Thing: Inside the Struggle for Animal Personhood

by Sam Machado, Cynthia Sousa Machado, Steven M. Wise

Happy has lived at the Bronx Zoo for most of her 48 years, and for more than a decade has remained largely isolated and lonely. Like all elephants, Happy has a complex mind and a deep social, intellectual, and emotional life; she desires to make choices and has a sense of self-recognition. But like all nonhuman animals, Happy is considered a thing in the eye of the law, with no fundamental rights. Due to a series of groundbreaking legal cases, however, this is beginning to change—and Happy’s liberation is at the forefront. A vibrant and personal graphic novel, Thing: Inside the Struggle for Animal Personhood traces this moving story and makes the legal and scientific case for animal personhood.  

Led by lawyer Steven M. Wise and aided by some of the world’s most respected animal behavior and cognition scientists, the Nonhuman Rights Project has filed cases on behalf of nonhuman animals like Happy since 2013. Through this work, they have forced courts to consider the evidence of their clients’ cognitive abilities and their legal arguments for personhood, opening the door for similar cases worldwide. In Thing, comic artists Sam Machado and Cynthia Sousa Machado bring together Wise’s groundbreaking work and their powerful illustrations in the first graphic nonfiction book about the animal personhood movement. Beginning with Happy’s story and the central ideas behind animal rights, Thing then turns to the scientists that are revolutionizing our understanding of the minds of nonhuman animals such as great apes, elephants, dolphins, and whales. As we learn more about these creatures’ inner lives and autonomy, the need for the greater protections provided by legal rights becomes ever more urgent. 

With cases like Happy’s growing in number and spanning from Argentina to India, nations around the world are beginning to recognize the rights of animals. Combining legal and social history, innovative science, and illustrated storytelling, Thing presents a visionary new way of relating to the nonhuman world.

Genres: Graphic Novels, Nonfiction, Animals, Comics, Philosophy, Nature, Science

240 pages, Paperback

First published October 6, 2020

Reviews

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

“In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas used Aristotle’s Scala and Roman natural law as a foundation for Christian thought. He took the Biblical reasoning that God gave Adam dominion over the earth and united it with Socrates’s idea that humans were designed to be superior to other animals. The Great Chain of Being became the dominant hierarchy for organizing the world and remains implicit today.” (pg 32)

I can’t say that Thing: Inside the Struggle for Animal Personhood was at all entertaining, but it was highly (HIGHLY) educational. It is essentially animal rights legalese presented in graphic novel format so as to make it more accessible and more understandable for wider audiences. As much as I love and respect wildlife and those who actively advocate for the rights of all living, sentient beings, I am not sure I would have read and understood this important litigation were it presented in any other way.

[Rod Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fairly persuasive argument that at least certain nonhuman animals should be considered persons in the eyes of the law. I'm not convinced in the end, but it has opened my eyes a bit, and I do think elephants, chimpanzees, and cetaceans deserve higher levels of protection than they currently have.

The presentation is nice, and the book as a whole could easily serve as the storyboard for a film documentary.

I do admit that at times my mind did flash to this simplified and tasteless Denis Leary stand-up routine:
https://youtu.be/IZBAtd9rty8?si=08RV5...

[Evelyn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Despite beautiful graphics to entice the reader, the book is replete with misinformation and missing facts, some of which are discussed hereafter.

In its opening segment the book misstates the facts concerning Happy’s life. Happy and Grumpy lived with Tuss, the Bronx Zoo’s elephant matriarch in the Asian area of the Zoo until Tuss moved to Zoo Center to be with younger elephants, Sam I and subsequently Sam II during the late 1980s. Reportedly, Tuss and the other elephants communicated across a substantial distance via rumbles after her move to Zoo Center.

Following Tuss’ death during 2002, Happy was transferred to Zoo Center where she lived with Sam II until their transfer back to the elephant barn in Asia in 2006 and Sam’s subsequent death. Grumpy remained at the elephant barn in Asia where she died in 2002.

It mentions that Happy passed the mirror self recognition test (MSR) in the opening chapter. Yet it fails to mention that no other elephant that was tested including the two other females at the Bronx Zoo passed the MSR until much later in the book. Results have been replicated in some species. However, other nonhuman primates such as gorillas have failed or given inconclusive results on the test.

