God almighty, the infinite being that is credited as creator of the universe, the omniscient presence, the perfect being, is played by Morgan Freeman in “Bruce Almighty” and played by Alanis Morrisette in “Dogma”. These films pushed boundaries in their own ways. Surely there was an audience that disapproved of God represented in the form of a black man, or worse, as a woman! Nevertheless, popular films rarely - if ever- depict God in any other form than human. While it is an arrogant assumption that the perfectness of God could fit into the limited parameters of a human being, people “often [use] an anthropomorphic God concept that is inconsistent with stated theological beliefs”. (Barrett & Keil 221). Regardless, the idea persists despite its feasibility. Furthermore, despite all that must be overlooked to presume that God could exist in human form, there are contrasting notions about representing God in animal form which would be comedic at best, blasphemy at worst. On the contrary, the ancient Egyptians incorporated animals into their dogmatic practices, creating fluidity between man and beast that doesn’t exist in the modern, western world. The aforementioned example of divinity serves to illustrate a dichotomy that exists between man and animal and modern man and ancient Egyptian. The divisions between man and animal in current, western culture are not accidental, but rather is the result of purposeful disconnection regarding the primary avenues of modern society; religion and science. Anthropomorphism represented in art can elicit valuable information about a particular society’s values and belief systems; the subject of this research specifically pertains to the “Judgement of Hunefer Before Osiris" in the ancient Egyptian “Book of the Dead” in contrast to “Dogs Playing Poker” by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge.
Anthropomorphism involves a projection of human characteristics onto something non-human. It is a common literary element, strongly represented in children’s media for the sake of nonsensical imagination or to function didactically. For the ancient world, however, anthropomorphism was incorporated into cultural practices throughout life and continuing into the afterlife. Anthropomorphism was to ancient Egyptians as science is to the modern world; there is an element of faith involved with science that the masses are dedicated to. In this sense, science has replaced the innate desire to connect with nature on a fundamental level because social practices have changed from cooperating with nature to conquering it. As Timothy J. Mccune sees it, “[t]his perspective has been distinctly individualistic, anthropocentric, and often dismissive of ecological concerns; narrow self-interest and utility, economic and military dominance, greed, and excessive consumption drive many industrialized nations and influence their respective cultures” (49-50). This suggests that modern society values technology over nature. Modern humans would rationalize that distance from nature is ‘civilized’, a positive descriptor that suggests progression. Furthermore, this attitude is “[c]onsidered as a perceptual strategy which highlights those things relevant to our survival, anthropomorphism might be considered a product of natural selection, a tentative adaption to our environment” (Horowitz & Bekoff 31). Considering human advances in understanding the physical world, modern, western society seems to be eliminating anthropomorphism in areas that are now explained through scientific principles. Nevertheless, none of the scientific advances known to the modern world can help understand the allusive afterlife, a realm that the modern world still commonly subscribes to.
One problem of conceptualizing the afterlife is the necessity to make assumptions. The only tools that humans have to comprehend an abstract world are the same tools that exist in reality. Simply put, you don’t know what you don’t know. Justin L. Barrett and Frank C. Keil suggest that “making God in the image of ourselves” (221), is a likely possible solution to this problem. The differences between modern understandings of God and ancient Egyptian understandings of God can be explained in this way. The ancient Egyptians coexistence with the natural world would influence their understanding of the afterlife in terms of their world. The modern world, with its dissociation from nature cannot use it as a comprehensive point of reference. According to Sigmund Freud,
Anthropomorphism involves a projection of human characteristics onto something non-human. It is a common literary element, strongly represented in children’s media for the sake of nonsensical imagination or to function didactically. For the ancient world, however, anthropomorphism was incorporated into cultural practices throughout life and continuing into the afterlife. Anthropomorphism was to ancient Egyptians as science is to the modern world; there is an element of faith involved with science that the masses are dedicated to. In this sense, science has replaced the innate desire to connect with nature on a fundamental level because social practices have changed from cooperating with nature to conquering it. As Timothy J. Mccune sees it, “[t]his perspective has been distinctly individualistic, anthropocentric, and often dismissive of ecological concerns; narrow self-interest and utility, economic and military dominance, greed, and excessive consumption drive many industrialized nations and influence their respective cultures” (49-50). This suggests that modern society values technology over nature. Modern humans would rationalize that distance from nature is ‘civilized’, a positive descriptor that suggests progression. Furthermore, this attitude is “[c]onsidered as a perceptual strategy which highlights those things relevant to our survival, anthropomorphism might be considered a product of natural selection, a tentative adaption to our environment” (Horowitz & Bekoff 31). Considering human advances in understanding the physical world, modern, western society seems to be eliminating anthropomorphism in areas that are now explained through scientific principles. Nevertheless, none of the scientific advances known to the modern world can help understand the allusive afterlife, a realm that the modern world still commonly subscribes to.
