1

Jack London’s Anthropocentrism in White Fang

This research is aimed at exploring London’s ecological consciousness in his novel

White Fang. White Fang is set in the land the author simply called “The North” ―the Yukon

territory to which he once travelled as a gold prospector. White Fang, the main character of the

novel, an offspring of a wolf and a dog, refers nature here. The controlling relationship between

human beings and the dog is a reflection of anthropocentrism. Taking into consideration the

wilderness of White Fang as an important characteristic to preserve the biodiversity and

ecosystem, this thesis also focuses on the reduction of wild White Fang into a tamed one as a

human centered view which is problematic for the environmental balance. White Fang at first

lives in his natural habitation where he struggles for survive and makes him fit to survive. But

when he comes to human contact gradually his wilder instincts are controlled by human

behaviors. Though White Fang seems to be civilized apparently, he does not lose his natural

instincts intrinsically.

Jack London provides an account of wild setting of the novel in the opening lines of the

novel which resembles wild nature. It opens with the mention of “[d]ark spruce forest frowned

on either side the frozen waterway” (3). Opening the novel from this dark and cold physical

setting, London makes the readers alert to meditate over nature and its relationship with human.

Though he represents nature from human perspective, it is important to be intimate with such

nature to understand the novel and analyze it from ecological point of view. Wilderness is

presented as “but there was life, abroad in the land defiant. Down the frozen waterway toiled a

string of wolfish dogs” (3). The narrator demonstrates the struggle of living beings for survivable

in such a wild nature. The compulsion of the wild and other living beings to be fitted in the
 2

environment for survival enhances the concept of biodiversity and the extinction of the weaker

members of biosphere.

The wolves refer nature. Jack London sees nature from human perspective and

emphasizes nature’s usefulness for human purpose. “Henry leaped out of the blankets and to the

dogs. He counted them with care and joined his partner in cursing the power of the wild that had

robbed them of another dog” (13). Two human characters, Henry and Bill, London introduces in

the starting episode of the novel. They are on the trip to Fort McGurry with Lord Alfred’s dead

body. Wolves rob their sled dogs which is their natural as well as wild instinct. The wild basic

necessity is presented from human-centered view as harm to human beings. The wolves’

wandering in the jungle and searching for food is natural. That is to say, London becomes

anthropocentric while raising the issues of ecological consciousness and shows nature’s value for

human purpose rather than nature’s value in itself.

White Fang is born in the wild environment and comes into many hardships. In each

hardship, he is able to adjust himself. The famine is common. The possessive behavior of Gary

Beaver makes him loyal. And he becomes a killer seething with hate under the abuse of Beauty

Smith. In the last section of the novel which is set in the southland, Santa Clara Valley, his living

is influenced by Weedon Stott’s civilizing attitude. Thus, White Fang is drawn into civilization,

first by Indians, then by miners, and finally in the Southland, by upper middle class ranchers, and

becomes dog-like in his loyalty and loves towards his master. And the central issue this research

raises is that bringing White Fang from his wilder state into civilized environment is justifiable

or not. This research also goes to investigate how is the reduction of White Fang’s wilderness is

harmful for environmental balance. Obviously, Jack London as a nature writer raises the issue of

ecological consciousness in White Fang. His motif of showing human dog relationship is to
 3

reflect nature human relationship. The interdependency between human and nature is reflected in

White Fang. White Fang, who reflects nature, carries wild instinct which is natural. But

controlling of his wilderness is anthropocentric. London seems to be anthropocentric in reducing

nature’s quality of wilderness into civilization is a danger for environmental balance. Therefore

nature human relationship depicted in White Fang is not harmonious and reciprocal rather it is

human centered.

This research centers over anthropocentric attitude and its effects in ecology reflected in

Jack London’s White Fang. As the nature human relationship depicted by London in White Fang

is purely environmental issue, this research goes through the perspective of ecocriticism to reread

the novel. Ecocriticism is a literary tool which studies literary and non-literary texts examining

the human non-human relationship in a text. It explores the representation of nature and pays

attention to the question of how nature is constructed in those presentations. It rejects imposing

human’s perspective in nature which values nature for human purpose. Evaluating nature and its

usefulness from human’s perspective only and disregarding nature’s value in itself is an

anthropocentric view. Anthropocentric view in nature does not take into account the nature’s

intrinsic value. In this way ecocriticism focuses on the many and widely different ways in which

the natural world―wild and domestic animals, landscapes, the wilderness and our relations with

that world are represented in our culture.