The book also fails to mention the Orca case in federal court in San Diego which sought freedom for the orcas at Seaworld. It was brought under the theory that their captivity constituted slavery and thus, violated the 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is implicit that if one is a slave, one has personhood. The plaintiffs in that case lost.

The book goes on to discuss the history of animal cruelty laws in western civilisation with the focus on Ancient Greek thought and Great Britain. Surprisingly it fails to mention the work of Henry Bergh, the founder of the ASPCA and the father of the modern animal rights movement in the US to enact and enforce animal cruelty laws despite the availability of an excellent recently issued book, “A Traitor to his Species” describing his life and work in great detail.

Most laws contain vague standards. These standards are interpreted in regulations adopted by the government agency which enforces the law. Advocates lobby the agencies to adopt regulations that are most beneficial to those who they represent and comment upon proposals prior to adoption. That entire process is left out. There is also no explanation of why NhRP is not pursuing that avenue to improve the lives of captive elephants.

The book claims that the judges did not base their decision on science. Yet, aside from two people who conducted research on African elephants it cites no experts on Asian elephants and their behaviour, which differs in many respects from that of African elephants. The experts cited are primatologists and psychologists. Studies in those fields are not always transferable to other species. Even within primatology the behavioral characteristics of one species differ from that of another making it difficult to draw generalizations. Therefore, there may be insufficient scientific evidence from which to draw a conclusion.

The authors view the jurists as being biased because they wouldn’t accord Happy the same rights as a child or disabled person. However, they fail to recognize that a child will grow into an adult and become cognizant of their duties and responsibilities barring an unforeseen event. Happy will not. In fact, were their argument to be accepted, then we might return to earlier times when an elephant was treated as a person, as were other animals. They were subject to trials for murder and other criminal charges, and penalties were imposed if they were found guilty. For instance, an elephant named Topsy was convicted of murdering her caretaker in a New York court and sentenced to death by electrocution.

They also equate civil law precedents in South American jurisdictions with common law precedents in the United States and other jurisdictions whose law is based upon British common law. In reality there is no equivalent since in civil law jurisdictions legal decisions are based upon written law, a code adopted by the legislature. As a result their decisions are not afforded comity in cases such as these. Interestingly the authors failed to mention cases in European countries, which follow civil law, and have denied personhood to great apes.

Finally the authors show no understanding of conditions in modern zoos where animals are given choices including the choice of whether they want to participate in enrichment activities or even to go in or out of the elephant barn aside from the time when it is closed off for cleaning. The barns themselves have sand floors, not concrete, and sand piles are provided for the elephant’s use and play, as well as other natural and nonnatural items. As for space, in nature territory reflects the food needs of the animal and the availability of resources to satisfy such needs. Where resources are scarce, animals need large territories. When they are bountiful, less space is needed and used. Zoo exhibits are analogous to the later situation.

Surprisingly in the discussion of the characteristics of tool use and autonomy there is no discussion of birds. Both corvids and cockatoos have been shown to engage in tool use. Tests have shown that the later not only fashions tools, but teach others to use them, and their student often improve upon their teachings. They also engage in planning. Cockatoos and other parrots use sounds to communicate in languages that are still being interpreted. Parrots are capable of cognition as shown in the exhibits conducted by Dr. Irene Pepperberg in her laboratory with Alex and other African gray parrots. In fact, a strong case can be made for convergent evolution of humans and parrots (see: “The Parrot in the Mirror” by Antone Martinho-Truswell). Therefore, the question that is not mentioned or discussed, and is left unanswered is whether they’re also entitled to personhood based upon the author’s arguments? If the authors are so concerned about personhood for elephants, orcas, chimpanzees and orangutans, why are they deafeningly silent about personhood for parrots whom research has shown are as highly intelligent if not more so than the aforementioned species?

[mad mags · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Full disclosure: I received a free e-ARC for review through Edelweiss. Content warning for animal exploitation.)

"Happy's case is one story in an international movement to restore rights and dignity to nonhuman animals. [...] To mitigate the injustices inflicted on these nonhuman animals, it is necessary to restore their autonomy if we are to pay more than lip service to their dignity."