One problem of conceptualizing the afterlife is the necessity to make assumptions. The only tools that humans have to comprehend an abstract world are the same tools that exist in reality. Simply put, you don’t know what you don’t know. Justin L. Barrett and Frank C. Keil suggest that “making God in the image of ourselves” (221), is a likely possible solution to this problem. The differences between modern understandings of God and ancient Egyptian understandings of God can be explained in this way. The ancient Egyptians coexistence with the natural world would influence their understanding of the afterlife in terms of their world. The modern world, with its dissociation from nature cannot use it as a comprehensive point of reference. According to Sigmund Freud,
“[T]he humanization of nature is derived from the need to put an end to man’s perplexity and helplessness in the face of its dreaded forces, to get into a relation with them and finally to influence them….Primitive man has no choice, he has no other way of thinking. It is natural to him, something innate, as it were, to project his existence outwards into the world and to regard every event which he observes as the manifestation of beings who at bottom are like himself. It is his only method of comprehension” (27)
In this sense, a decreased desire to anthropomorphize correlates with an increased perceived understanding of the natural world, painting anthropomorphism as archaic.
Because of this increased understanding of the natural world, anthropomorphism has taken on an identity of absurdity. This is reflected in anthropomorphic representations in modern art, such as Cassius Marcellus Coolidge’s “Dog’s playing poker”. On the contrary, the “Judgement of Hunefer Before Osiris" in the ancient Egyptians “Book of the Dead” communicates a level of seriousness similar to contemporary law; the image functions didactically, codifying the afterlife. Examining this ancient relationship of man and animal allows us to make assumptions about ancient Egyptian culture. One fundamental difference that could contribute to differing ideologies regarding the relationship between the two is conceptions about the body and soul.
Egyptians had their own concepts of the soul, similar to modern concepts but ultimately more intricate; “[a] soul was thought to be made up of several parts, the most important of which were the ba and the ka” (Brier & Hobbs 49). The ba was independent of a living person, only existing once the person was deceased. The ba required physical offerings and is often depicted as a bird (Brier & Hobbs 49), another nod at an anthropomorphic ideology. The ka is similar to the modern ideas about the soul, but required a physical body or statue to dwell in. Because these soul concepts were understood as truths by the masses, a person’s body was an important vessel that had to be maintained. Because of this understanding, “Egyptians focused so much attention on the importance of their physical bodies… it may seem as if they lacked any concept of a soul. In fact, however, they had such an abstract concept” (Brier & Hobbs 49) which required a superior, physical body to support the soul in the afterlife. In this regard, the body of a person was less valuable than the precious life force within. While physicality was an emphasized component of Egyptian culture, the ultimate emphasis was on the soul. Furthermore, physical form was interchangeable between man and animal. On the contrary, contemporary society places significant value in physical form with little to no consideration of the soul. Although the soul is commonly acknowledged, it is immeasurable in a scientific context and is therefore problematic as a culturally shared concept. These conflicting interpretations regarding the fundamental elements of the human being are reflected in the two selected art works.
