beaten into him a more fundamental and primitive code. Civilized, he could have died for a moral consideration, say the defence of Judge Miller's riding-whip; but the completeness of his decivilization was now evidenced by his ability to flee from the defence of a moral consideration and so save his hide. He did not steal for joy of it, but because of the clamor of his stomach. He did not rob openly, but stole secretly and cunningly, out of respect for club and fang. In short, the things he did were done because it was easier to do them than not to do them."
What is London saying about nature, about the world, about humans? What worldview is he supporting? Think of the terms we defined in class.
"He swiftly lost the fastidiousness which had characterized his old life. A dainty eater, he found that his mates, finishing first, robbed him of his unfinished ration. There was no defending it. While he was fighting off two or three, it was disappearing down the throats of the others. To remedy this, he ate as fast as they; and, so greatly did hunger compel him, he was not above taking what did not belong to him. He watched and learned. When he saw Pike, one of the new dogs, a clever malingerer and thief, slyly steal a slice of bacon when Perrault's back was turned, he duplicated the performance the following day, getting away with the whole chunk. A great uproar was raised, but he was unsuspected; while Dub, an awkward blunderer who was always getting caught, was punished for Buck's misdeed.
This first theft marked Buck as fit to survive in the hostile Northland environment. It marked his adaptability, his capacity to adjust himself to changing conditions, the lack of which would have meant swift and terrible death. It marked, further, the decay or going to pieces of his moral nature, a vain thing and a handicap in the ruthless struggle for existence. It was all well enough in the Southland, under the law of love and fellowship, to respect private property and personal feelings; but in the Northland, under the law of club and fang, whoso took such things into account was a fool, and in so far as he observed them he would fail to prosper.
Not that Buck reasoned it out. He was fit, that was all, and unconsciously he accommodated himself to the new mode of life. All his days, no matter what the odds, he had never run from a fight. But the club of the man in the red sweater had beaten into him a more fundamental and primitive code. Civilized, he could have died for a moral consideration, say the defence of Judge Miller's riding-whip; but the completeness of his decivilization was now evidenced by his ability to flee from the defence of a moral consideration and so save his hide. He did not steal for joy of it, but because of the clamor of his stomach. He did not rob openly, but stole secretly and cunningly, out of respect for club and fang. In short, the things he did were done because it was easier to do them than not to do them."
What is London saying about nature, about the world, about humans? What worldview is he supporting? Think of the terms we defined in class.
In class we talked about naturalism. Naturalism in stories is characterized by the idea that characters have very little control of their own decisions, that nature or surrounding circumstances cause their decisions to basically be made for them. Call of the Wild and specifically this excerpt shows this idea very vividly, the character of Buck ends up making decisions that break his “moral code” simply because his circumstances leave him no other choice. We also have to keep in mind though that “he stole secretly and with cunningly” which leads us to believe that his moral code was not completely destroyed, or perhaps he was just afraid of being beaten. This philosophy can then be related back to the nature of humans who, when found in similar circumstances, tend to fall into similar reactions to that of Buck. We also talked in class about humanism, does anyone else think that this sounds a lot like the ideal in humanism that says “it is society that causes man to be evil”?
ReplyDelete~M
I guess this is Mak? I thought it was Mrs Butler at first it's so good XD
DeleteI love how you pointed out "secretly and cunningly". It does make me wonder if the humanist world view blames society for the choices made, or the ability to choose at all. The latter has some scary implications.
Addressing the question is Makhaila's post. I completely agree with what you were saying about it seeming like the ideal in humanism is saying that society causes man to be evil. we talked in class about this a bit if I remember correctly. we talked about how humanists believe that "oh well I was forced to steal that muffin because my boss wouldn't give me a raise." or " I had to lie to my mom because she would never believe the truth." It seems to me that humanists entire worldview rests upon the inevitable trip of society.
DeleteDo you guys think that if everyone was perfect there would be any worldviews?
I find it interesting that for the most part Buck acts like a normal dog - whenever he takes on human traits the author must be making a point. Dogs don't think about morals, as the reader does when they see the word "steal". Jack London often presents the story as commentary on the dogs behavior, drawing conclusions on topics like the worth of values ("...moral nature, a vain thing and a handicap...") and when evil is justified ( "...it was easier to do them than not to do them."). But does this suggest that we should look to DOGS as role models? Many of the individual points made in this way are true - Buck may have indeed starved to death without stealing the bacon. However, this does not tell us anything about the morality of theft. It tells us some dogs will steal bacon if hungry. Yes, from a materialist view, most morals are handicaps. But when people make sacrifices to uphold their convictions, it ADDS to the value of those morals. If someone is willing to starve to death to avoid stealing, it tells us that they considered that conviction as worth more than life itself. I would agree that morals are a hindrance in the "struggle for survival". But I will say that humans have different needs than dogs to truly live.
