While its nice to get more essays, I think this one misses the mark. It's certainly true that a lot of the furry fandom uses Western frameworks, that's because that's the culture the majority of the furs are embedded in, or at least the English speaking ones. So to see that as a flaw is a bit like going to the Japanese and saying they have a very Japanese-influenced culture. They do, because they are.
I also have a wider distaste for decolonisation in general and here you fail to describe what you mean by decolonisation. What is meant by decolonisation can vary quite widely. There are calls that we have generally neglected the contributions of certain cultures and that we should pay more attention to them. That is a good point that I would hope most people can get behind. But there is also the other side of decolonisation where people take a highly relativistic views and almost call for the rejection of "Western" or "white" ideas as though there is something wrong with them. That stance is ridiculous and is perhaps best represented by the student in South Africa who was complaining about how science disagreed with some native beliefs about being able to call down lightning. Without further explanation, I fear this essay is treading dangerously close to the ridiculous side of things.
It's not entirely clear to me what the desired change would actually be. For one thing, the furry fandom is an aesthetic to such an extent that some people have defined the furry fandom purely by aesthetic criteria, where metaphorical use of animals is excluded. While the aesthetic is heavily influenced by Western culture, it is hardly the only influence. Japanese culture has a large impact on the aesthetic, notable examples being the chibi art style, kitsune and more examples of kemono suits. Different cultural influences are being seen more and more but this essay seems to imply a moral weight to an ethical decision.
Would being an animal be an alien experience, as a bat? Perhaps. This is explored in many stories; the Animorphs series in particular looks at the alienness of experiences. But we do also write about them as similar to us, sometimes only changing the aesthetic. And while there are cases of, maybe fursonas, where we identify with them for our own sake, there are also cases, such as The Animals of Farthing Wood or Watership Down, where we are supposed to identify with the animals in order to raise our awareness about them and for the sake of protecting them.
The idea of bringing in decolonisation is, I think a poor one. The concept seldom serves a useful purpose and, ironically, would be used, in this case, to suppress one culture in favour of another. There is a broad range of furry art and literature that approaches these questions from many different angles but this appears to treat as though it all comes from a single approach. That is just not true.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
While its nice to get more essays, I think this one misses the mark. It's certainly true that a lot of the furry fandom uses Western frameworks, that's because that's the culture the majority of the furs are embedded in, or at least the English speaking ones. So to see that as a flaw is a bit like going to the Japanese and saying they have a very Japanese-influenced culture. They do, because they are.
I also have a wider distaste for decolonisation in general and here you fail to describe what you mean by decolonisation. What is meant by decolonisation can vary quite widely. There are calls that we have generally neglected the contributions of certain cultures and that we should pay more attention to them. That is a good point that I would hope most people can get behind. But there is also the other side of decolonisation where people take a highly relativistic views and almost call for the rejection of "Western" or "white" ideas as though there is something wrong with them. That stance is ridiculous and is perhaps best represented by the student in South Africa who was complaining about how science disagreed with some native beliefs about being able to call down lightning. Without further explanation, I fear this essay is treading dangerously close to the ridiculous side of things.
It's not entirely clear to me what the desired change would actually be. For one thing, the furry fandom is an aesthetic to such an extent that some people have defined the furry fandom purely by aesthetic criteria, where metaphorical use of animals is excluded. While the aesthetic is heavily influenced by Western culture, it is hardly the only influence. Japanese culture has a large impact on the aesthetic, notable examples being the chibi art style, kitsune and more examples of kemono suits. Different cultural influences are being seen more and more but this essay seems to imply a moral weight to an ethical decision.
Would being an animal be an alien experience, as a bat? Perhaps. This is explored in many stories; the Animorphs series in particular looks at the alienness of experiences. But we do also write about them as similar to us, sometimes only changing the aesthetic. And while there are cases of, maybe fursonas, where we identify with them for our own sake, there are also cases, such as The Animals of Farthing Wood or Watership Down, where we are supposed to identify with the animals in order to raise our awareness about them and for the sake of protecting them.
The idea of bringing in decolonisation is, I think a poor one. The concept seldom serves a useful purpose and, ironically, would be used, in this case, to suppress one culture in favour of another. There is a broad range of furry art and literature that approaches these questions from many different angles but this appears to treat as though it all comes from a single approach. That is just not true.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~