Happy is a 52-year-old Asian elephant who has spent most of her life in captivity. Born in Thailand in 1971, in the early 1970s Happy and six other young elephants - likely her brothers, sisters, and cousins - were captured in the wild and imported into the US. Named after the Seven Dwarves, they were eventually separated and sold to circuses and zoos across the country.

The Bronx Zoo ultimately acquired Happy and Grumpy, where they lived together for nearly two decades. After the pair was placed into an enclosure with two other elephants, Grumpy sustained serious injuries when Patty and Maxine attacked her. Grumpy was subsequently euthanized, and the zoo separated Happy from the other elephants. She's been imprisoned at the Bronx Zoo for forty-five years, and kept in isolation for more than half of this time. (Saddling her with the uber-ironic name "Happy" just seems like icing on the cruelty cake.)

THING: INSIDE THE STRUGGLE FOR ANIMAL PERSONHOOD details the Herculean efforts of the Nonhuman Animal Rights Project on behalf of Happy, and nonhuman animals like her: chiefly great apes, elephants, and cetaceans. Using the writ of habeas corpus, they hope to get Happy declared a legal person - because only people have rights. Steven Wise and the lawyers at the NhRP are backed by a large body of scientific evidence, which demonstrates that chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, elephants, and dolphins - among others - are self-aware (as demonstrated by the mirror recognition test) and capable of communication.

Within these pages, you'll meet Santino, a chimpanzee at the Furuvik Zoo in Sweden, who is so distressed by his living situation that he hides stones in anticipation of the zoo's opening and then uses them as weapons to drive visitors away. Then there's Kanzi, a bonobo at the Language Center at Georgia State University who learned to communicate using lexigrams and American Sign Language, which he taught to his family; they were able to communicate with their human caregivers using a mosaic of lexigrams, ASL, and pant-hoots. No doubt you've heard of Koko, a gorilla who mastered more than one thousand signs, and understood more than two thousand English words (and who famously raised a number of kittens, starting with a little gray and white kitten who she named All Ball). And, of course, there's Happy.

To say that Happy's life has been tragic is a gross understatement. She was just a baby when she was (no doubt violently) kidnapped from her family, taken from her homeland, and sold into captivity and servitude: made into a something instead of the someone she so clearly is. Her existence has been one of isolation, loss, deprivation, and solitude. Through their evocative, often bleak illustrations, Sam Machado and Cynthia Sousa Machado dare the reader not to empathize with Happy - and her brethren. Happy is an individual, capable of feeling love and grief, joy and suffering. She has - had - a family who loved her and no doubt mourned her loss. (Their likening of an elephant's brain to a vast library - with the loss of a herd's matriarch representing an incalculable loss - straight up gave me chills.) In all the ways that count, Happy (like so many nonhuman animals) is a person. In some ways, she may be more human(e) than many of us - those who would keep her jailed for our own entertainment and pleasure.

To date, the NhRP has largely been unsuccessful, thanks to an overwhelming interplay of factors - hundreds of years of legal precedent, thousands of years of human speciesism, animal agriculture lobbyists, and human indifference, to name just a few. Yet the battle for nonhuman rights is not without hope. The last decade has seen promising developments: in New Zealand, in which a longstanding conflict between the Māori and Parliament resulted in legal personhood for the Whanganui River; in India, where the Uttarakhand high court recognized several rivers and their glaciers as "legal persons" - and, a year later, declared that "the entire animal kingdom has rights equivalent to a person"; and in Argentina, where a judge ruled in 2015 that Sandra, an orangutan imprisoned in the Buenos Aires Zoo, was "a nonhuman person." (And in 2018, another Argentinian court used this precedent to free a chimpanzee named Cecilia. -- to name just a few examples.)

Hopefully this graphic novel - with its heartrending artwork and powerfully argued premise - will help to sway a few hearts and minds.

"Happy is more than a thing. In every way that counts, Happy is a person who deserves to be free."

My only complaint is perhaps the singular focus on self-awareness as opposed to sentience, an arguably much more important consideration in the argument for animal rights. (In the words of Jeremy Bentham, “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?”)