ReplyDeleteNow a question - for someone with a worldview such as Marxism or Naturalism, is dogs to humans a valid comparison? In their eyes, we are simply intelligent animals. Is this a good argument against morals?
You asked the question should dogs be looked at as role modules. Then towards the end, you answered it by saying that dogs and humans have different needs to survive. Even though there are humans in the book can London be using dogs as a symbol? Yes, I do believe that dogs and humans are different, but what are there needs that are different than humans? The only one I can think of his God. Dogs and Humans both need food, shelter, companionship, a need to live all to survive. Humans do have different brains than dogs. The human brain can do so much more than a dog can. Could London be using dogs as the symbol that if you take away all the advancement that humans have maid they still have to go back to the question what will you do to survive? We make these types of decision daily even if they are all not conscious decisions, we still make them.
Delete"In order to succeed in the world, one must always think and act pragmatically." This is the mindset of all of the hardcore advocates of pragmatism. They think that the only way one can, not only survive, but succeed, is through pragmatic decisions. As you reads Jack London's 'Call of the Wild', they can see the pragmatic philosophy in all of Buck's decisions. Within the passage above, you can see multiple examples of this. When Buck tries to eat his food slowly, it is stolen from him, and when he upholds his "moral code" and does not steal, he grows hungry. Because his initial actions did not help him or his stomach, Buck changed his ways. He scarfed down his food, and he stole bacon from Perrault. His new actions improved his well-being and were practical for his survival, so he continued to act pragmatically.
ReplyDeletePragmatism has good and bad implications in the real world. An example of the harmful effects of pragmatism would be not having children. Since they would only increase your expenses and would not provide any income, it would not be practical to have kids. A good effect of pragmatism would be getting a job, because it is the practical thing to do. Let me know what you think about the application of pragmatism in the book, and in the real world.
Good point Parker! I definitely see that in the story. Do you think that "pragmatism" could include wants (within reason) as well as needs? Or is it simply a utilitarian way to seek the greatest benefit? I have seen it used to refer to actions that are evaluated based on their outcome. If having kids keeps you from being lonely, gives you purpose, and invests in living security for old age, then it may be worth it to some people. Can pragmatism apply to more than just oneself? Say you want the best for your community.
DeleteJust some thoughts, I haven't done a lot of research into the philosophy of pragmatism.
Here's a question; would Buck's action have been pragmatic if he had been caught?
The definition of acting pragmatically (as apposed to the philosophy of pragmatism) in the most basic sense of the word is “Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.” Now if we ignore all of the fancy words this definition is basicaly saying being pragmatic is taking what has happened before and learning from our experiences. Concerning the question of Buck’s actions being pragmatic if he had been caught and using this definition. Yes he was acting pragmatically , because he was basing his actions off of his previous experiences which fits with the definition of the term. Whether or not he was caught makes no difference in the fact that his experiences did in fact effect his decision.
DeleteThe beginning of the book focuses mainly on when Buck a city dog is taken from one location to another and the changes are made in order to survive. When Buck was at home, he was the 'king' of all the dogs and had no need to survive, on his own. After the change of location/nature, Buck then had to change in order to survive. The Quote above focus on the point of how the other dogs learned they too had change which drives Buck's change. Buck has to eat rapidly in order to live, because of the other dog's hunger. While most of Bucks change comes from nature itself. Nature forces Buck to live in the cold, feel no pain, find warmth, fight, work and most of all find a determination to live. The people and other dogs also drive part of his change. I feel like London is driving at the point that the world is continually changing and a person must regularly change, due to the fact. He proves this point by showing that something as small as a location change, results in all the rules of life-changing.
ReplyDeleteThe worldview that London is communication is that of 'Humanism' Through the beginning of the story he's saying that Bucks ideas of what was right and wrong changed based on where he was. Buck was the one that decides right and wrong. His action changed but also who he was.
While I would agree that Buck did make decisions showing that dogs have intelligence and emotions would not be enough to show that dogs have morality. But ideas are most certainly applicable to human morality, our circumstances, while never able to inately change what is right or wrong, can most definitely change our view on what is.
Delete~M
I think that you made some great points, but, with regards to the statement that "Buck was the one that decides right and wrong", I'd have to disagree with you. London, throughout the book, portrays a more radical sense of humanism, in which he does not believe that humans (or dogs) have the ability to choose what is right and wrong. While Buck's standards do change through the book, it is not his choice. London often refers to instinct driving Buck to do the things that he does in the book, and the society that he was newly placed in also influenced what he did. He had no choice but to steal food, because that is what his instinct told him he had to do in order to survive.
