Let’s get a few things straight: the fish is being tagged, not killed. The fish is a fish, and I’m not, so I don’t know what it is seeing. Because the fish is a cod, it will eat lots of other fish, including other cod, many of them while their hearts are still beating. If you want sympathy, don’t expect to get it from the fish.
But does the fish nonetheless deserve sympathy–or compassion, or whatever you want to call an act of moral resonance? And should the fact that we can see it seeing be the basis for that sympathy? Reason would suggest otherwise, but I’m not sure I want to be so reasonable. Not at the moment, anyway. There is plenty of time to revert to the more utilitarian arguments for not destroying the wild fish populations, for keeping the ecosystem in balance, for sustaining resources for future generations. . . . But this photograph requires a different answer, because it is asking a different question.
That question is, why kill? Why should we kill, or at least, why should we kill those species we can live without? Of course we slaughter micro-organisms by the trillions, but that consideration is largely a distraction from where morality really lies: that is, where individual and collective decisions are possible.
This photograph is as good an argument for vegetarianism as I’ve seen in awhile. First, it got to me, and that has to happen if deep cultural habits are to be changed. Second, it got to me for reasons that are easily dismissed and yet somehow persistent. The large eye evokes cross-species identification, as if the eye is window to the soul. That’s a cliche, but hard to shake. The large head, open mouth, and sagacious visage suggests a capacity for self-consciousness, even reflection; no matter that the suggestion comes from those 19th century drawings and Kitchy paintings of animals in suits or sitting around the poker table. The gentle, supporting embrace of the technician evokes an ethic that channels every sentiment of parenting or of loving care for one’s pets–even though he holds neither child nor pet and his work is geared toward increasing the fishing quotas.
Why, we might ask, should such compromised emotional attachments prevail? Why should this photo push me further away from eating meat? Let me suggest that the deep structure of the image is doing important work on behalf of overcoming our moral blindness regarding other species. The clue to what might be happening is provided by Kaja Silverman’s remarkable book, The Miracle of Analogy: The History of Photography, Part I. Silverman suggests that photography’s genius lies not in providing direct reproductions of what is seen, but rather in disclosing the many similarities that constitute the world in its deepest sense. Instead of thinking of reality as something prior to the image, we should consider how reality is “a vast constellation of analogies” (11) that can be brought to light through the image.
Analogies between fish and human beings, for example. Similarities that are not so much thought as felt. Patterns of continuity that become expressed by many and often odd means: cliches, cartoons, and comparisons with pets among them.
And if you think about that, it might become harder to kill.
Photograph by Craig F. Walker/Boston Globe.