Jack London’s White Fang is all about the relationship between a dog that stands for

nature and human character. All living beings and non living beings too are the components of

physical environment. Jack London obviously puts the issue of physical environment in the

centre of the novel. He writes, “One day, not long after he came to the edge of the forest, where a

narrow stretch of open land sloped down to the Mackenzie. He had been over this ground before,
 4

when it was bare but now a village occupied “(124). This reference explicitly explores London’s

concentration on human nature relationship. That’s why ecocriticism is a suitable tool to study

London’s white Fang. Ecocriticism studies how environment is represented in a text. One of the

theorists of ecocriticism Cheryll Glotfelty defines ecocriticism in this way:

Simply put, ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the

physical environment. Just as the Feminist Criticism examines language and

literature from a gender-conscious perspective and Marxist criticism bring an

awareness of modes of production and economic class to its reading of texts,

ecocriticism takes an earth centered approach to literary studies. (x viii)

As Glotfelty defines ecocriticism, this research examines the dog human relationship

from the earth-centered view. Earth-centered view crosses the boundaries between human and

non human and dismisses the human-centered or anthropocentric approach which considers

human as superior over other environmental components. Moreover, Glotfelty further writers,”

As a critical stance, it has one foot in literature and the other on land; as a theoretical discourse, it

negotiates between human and non-human” (xix).

Human and nonhuman both are the important components of environment. Each has

their own role to keep environment balanced. Domination of one upon other is injustice to

nature. The entire narratives in White Fang negotiate between human and non-human. London’s

human characters are always in superior position and affect non-human’s living, namely White

Fang’s living. Non-humans’ living and their wilder or natural instincts are controlled and

possessed by humans as their own in one or another ways. “Gary Beaver continued to beat,

White Fang continued to snarl. But this could not last forever. One or the other must give over

and that one was White Fang” (London 94). Snarling in anger is White Fang’s natural instincts
 5

which are forced to be controlled by Grey Beaver’s beating. This reference speaks about the

man’s being anthropocentric in their relationship with nature Thus, London gives central position

to human while depicting human nature relationship which is a hegemonic structure. That is to

say, nature is hegemonized as inferior who lacks consciousness. In other words, nature is

assumed to be exclusive to the human. London states, “White Fang, in the very nature of him,

could never know anything about gods” (82). This reference illustrates London’s treatment to

nature as something that lacks consciousness and man is given godlike position. In this regard

the postmodernist ecological theorist Val Plumwood’s ideas about the arrogance of

anthropocentrism are applicable here. He writes:

An anthropocentric view point treats nature as radically other and humans as

emphatically separated from nature and from animals. It sees nature as a hyper-

separate lower order lacking continuity with the human and stress those features

which make humans different from nature and animals, rather than those they

share with them, as constitutive of a truly human identity. (107)

London’s motif in White Fang is to highlight the issue of ecology. In this task London fails to

judge the relationship and cannot create harmonious and balanced relationship. He at first

throws White Fang in wilder state which is purely natural but coming into the end White Fang is

influenced by human civilization. White Fang or White Fang’s wilderness is treated as other. As

Val Plumwood opines, human characters in the novel whether Gray Beaver, Beauty smith or

Weedon Scott, behave White Fang as a hyper-separate lower order and always try to control him.

Thus, in White Fang, nature or animals are judged as lack in relationship to the human and

devalued as absence of qualities said to be essential for the human, such as rationality.
 6

Regarding value of nature, in anthropocentric culture, nature’s agency and independence

of ends are denied. London narrates “White Fang learned that the right to punish was something

that gods reserved for themselves and denied to the lesser creature under them” (95). This

reference clarifies the instrumentalization of nature’s value. White Fang’s intrinsic value is

judged in terms of its usefulness and a means to fulfill human desires. And the authority of

judging value is reserved by human themselves or according to London, reserved by the ‘gods’.

Many ecological theorists talk about value theory which mainly includes the issues of

instrumental and non-instrumental values. One of the theorists talking about value theory is Clar

Palmer who opines:

Instrumental value is assigned to something because of its usefulness, as a means

to an end. Water, for instance, is of instrumental value to humans because it helps

in achieving another goal that is remaining alive. But this does not seem to be the

case with all kinds of value for instance, being alive itself. We do not value our

living for any reason beyond themselves, we do not (usually) regard preserving

our life as a means to an end, but rather as an end in itself. (16)

If we go through the above mentioned lines of Palmer, what we can understand is that if

human can value the non-human world intrinsically quite apart from its usefulness to humans,

that will be in favor of environment or that will be the respect of nature. But valuing nature

instrumentally to fulfil human’s desire is anthropocentric view. White Fang has been

instrumentalized several times in the novel. White Fang’s intrinsic qualities like loyalty,

intelligence and self-respect are used by the human characters―Gray Beaver, Beauty Smith and

even by Weedon Scott.