DeleteJack London takes a very interesting look on the world. In this book he almost puts nature over man, or at least on the same playing field. London sees nature as beautiful and powerful, nothing could be wrong with it. I think he believes a slightly Naturalistic worldview where everything happens because of the power of Nature. So the change caused in Buck was because of the power of nature.
ReplyDeleteYou could also take a whole different perspective on it, being that London may not have a naturalist/humanist worldview, but instead was just writing from their worldview. If you take this look on the situation you can actually find a hint of Theistic worldview. You can find it if you look at it like this- When buck was with the Judge he was at a high point in his life (at the top of the mountain) and when the gardener stole him he tumbled to a low point (in the valley). You could say at this point he felt like he was "falling" away from God which then he turned to the world for comfort and ended up being conformed to the world and followed in their ways. So i guess it matters on the way you look at the situation, on whether you think London is truly a naturalist/humanist, or if he was just writing as one.
Do you think YOUR worldview could effect the way you think London wrote his book?
I completely agree with you about the idea that London could have been writing through someone else worldview. Most often when people read books and see a worldview, naturally they assume it's the writers. It can be a reasonable assumption especially when their work has a constant nature. Yet there is still a chance that they are writing in another person worldview because a good writer could accomplish it with the success of no one ever knowing. It would not only grow the writer but also stretch him even more to understanding the thought patterns of someone who looks at the world in a different view. I do believe that our worldview, effects the was we books.
DeleteAnother interesting question that comes to mind. is the only way to earn respect by the ‘law of club and fang’? Jack London has the mindset that there are only two, very drastically different, ways to earn the respect of someone. Firstly by 'beating' them into submission or secondly by using a loyal and friendly approach. This shows us it is quite a large possibility that Jack is not writing this book from a theistic point of view. We can make this assumption because we know that the Bible tells us that we are to love our enemies. While I am aware that we are talking about dogs in this situation, London seems to have painted the protagonist of the story, Buck, to have many human-like thoughts and approaches to certain situations. This brings us back to worldview. What worldview does Jack London exhibit in the writing of 'Call of the Wild'? I would have to agree with what Makhaila originally said, about it sounding a bit like it was written from a naturalist's point of view. This makes sense because of natural instinct of both dog and human beings. To a naturalist the ‘law of club and fang’ would become a natural instinct, reverting back to original primitive ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree, as theists, we believe that you can earn respect through both “violence” as well as “kindness”. We know God as a God of wrath as well as a God of kindness yet we still respect him. It seems as though the law of club and fang states that you must choose one or the other when, through a Christian or theistic worldview, that is not always the case.
DeleteIn The Call of the Wild, I think Jack London's view of how nature presides over man and also how animals, especially dogs, are on the same level as humans in terms of morality and ethics. The way he wrote the book shows us that he sees the world as a cold, cruel vice that will hold us under its grasp unless we, in a sense, become like nature, but until we become like nature and until nature accepts us, it will continue to torment us. London clearly placed nature over man. Men to London were simply a part of life. He believed man was good at creating torment to further their own selfish gain. He saw few exceptions of men accomplishing good for the bettering of another but acts of consideration toward others were rare and incredible. I think he definitely put a negative, if not evil, connotation over men. He validated and accepted animal rebellion against humanity. I would argue that he regarded dogs over humans because he viewed humans as evil. Writing from the stand point of a dog, he made everything Buck did right and humanity the hindrance of good. Therefore, I think it is obvious that the worldview of Jack London was crazy humanistic and that Jack saw humanity as lost. London is almost trying to persuade people to free themselves from the evil of humanity.
ReplyDeleteGreat Point! while I agree with what you were saying about how until we become like nature and until nature accepts us it will continue to torment us. however I politely disagree with the fact that Jack put a evil connotation over men. we have to remember that we are reading through the eyes of a dog and the circumstances were not exactly ideal for living. for instance if we look at the first bit of the book Buck has nothing bad to say about the original master. I personally think Jack was merely trying to express that the life of a sled dog was not an easy one. overall though good post!
DeleteWhile you made some great points, I agree with Noelle that London was writing the book from the perspective of a dog. If you read further into the book, London writes about a human who is not evil towards Buck. Also, I believe that London wrote this book from a humanistic perspective. In doing so, the philosophy behind the book says that society corrupts perfect people. I think that saying that Jack London is humanistic, but at the same time, sees humanity as lost, would be a contradiction. Society is the one who is causing humans to do evil things, but the humans are not evil.
DeleteA good thought though, from your perspective, could be that Buck in the story is the equivalent to humanity in the real world, and humans in the book are equivalent to society in the real world. Therefore, the humans would be corrupting the dogs, and Jack London could see humanity as lost, because of society. You had some nice, thought-provoking points.