While this simply reflects the NhRP's legal strategy, and I understand its use as tactic - a foot in the door, so to speak, or beginning with the low-hanging fruit - I was a bit unsettled by how the narrative brushed off concerns from animal agriculture lobbyists that granting Happy personhood would, say, make beef and dairy illegal. To wit: Argentina's beef industry has only ballooned in the years since Sandra gained legal rights and was relocated to an animal sanctuary. There's really no acknowledgment that, say, bovines are also beings capable of experiencing emotions, forming friendships and family bonds, and suffering untold agonies in the animal agriculture industry - and that confining, torturing, and killing them by the hundreds of millions annually is unconscionable. Perhaps Happy's personhood should throw the legal status of farmed animal into question as well.

[Rachel Grey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Educational look into the legal cases that assign or have tried to assign personhood to non-human entities (rivers, corporations, several specific animals). I hadn't been aware of the basics -- that most or all of the animal-focused ones have been predicated on habeas corpus.

[Peacegal · Rating 4 out of 5]

THING uses the graphic novel format to examine the arguments, pro and con, against establishing legal rights for nonhuman animals--specifically great apes and elephants.

It's a dense and wordy book, as one could expect from a treatise on the law, but its format helps make the concepts more palatable to the layperson.

Clearly, something has to give in our relationship with other sentient life on this planet. Even as we learn more about their capabilities and similarities to our own minds, our laws, and still too often treatment, of them reflects their status of simply "things," inanimate objects. Whether changes will come through the legal means discussed in this book or some other way, remains to be seen.

[Darya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Графічний нон-фікшн, який знайомить з законодавчими процесами, пов'язаними з наданням нелюдським тваринам статусу personhood. У фокусі оповіді - слониха Геппі, яка живе в зоопарку в Нью-Йорку і є першим слоном, який би пройшов тест із дзеркалом (який свідчить про наявність самосвідомості). Активісти виступають від її імені в суді, щоб досягти її переселення з маленького вольєра в зоопарку до великого заповідника.
Оскільки в США право прецедентне, дуже багато розповідають про різні свідчення щодо інших різних нелюдських тварин, які можна було б використати для підтвердження права слонихи Геппі на personhood у легальному сенсі. Проте саме з тієї ж причини, що право прецедентне, поки що жоден суд нічого достатньо близького не ухвалив, на що можна було б послатися: всі побоюються, що це створить ТАКИЙ прецедент, що, наприклад, полетить все тваринництво.
Приклади з деяких інших країн, які теж побіжно оглядають, оптимістичніші.

Тепер щодо форми. Гарна промальовка. Але я не певна, що графічний формат - оптимальний для цієї інформації. Тобто саме формат "коміксу" з панелями і хмаринками для висловлювань. Можливо, якесь інше поєднання тексту з візуалом було би кращим.

[Martin Rowe · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want a clear and accessible explanation of just how a group of animal rights lawyers (the Nonhuman Rights Project—NhRP) are trying to use common law traditions, and writs of habeas corpus in particular, to secure liberty from confinement of certain species of animals (great apes, elephants, and cetaceans), then I know of no better work than this. Concentrating on the sad case of Happy the elephant, imprisoned alone in the Bronx Zoo, the illustrators have (to my eyes) done a masterful job of breaking up a well-written but necessarily dense set of arguments into panels and word bubbles that would be familiar to any reader of comics of any age. Wise, who is both the human progenitor of the story and the author of the book, lays out the arguments, and touches on how legislation and legal judgments via Nature's rights statutes are paving the way toward bringing about a seismic shift from (some) animals being viewed as property under the law to being considered nonhuman persons with (certain) rights common to us all: for instance, the right not to be confined or used against our will.

If there is a fault with the book, it is a fault with the argument itself (contained in the parentheses above). Mainly, I imagine, for strategic reasons, the NhRP has focused on charismatic megafauna who possess recognizably human traits to prosecute their case. Yet, even though Wise talks about animal rights, he is eager to distance himself from the idea that extending legal nonhuman personhood to chimps would apply to pigs, or chickens, or octopi for instance. Wise knows very well—not least because the argument's opponents make the case—that the criteria for personhood for his clients are applicable to farmed animals and animals used in experiments. And yet the book barely touches on this, as if the case could be won *without* addressing what is, ultimately, the largest elephant in the room. *That* fight, though, awaits.

