In Hocus Pocus， the narrator repeated a seemingly minor and insignificantdetail three times：that people are eating lobsters boiled alive。Between the repetitions is sandwiched the central plot of how the narrator is dismissed from his post as a professor for no sound reason at all。More radically， the ending of Galapagos presents us a picture of the human future that is both hopeful and disturbing。After a million years， the human beings on the islands of Galapagos evolve/devolve into some kind of“fsherfolks”that have small brains， furry skins， and fipper-like hands， as well as the ability to remain underwater for long periods of time。These seal-like humans live peacefully in the watery environment and enjoy harmony with both nature and themselves。
These are just a few examples from Vonnegut's lively animal kingdom。 In almost every story Vonnegut tells， there is at least one leading animal image。Submerged as most of them are underneath the author's obsessive concern for humanity， these animals make their appearances from time to time， usually when they are the least expected。Like phantoms of mysterious potency， they lurk and roam in the Vonnegut world， surprising us to the recognition of their existence， but at the same time puzzling us with their enigmatic significance。Why are they there？What are they intended to suggest？How are they related to the central themes of the books in which they turn up？Are they pointing to some new directions in Vonnegut's art and philosophy， directions that Vonnegut scholars have long failed to notice？Or， if the animal images do bear some signifcance， are they merely instrumental as symbols and metaphors， or do they stand in their own right as living beings？
It is this enigmatic nature of these animal images that attracts me to carry out my research。 In this book， I will attempt to decode these images， trying to fgure out their connotation and signifcation， their roles in assisting the author to convey his predominant themes and at the same time asserting their own rights。In so doing， I hope to either strengthen the existing understanding of Vonnegut， but from a new perspective， or tounearth some neglected aspects in the spiritual and philosophical world of the late cultural icon。
B。 Animal Studies：Extending the Human Horizon
The emerging field of animal studies provides a vantage point and theoretical approaches for the investigation of Vonnegut's animals。 As a discipline in the humanities， animal studies arose in the Western countries in the 1970s and has been gathering force ever since。It springs from the premise that animals are both indispensable to the advancement of humanity and worthy of consideration in their own right。Emerging in the wake of the civil rights movement， women's liberation movement， countercultural movement， and the environmental movement， it partakes in the spirit of liberation and moves on to carry the aspirations of emancipation beyond the human sphere into the nonhuman world。
Animal studies focuses on a reexamination of the human-animal relationship。 By tracking down the historical transformation of the animal status in the human society and culture， with regards both to the real animals and the cultural representation of them， it interrogates the ethical， cultural， and political implications in the human treatment of animals。The ultimate goal is to bring people to the awareness of the significant roles animals play in our understanding of humanity， alert us to the cruelty and injustice in our treatment（and maltreatment）of animals， help us recognize animals'moral status as subjects of life， thus defend their rights and welfare and eventually construct a fair， mutual， harmonious relationship between animals and human beings。
1.The Philosophical History of the Animal
The discussion of the human-animal relationship has seen a long history in the Western philosophy。 As early as in ancient Greece， two contending camps began to take shape。One was championed by Aristotle（384—322 BC），believing in the natural hierarchy in the Great Chain of Being and man's supremacy over animals。They insisted that there was an insuperable line between humans and animals， regarding the capability of reason as the golden rule for the division。The other camp had Pythagoras as its progenitor。Philosophers in this camp emphasized the interrelatedness between humans and animals， holding that the difference between animals and humans was only in degree， not in kind。Many of them advocated vegetarianism。
The philosophical standpoint directly affected people's thought and practice。 For the Aristotelian school， it was only natural for human beings to make use of other animals that are believed to lack reason and thus inferior。Humans had no moral obligation for them。A great number of prominent thinkers were followers of this school of thought， including the Stoic philosophers of the 1st century and St。Augustine（354—430）and St。Thomas Aquinas（1225—1274）of the Middle Ages， but the most influential figure after Aristotle was Rene Descartes（1596—1650），the“father of modern science”and a founder of modern philosophy。Not only did he divide the world into mind and matter， he also propounded a mechanistic view that saw nature as a self-moving machine。Because animals were part of nature， and because they lacked“a thinking soul”，they were organic machines， nothing but“natural automata”。Therefore， people could be absolved“from the suspicion of crime when they eat or kill animals”（61，62）。。To a great extent， Descartes had rationalized and legitimized the human supremacy and dominance over other animals。
After him， Hamlet's dubious celebration of man as“the paragon of animals”became a factthat was taken for granted。Although Locke， Hume， and Kant rejected Descartes'dualistic division of mind and matter and protested his callous view that animals lacked perception and feelings， they all stopped short of including animals in the moral community。Their primary concern was still animals'lack of reasoning capability。The common understanding persisted that animals were resources for human use。During the Enlightenment movement， a two-way intellectual progress was ascertained：on the one hand， it established man's emancipation and supremacy， yet on the other， nonhuman animals had been degraded into the world of non-feeling objects。This human/animal dichotomy ultimately naturalized and encouraged unrestricted oppression and exploitation of animals as well as the natural world at large。
On the part of the Pythagorean school， the battle had been a tough one。 Although there were such prominent supporters as Plutarch， Seneca， Ovid， and St。Benedict， their plea for humane considerations for animals had been dimmed in the uproar for more anthropocentric projects。It was with Jeremy Bentham（1748—1832）that things began to change。A pioneering philosopher of Utilitarianism， Bentham made gestures of extending the egalitarian principles to the nonhuman species。To answer the century-long question，“what is the criterion for moral considerations？”he observed：