Because of this increased understanding of the natural world, anthropomorphism has taken on an identity of absurdity. This is reflected in anthropomorphic representations in modern art, such as Cassius Marcellus Coolidge’s “Dog’s playing poker”. On the contrary, the “Judgement of Hunefer Before Osiris" in the ancient Egyptians “Book of the Dead” communicates a level of seriousness similar to contemporary law; the image functions didactically, codifying the afterlife. Examining this ancient relationship of man and animal allows us to make assumptions about ancient Egyptian culture. One fundamental difference that could contribute to differing ideologies regarding the relationship between the two is conceptions about the body and soul.
Egyptians had their own concepts of the soul, similar to modern concepts but ultimately more intricate; “[a] soul was thought to be made up of several parts, the most important of which were the ba and the ka” (Brier & Hobbs 49). The ba was independent of a living person, only existing once the person was deceased. The ba required physical offerings and is often depicted as a bird (Brier & Hobbs 49), another nod at an anthropomorphic ideology. The ka is similar to the modern ideas about the soul, but required a physical body or statue to dwell in. Because these soul concepts were understood as truths by the masses, a person’s body was an important vessel that had to be maintained. Because of this understanding, “Egyptians focused so much attention on the importance of their physical bodies… it may seem as if they lacked any concept of a soul. In fact, however, they had such an abstract concept” (Brier & Hobbs 49) which required a superior, physical body to support the soul in the afterlife. In this regard, the body of a person was less valuable than the precious life force within. While physicality was an emphasized component of Egyptian culture, the ultimate emphasis was on the soul. Furthermore, physical form was interchangeable between man and animal. On the contrary, contemporary society places significant value in physical form with little to no consideration of the soul. Although the soul is commonly acknowledged, it is immeasurable in a scientific context and is therefore problematic as a culturally shared concept. These conflicting interpretations regarding the fundamental elements of the human being are reflected in the two selected art works.
The “Judgement of Hunefer Before Osiris" depicts Hunefer on his day of judgement, transitioning into the afterlife. The image shows Hunefer idly waiting while his heart, another essential element of humanism according to the Egyptians, is being weighed. His righteousness is validated and he is escorted by Horus, a falcon-headed man, to Osiris. This powerful image illustrates many anthropomorphic beings all intermingling casually. The important aspects of this image, however, are not the anthropomorphic forms depicted but death as a rite of passage predicated by the weighing of the heart. This image is proof that physicality is but a temporary state to ancient Egyptians and is ultimately irrelevant. Additionally, physical form didn’t necessarily define the being; some of the anthropomorphized creatures are good, like Osiris (God of the underworld) and some are evil, like Ammit, the crocodile/lion/hippo creature who apparently eats those who are not deemed “good”. According to this image, there is no hierarchy concerning man and beast and there is no obvious benefit to having the human form. This contrasts our modern take on anthropomorphism illustrated in "Dogs Playing Poker"
At first glance, the image is playful, light-hearted and overall meaningless but a closer examination elicits valuable insight into the values of modern society. Although these dogs are hierarchically lower than humans, a hierarchy still exists which categorizes the dogs into appropriate social roles based upon certain assumptions that exist about dogs in a general sense. As well, the image comments on human nature and its associated culture. In one of Coolidge’s images, five dogs are positioned around a heavily stacked poker table while another dog serves them beverages. The seated canines are all breeds that are typically deemed more aggressive and are larger. The dog serving beverages is the only obvious female of the group and appears to be a poodle. While seemingly insignificant, the image reinforces ideas concerning a patriarchal culture; aggressive males are the subjects who commonly hold the power and authority. The female poodle, stereotyped as a dainty or delicate breed, is not engaged in the action and is subservient to the males. Furthermore, the act of playing poker comments on the modern cultural emphasis of money. Because of these stereotypes based on nothing more than the physical form of the animal, it is possible to conclude, at least from this image, that physicality of a living being is paramount, man or animal. Finally, it is imperative to recognize the portrayal of the animals depicted and how it differs from the “Judegment of Hunefer Before Osiris”. The tone of the image speaks volumes about the way in which anthropomorphisms functions in the two separate societies.