[Jan Peregrine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thing: Inside the Struggle For Animal Personhood~~~~~~

This nonfiction graphic novel by comic book artists Cynthia Sousa Machado and Samuel Machado follows the true story of an elderly elephant named Happy when she was captured with her siblings at a very young age in the jungle. Now imprisoned by the Bronx Zoo Happy n ever sees her siblings who have either died or work for a circus. Thing: Inside the struggle for animal personhood reveals how the Non-Human Rights Project hast argued in New York State courts since 2013 for Happy's legal status to be upgraded from Thing to Person so she can enjoy her last years in a sanctuary.

Steven M. Wise, founder of the project, writes the afterword, but the captions, quotes and comments throughout are quite helpful for understanding why most scientists and primatologists, having studied our closest relatives in the animal family for sixty years, do not believe such intelligent, empathetic animals should be owned for our amusement and education.

Cetaceans, chimps, and elephants are autonomous beings, not inanimate objects, who deserve the right to bodily liberty. New York judges agree in theory, but are biased by historical precedent of the 17th century Social Contract that was based on opinion and the need for animal labor. They illogically keep such animals in a vague status of a walking thing and argue that the social order would somehow, without evidence, be destroyed.

The legal fight is only beginning In the US and is much further along elsewhere in the world.

Beautifully illustrated and a captivating read (sorry Happy) Thing is highly recommended. I'll be looking for Wise's books too.

[Reade · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a nonfiction graphic novel that follows the "struggle for animal personhood" of Happy the elephant, who lives alone in a 15-acre enclosure at the Bronx Zoo. The Nonhuman Rights Project (NHRP) is a civil rights organization working on behalf of nonhuman animals. It petitioned the New York State courts for common law writs of habeas corpus for for chimpanzees in 2013. Autonomy for elephants and other self-aware animals. Judge Fahey, Court of Appeals, State of New York, 5/8/2018 opinion in the chimpanzee case states: "The evolving nature of life makes clear that chimpanzees and humans exist on a continuum of living beings. ... They are autonomous, intelligent features. ..."we have to recognize [this] complexity and confront it."

Happy is still confined to a brick enclosure in the wintertime, all by herself. Elephants are social creatures. It is past time to allow Happy to retire to a sanctuary where she would be free to exercise her autonomy and make social connections with other elephants. Solitary confinement isn't good for anyone, elephants included.

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

A non fiction piece creatively presenting arguments for legal personhood and bodily liberty for animals that demonstrate autonomy. The book covers legal history, focusing on the case of Happy the elephant. It goes through several chapters focusing on things like communication, empathy, autonomy, to present a case for Happy’s bodily liberty and personhood. I appreciated learning about this perspective and makes me imagine a world where animals are no longer considered property. What a change this would be from our current world, but many of the changes would be for the better.

[Mariga Temple-West · Rating 5 out of 5]

Captured from the wild as a baby, Happy the elephant has lived at the Bronx Zoo for decades. An animal of great intelligence and social sensitivity, is she a person or a thing? Various court cases in recent years have tried to prove her autonomy and personhood. "Thing" explores the history of animal ownership and the shifting philosophies concerning autonomy, what makes a person a person. The illustrations in this graphic novel are gorgeous and detailed.

[Gail · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has presented the case for animal personhood. The Machado’s have outlined case law in the United States and worldwide that speak to the issue of personhood for animals including elephants, monkeys and whales. They have also illustrated their subjects beautifully. It is enlightening, sometimes sad but also hopeful that some animals might be placed in a more suitable environment such as sanctuaries.

[Steph Calvert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gorgeous illustrations! It was incredibly tough for me to read without being used to legalese. I wish it had been geared more toward educating lay people like me about these important court cases in a warm easy to read voice instead of stating facts and snippets of court cases. LOVED the art.

[Pat Morris · Rating 4 out of 5]

FREE HAPPY and all the other animals we keep for our entertainment..

[Tina Morrow · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was really dense, but fascinating.

[Evan Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit dry and not a huge fan of the art and reuse of assets.