ABSTRACT
This chapter raises objections to the concept of ‘anthropomorphism’ as a tool for analysing how human animals understand non-human ones, and suggests that an alternative model ‘egomorphism’, might be more appropriate. The term ‘anthropomorphism’ is used in social science to describe some of the ways in which people act towards non-human animals. Evidence that intersubjectivity is generated with non-human beings also comes from countless everyday experiences of interactions with pets, livestock animals, wild animals, working animals and sport animals, and, no doubt, gods and spirits. The distinction between perceiving characteristics in non-human animals (and other things) and attributing characteristics to them, has implications for the debate about the relationship between direct perception and cultural construction. Direct perception and cultural construction are complementary processes, not conflicting ones. The crucial difference is that direct perception, on its own, generates a degree of understanding of the world, whereas cultural construction cannot take place at all without perception.
