Harming embodied subjectivity
Relating to Nonhumans on a subjective level would mean for instance:
In typical child psychology and childhood sociological terms, kids do relate positively to Nonhuman embodied characters in picture books with toys, etc.
> see for a discussion about this phenomenon also >The plush animal toy „phenomenon“ (antibiologistic perspectivities in animal sociology) > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QQLHwYDJGE >
Qualities of zoomorph expressions. Humanised animalisation: thoughts on the plush animal toys phenomenon, Edition Farangis: Animal Autonomy E-Reader, Jahrgang 4, Nr. 4, 2023, https://d-nb.info/1293260428/34 [accessed 12.10.2023]
Society conveys even that children can or should or might hold positive, interested sentiments as an affirmative reaction to these embodiments.
If adults would in stark contrast give children for instance a book or books where a character such as Snoopy would be – like the real Beagles he represents – figuratively humiliated, tortured and murdered, by an imagined figurative humanoid society (the peanuts for instance themselves) I wonder how fast you would see that indeed a subjective level matters on the plane of social bonding between animality and humans from the viewpoint of the children.
To go a bit further, this does not only illustrate that the subjective and thus social interaction level is essential here … but also in this context we could say again that the drawing of analogies is a legitimate form of relating to each other.
We recently issued a pamphlet on the point of being differentiated in terms of analogies > Pamphlets: The Analogy, Comparison and Relation, Edition Farangis: Animal Autonomy E-Reader; ISSN 2700-693X, Jahrgang 4, 2023, Nr. 5., https://d-nb.info/1299449379/34 [accessed 12.10.2023]
rev. 12.10.2023
> the draft of the mentioned pamphlet is https://tierrechtsethik.de/draft-the-analogy-comparison-and-relation/