Wednesday, February 8th, 2012
Facebook / Twitter / Tumblr / Podcast

Blog

Roundtable

Roundtable Archive Love this? Subscribe to Lapham's Quarterly today.

Get one free trial issue of Lapham's Quarterly!

  • Fill out this order form.
  • If you like the magazine, get the rest of the year for just $49 (4 issues in all).
  • If not, simply write cancel on the bill, return it, and owe nothing.
Please enter a first name.
Please enter a last name.
Please enter an address.
Please enter a city.
Please select a state.
Please enter a valid
zip code.
Please select a country.

Canadian subscribers add $10; All other international subscribers add $40.

Comments Post a Comment »

  • The claim that "mankind has evolved to a degree that activities of this sort on such a large scale are no longer morally feasible." is nonsense -- it just happens, far more brutally, behind closed doors in the warehouses and abattoirs of industrialized agriculture. Part of what is so special about the bullfight is that it reminds us of the incomprehensibility/difficulty of death — there is a purpose in this kind of ceremonial animal sacrifice. Either it is a shared public act, as here, or it is repressed: if the latter, our relationship to death and to each other is yet further distorted.

    Posted by Alex on Wed 11 Aug 2010

  • Alex, you bring up a valid point. However "activities of this sort" may not refer simply to the killing of animals, but to the public killing of animals expressly for the entertainment of a paying audience. It is the overt shamelessness of bullfighting that has raised such constructive protest as the ban in Catalonia. The back room horrors of slaughterhouses are generally kept out of public view, so they weigh less on the collective conscience, though they are all the more reprehensible. This speaks to, as you put it, a repressed and distorted relationship with death, rather than the forthright depiction presented in the bullfight.

    Posted by Marc on Wed 11 Aug 2010

  • Thanks, Marc.

    But: A bull fight is not only entertainment, as the hush that descends on the crowd at the moment of the bull's death testifies. It's also ritual; a way of emotionally relating to death.

    Posted by Alex on Wed 11 Aug 2010

  • Alex. Your defence of bullfighting as a form of ritual is weak. As is made clear by your reference to the brutality of industrialised meat production, we do not as humans equate the death (or, perhaps more importantly, the right to life) of animals with that of humans. Ergo, no slaughter of animals has a valid claim as a means of emotionally relating us to our own mortality - in public or otherwise. As Marc says, the experience of watching the bull die is undoubtedly harrowing, but this is a far cry from emotionally relating us to our own (human) mortality. Societally, at least, we process the death of animals and humans through an entirely remote set of moral standards. A human has the right not be murdered, a cow does not. It is untenable therefore to argue that the slaughter of a bull, or even numerous bulls, will have a significant bearing on the way we relate to the deaths of our fellow man. If, however, you are arguing that the bullfight allows us to emotionally relate to the death of the bull, then surely to continue the sport would only serve to make our relationship with death "yet further distorted" (I relate therefore I approve?). Your logic seems to call the morality of the spectator into question (something I am willing to do). Bullfighting is entertainment, tradition, and ritual, none of which are reason enough to continue the 'sport'.

    Posted by Jesse on Thu 12 Aug 2010

Post a Comment

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.

RSS
RSS
Featured Contributor
Marc Palatucci is a former intern for Lapham's Quarterly. He has previously written for the blog of the Oxford University Press.
Recent Posts
  1. Predicting Their Own Demise — 11/16/2011: We can say what we want about the future of reading, but perhaps we ought to let the novel speak for itself.
  2. The Zombie Apocalypse of Daniel Defoe — 11/01/2011: "A Journal of the Plague Year" might not technically chronicle an undead armageddon, but all the elements of the now popular genre are alive and well.
  3. Heraclitus in Guatemala — 10/28/2011: D. Graham Burnett recounts an unlikely conversation he had with his barber about the philosophy of history.
Archives
  1. December 2011
  2. November 2011
  3. October 2011
Blogroll
Frankly, I’m fed up with politicians in Washington lecturing the rest of us about family values. Our families have values. But our government doesn’t.
Bill Clinton, 1992
Events & News
September 15 / Open the seventh seal! The Fall issue of Lapham's Quarterly, "The Future," will hit newsstands on September 15. More
Reader Survey Take the LQ reader survey! Your two cents will help us keep making history ... Take Survey
Apropos

In Stir

No. 44

Subscribe
Current Issue Family Winter 2012
Blogs

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

Audio & Video
LQ Podcast:
Peter Ackroyd
Author and translator Peter Ackroyd talks with Aidan Flax-Clark about his new retelling of Thomas Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur and discusses a little bit about his most recent book of London history, London Under.
Eponym
Lewis H. Lapham is Editor of Lapham's Quarterly. He also serves as editor emeritus and national correspondent for Harper's magazine.
Recent Issues