The Cult of Misanthropy.

"Mis·an·thro·py: n. Hatred or mistrust of mankind."

This working definition comes from the fourth edition of the American Heritage dictionary, and it makes a workable starting point for a discussion of one of the more perplexing--and pervasive--elements of the furry fandom, an extension of non-human self-identity into the realm of strong negative feelings directed towards the human race. This may be simple and as inarticulate as, "I hate people"--or it may be a complex and highly-developed philosophy. In both cases, I think, the proximate causes are fairly similar, and it is these causes that attract our attention now.

Central to the misanthropic leaning is a deep-rooted and firmly-held "otherisation" construct--by which I mean a tendency to separate "I" from "they." For instance: hatred of humanity, I have found, does not typically correspond with a similarly acerbic hatred of 'self.' In this sense it may be seen to differ from typical pathological misanthropy, which is associated with depression and issues of self-esteem.

Further, a number of furries do not self-identify as human, but rather as a selected animal. We may see this as an extension of the totemist aspects of the "spiritual" side of the fandom, cf. Chapter 1. This too involves a certain degree of an inherent "otherisation"--namely, by its very nature it involves separating "animal" and "human" into two discrete categories. We should note that this is, of course, by no means unique to the fandom--the breakdown is extremely common in the west and forms an important part of the Genesis myth, from which a great deal of modern ecological thought may be seen to arise.

Misanthropy is not, however, an inherently illogical position. Key to the development of the misanthropic tendencies is a strong portrayal of humanity as morally bankrupt, selfish, intolerant, violent, and oppressive. In a number of ways this becomes the overriding view of humans; from the misanthropic perspective, humanity does not merely include such "negative" traits, it is these and little--or nothing at all--besides.

Correspondingly, we find three lines of thought which serve to further divide one's self from humanity and may be said to create the view above. The first is a contrast-driven anthropomorphisation. This I must address in further detail later, but suffice it to say there is an inclination to view other species as embodying the positive traits that humanity lacks. This, too, reinforces the disparateness of the misanthropic identity, as it not only stresses the "humanity equals negative" view but also promotes the "[other species] equals positive," offering an alternative to the former.

The second is a contrary self-perception, voiced along the lines of, "humanity is selfish and destructive, but I am not." This serves, too, as a circularly self-confirming statement: the absence of these traits in the individual at once proves their isolation from humanity, and thus that humanity does in fact embody the negative. It is a highly self-serving answer, which may make it more attractive.

The third and final is a contrary perception of the fandom itself. I cannot speak as to whether the phenomenon is common to those in other subsets, but I have noticed an extremely strong tendency to separate the entire furry fandom from humanity as a whole; at times the most obvious view of this, especially from the point of view of the misanthropic adherent, is that the fandom is opposed to humanity: tolerant where humanity is closed-minded, libertarian where humanity is oppressive, peaceful where humanity is violent.

Without addressing the inherent validity of any of these three points we can begin to see the logical structures in place for the worldview that drives the fandom's "cult of misanthropy." It is not an arbitrary decision, but one that is carefully defended with logical propositions that make a great deal of sense to the persons expressing them. Indeed, I think in some ways it is a more "reasonable" version of misanthropy than is found outside the fandom, inasmuch as it appears to be more completely thought out.

An interesting question, I should think, is what causes the misanthropic view. There are, I feel, separate answers to each of the three lines of thought that I outlined above--taken together, these lines of thought are certainly capable of promoting and generating a misanthropic view. I listed them in what I believe is their order of importance; this method is reprised in looking at possible explanations.

Anthropomorphisation is a very interesting phenomenon. It is by its very nature subjective--objectively, a wolf or an eagle does not really represent human traits; it is in its functioning entirely that of a canine or a bird of prey. We choose the traits that we elect to see in these others, which tends to mean that our perspective is highly skewed, positively or negatively.

For example, the lion is viewed as "king of beasts" in an appellation that largely ignores the fact that lions are also, among other things, female-dominated scavengers who routinely kill their young; conversely sheep have acquired a reputation for being of low intelligence, despite impressive evidence to the contrary. In the first example, lions benefit because we have selected a "positive" human attribute to imbue them with; in the second, sheep have become docile and stupid to the point of being metaphors because we have selected a "negative" human attribute.