The emphasis on anthropomorphic deities is not meant to suggest that animals necessarily belong in religious dogma, it is only meant to illustrate the breadth of the dichotomy that exists between the conflicting cultures. Modern conceptions about ancient Egyptian culture would suggest that while “[t]heir buildings, architecture, clothing, food and medicine may have been thousands of years ahead of their time…their view of the world was closer to a prehistoric caveman’s” (Brier & Hobbs xii). Their ‘world view’ which correlates with their religion has largely been explained away by advances in science and part of this world view supported anthropomorphic beliefs. As a means of eradicating these primitive theologies, the modern world has maintained certain unexplainable concepts, such as the afterlife, while arbitrarily eliminating others, such as the existence of animalistic deities. Moreover, the use of anthropomorphism in art, particularly animal anthropomorphism, has taken on a much less serious mood. These differences result from an ongoing separation from nature and point to an evolving set of beliefs and values. “Dogs Playing Poker” by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge unknowingly depicts a superficial society that is preoccupied with money and prestige. The “Judgement of Hunefer Before Osiris” depicts a society that valued ancient concepts of the soul as imperative. By removing ethnocentrism, modern society could find value in ancient Egyptian ways of life, such as a healthier relationship with nature. When contrasting the two aforementioned works of art, it is obvious that a new paradigm regarding anthropomorphism is necessary to shift the modern misconception that, in the hierarchy of life, man is on top.
The emphasis on anthropomorphic deities is not meant to suggest that animals necessarily belong in religious dogma, it is only meant to illustrate the breadth of the dichotomy that exists between the conflicting cultures. Modern conceptions about ancient Egyptian culture would suggest that while “[t]heir buildings, architecture, clothing, food and medicine may have been thousands of years ahead of their time…their view of the world was closer to a prehistoric caveman’s” (Brier & Hobbs xii). Their ‘world view’ which correlates with their religion has largely been explained away by advances in science and part of this world view supported anthropomorphic beliefs. As a means of eradicating these primitive theologies, the modern world has maintained certain unexplainable concepts, such as the afterlife, while arbitrarily eliminating others, such as the existence of animalistic deities. Moreover, the use of anthropomorphism in art, particularly animal anthropomorphism, has taken on a much less serious mood. These differences result from an ongoing separation from nature and point to an evolving set of beliefs and values. “Dogs Playing Poker” by Cassius Marcellus Coolidge unknowingly depicts a superficial society that is preoccupied with money and prestige. The “Judgement of Hunefer Before Osiris” depicts a society that valued ancient concepts of the soul as imperative. By removing ethnocentrism, modern society could find value in ancient Egyptian ways of life, such as a healthier relationship with nature. When contrasting the two aforementioned works of art, it is obvious that a new paradigm regarding anthropomorphism is necessary to shift the modern misconception that, in the hierarchy of life, man is on top.
Barrett, Justin L., and Frank C. Keil. "Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts." Cognitive Psychology (1996): 219-47. Print.
Brier, Bob, and A. Hoyt Hobbs. Daily Life Of The Ancient Egyptians. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2008. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion (1927). n.p.: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2012. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.
Horowitz, Alexandra C., and Marc Bekoff. "Naturalizing Anthropomorphism: Behavioral Prompts To Our Humanizing Of Animals." Anthrozoos 20.1 (2007): 23-35. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Mccune, Timothy J. "The Solidarity Of Life." Ethics & The Environment 19.1 (2014): 49. Canadian Points of View Reference Centre. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Brier, Bob, and A. Hoyt Hobbs. Daily Life Of The Ancient Egyptians. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2008. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Freud, Sigmund. The Future of an Illusion (1927). n.p.: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2012. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 25 Nov. 2014.
Horowitz, Alexandra C., and Marc Bekoff. "Naturalizing Anthropomorphism: Behavioral Prompts To Our Humanizing Of Animals." Anthrozoos 20.1 (2007): 23-35. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2014.
Mccune, Timothy J. "The Solidarity Of Life." Ethics & The Environment 19.1 (2014): 49. Canadian Points of View Reference Centre. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.