Week 1 free blog: Humanimal?

Since viewing and discussing the paintings from the Cave at Lascaux and the film Grizzly Man I have been contemplating the barrier between man and animal that we began to discuss in class. I made the point that i consider this barrier to be a human social construct. By this I mean that it is both man-made and dependent on human social interactions. In this entry I would like to explore this idea further, its relation to both The cave and Grizzly Man, and how religion relates or is involved with this barrier.
I believe that the man-animal barrier is a man-made structure because our reason is what separates us from animals, and their lack of reason would make it impossible for them to be aware of this difference. In this way, the man-animal barrier must be man-made and a product of the cognitive difference that only we perceive. What I consider more important is that this barrier is also a social construct. Our interactions with other human beings in society are generally mediated by a protocol for communication and interpersonal behaviors. This differs greatly from the interaction between man and wild animal. I would guess that a man born and raised in solitude from humans in the wild would feel less isolation from animals because he would not consider himself part of any other group. I think these protocols can include almost any constructed behavior, tradition or facet of interpersonal activity, and build into cultures. Without such an organized and deep human-human interaction, the human-animal interaction seems less separated.
This notion makes sense when viewed through both the cave at Lascaux and Grizzly Man. The cave paintings suggest that while animals were respected and revered, the interaction between man and animal was not one of comfort, friendship, or progress but rather of survival. The painting of the man being gored in attempt to kill the bull displays beautifully separate beings or groups of beings subject to the same laws of nature and death. Thus the barrier these people create is one that seems to be the result of the knowledge of their cognitive difference and of the value of social relationships between humans, and not of relationships with animals.
Perhaps Treadwell misinterprets this view as a total lack of separation, or perhaps he too considers the construct social, which would explain his desire to immerse himself in the bears' world, the wild world. We can't be certain what was going on in his mind, but it is clear from his human-like treatment of the animals and his confidence in his ability to understand their logic or "animal reason" that to him this barrier is neither inevitable nor natural.
Religion serves, in my opinion, to strengthen the man-animal barrier. In relation to both the human and social factors that lead to this barrier, this interpetation makes sense. Many modern religions (specifically western ones) elevate the human status to beneath the diety or dieties but above other animals. When paired with the differences that we see from our cognitive disparities, a convincing separation is acheived. Additionally, while social interaction is necessary to establish religion, the presence of religion within a social group is bound have some interaction (discussion, behaviors) that involve religion. These occurences widen the pre-exsisting gap between human-human interaction and human-animal interactions. Therefore, religion is not the cause of the man-animal barrier, but the factors necessary to create this barrier are also factors necessary to create religion. The development of these factors which leads to religion, also leads to the development of the man-animal barrier.