This subjectivity factor means that anthropomorphisation can function to displace the positive attributes of humanity, thus lessening the hypocrisy of the misanthropic worldview. Foxes make up one of the more commonly-adopted totem animals, with many people commonly pointing to their own "cleverness" or "intelligence" or "aloofness/individualism" as being attributes that link them to the animal. Folklore also, it should be noted, has a way of portraying the fox as a sneak and a thief; they are also carrion-eaters with what we might anthropomorphise as a fairly dim view of the family--these attributes, needless to say, are infrequently-adopted by people who self-identify as foxes.

Similarly, we could consider traits such as "cleverness," "cunning," "intelligence," and "individualism" without leaving our own species. These are fit descriptions of a number of human stereotypes--successful criminals, for instance, and certain terrorists. It goes without saying that I know of no-one, furry or otherwise, who professes to identify with their "inner confidence man." Likely this is because of our own negative valuations of that kind of individual!--of course, needless to say animals that have frequent "negative" stereotypes, such as sheep or hyaenas, are also less-frequently focuses of self-identification.

Indeed, many people identify similar traits when listing reasons why they identify with a particular animal--a fair number are reproduced above. Since anthropomorphisation has no inherent value--that is, calling a wolf "noble" reflects entirely our perception of the creature, and none of its own--persons set on distancing themselves from humanity can, within reason, identify with any animal with a fair degree of impunity, and then portray this animal as lying in contrast to humans, thus reinforcing the notion of the divide.

This leads directly into what I referred to as the second line of thought, a view of one's self that lies in stark and deliberate contrast to the ills of humanity. I suspect this is probably the initial cause of misanthropic feelings, and feeds heavily on both itself and on the first line to build into a cogent worldview. The reasons for the initial misgivings, I suspect, are likely to lie along these patterns, as a consequence of a sort of cognitive dissonance--a conflict of self deriving from the attempt to hold contradictory views.

For example, a person in the furry fandom (it is worth noting that while the view is highly common, misanthropic tendencies are by no means universal and may not, even, be in the majority) faces a degree of "oppression"--effectively, constraints on the expression of what they are likely to feel is an important component of their self-identity.

This leads to a conflict between the two thoughts of, "I am a human," and "humans are intolerant of who I am." The two can be reconciled in a number of ways. Persons may choose to combat the intolerance, in an attempt to negate the truth of the statement--a "civil rights movement" mentality. Alternatively, they may accept both at face value and come to the conclusion that the intolerance is justified, or somehow indicative of an internal wrong. This may be responsible for the depression and self-esteem issues typically associated with misanthropy.

Or, they may choose to reject the former statement. In the event that this happens, the person in question ceases entirely to identify themselves as human; this in turn may cause intolerance which further serves to isolate them from what is commonly perceived as the problematic, overbearing human race. For furries, a second and very compelling extension is present: anthropomorphisation. This is what I described as the first major line of thought, and it provides wonderful evidence to support the misanthropic worldview, since a constructed anthropomorphic alternative offers a real "solution" to humanity.

Of course, furriness is--at least to some degree--a collection of people for which many of them profess identification with a non-human animal. The, or a, logical extension of the above would be a vindication of furriness itself as a "real solution." Voiced in this way it is not a particularly common view, although some adopt it to a degree that borders on "furry supremacy."

Elements, however, are seen fairly regularly. There is a tendency to view the fandom as being more open, more tolerant, and less moralising than the outside world. Speaking objectively, I doubt that this in and of itself is true. There are certainly very deep divides within the fandom, some expressed with all the vitriol and anger of paralleling issues outside that demographic.

The illusion, though, is sufficient to cause some people to characterise the fandom as being "better than" the human race, and it is these persons specifically who, in my experience reiterate the view of furriness as an open and accepting community; it is more common to the misanthropic view than to those outside. The culmination of this is a "separatist" approach suggesting that differences between the fandom and the remainder of the world do not need to be reconciled and are, in fact, evidence of the superiority of furriness.

That the fandom is not, in the end, especially open--or at least, not more so than other human communities--is not realistically more important than the fact that wolves are not actually "noble" as we understand the word, being wolves with no comprehension of a singularly human term. It serves, as with much of the structure surrounding the Cult of Misanthropy, to buffer a worldview that depends on isolation to maintain its self-professed logic and rationale.