 7

To analyze White Fang through the perspective of ecocriticism and to explore London’s

anthropocentric view, it is inevitable to be intimate with environmental ethics. In common

understanding, an ethic is a system of moral principles or rules of behaviours. In this sense,

environmental ethics is a set of moral principles and behaviors which are essentials for the

preservation and promotion of environment. If we go thoroughly, a wide-spectrum of ethical

positions is covered by the umbrella term ‘environmental ethics’. There are several approaches

to environmental ethics conceptualized by different theorists. For instance, anthropocentric

approach, individualist deontologists approach, holistic environmental ethics and recently

discussed approach of wilderness and ecological restoration and so on.

Reading London’s White Fang from the perspective of ecocriticism, we can find

London’s prioritization of human civilization over animal’s wilderness. London writes

addressing White Fang, “he was becoming tame and qualifying himself for civilization” (205).

London pushes White fang to the contact of human civilization from his wilder state. This

reduction of wilderness into civilization is problematic in ecocritical point of view. London

further writes, “Human kindness was like a sun shining upon him, and he flourished like a flower

planted in good soil” (207). This line explores London’s view about wilderness and how does he

treat nature’s intrinsic quality. The idea of wilderness is discussed by various environmental

ethicists like J.Baird Callicott, Micheal Nelson, Holmes Rolstons and othes. Rolston’s idea of

wilderness presented in Clare Palmer’s essay “An overview of environmental Ethics” is quite

relevant and applicable here. In the essay he discusses wilderness and tries to understand

intrinsic values on non human. In his own words:

Wild nature radically different from human culture and that it carries non-human

intrinsic values that should be respected, and that Callicott’s arguments do not
 8

recognize. This radical culture/nature difference does not mean”Freeze faming”

ecology; it rather means that the biological changes in wilderness areas should be

driven by evolutionary and ecological processes, not humans.(qtd. inPlamer 28)

Responding one of the ecocritics Callicott’s idea of integrating wild nature and human

culture, Rolston argues that wild nature is different from human culture or civilization which

should be respected. Evolutionary change in nature is acceptable but the change in nature due to

misbehaves of human civilization is harmful. It may cause the extinct of natural factors. Thus,

Rolston’s arguments about wilderness justifies that London is misguided buy anthropocentric in

presenting nature in his novel white Fang.

In this way ecocritism carries an earth centered view in analyzing a text and rejects

anthropocentric view. Hans Bertens in his book Basic Literary Theory, writes “ecocritism’s

moral and political agenda and the rejection of an unthinking anthropocentrism are practically

the only things the various strands of ecocritism have in common” (204). Glotfelty’s definition

of ecocritism, Clare Palmer idea about value theory and Rolston’s ethical approach in wilderness

has anti-anthropocentric view in common. This thesis digs out London’s anthropocentric

arrogance in White fang through the perspective of ecocritism in general and from the

perspective of above mentioned environmental thinkers in particular.

Therefore for an ecocritic, a text to be an environment-friendly and should have earth

centered view. The interest of a natural world that is seriously under threat mainly due to human

behavior is the topmost issue of ecocritics. Since this research goes through the perspective of

ecocriticism to analyze the text, it tries to find out London’s lacking of environment-friendly

representation in writing about nature. In this context, one of the environmental thinkers
 9

Loawrence Buell argues about the environmentally ideal text and points out the important

features of such text. He writes:

The human environmental is present not merely as a framing device present that

begins to suggest that human history is implicated in natural history. The human

interest is not understood to be the only legitimate interest. Human accountability

to the environment is part of the text’s ethical orientation. Some sense of the

environment as a process rather than as a constant or a given is at last implicit in

the text. (qtd. In Bertens 204)

If a text lacks these features, the text fails to be environmental friendly. And it is the

ecocritic’s business to point out in which ways it fails to do so. This research also analyzes the

text from an ecocritic’s perspective and points out the findings in analytical way orienting it into

the reasons that why London is failed to be environment-friendly.

Many critics of London’s animal novels analyze them from different perspectives.

Different approaches like naturalism influence of heredity and environment, Darwin’s theory of

evolution etc have been applied by different critics to analyze London’s novel. London’s White

Fang is analyzed as a child literature too by some critics. Some other critics focus on London’s

symbolic wilderness while making criticism in White Fang.

London was considered a popular but not literary author in his life time. More recently, his

novels have been classified as young-adult literature. As a result, literary publication and

scholars have had little interest in London and his work. In addition London’s works featuring

animals as main characters have received even less attention than others. In this regard, one of

the critics Maxwell Geismer does mention White Fang in his book Rebel and Ancestor: The
 10

American Novel, 1918-1915 but judges it an inferior novel than London’s other novels because

of what he views as a sentimental ending. He argues:

It was only when White Fang was rescued from other extremes of cruelty and

terror, to become the blessed wolf of a gracious California estate in the Southland,

a perfect pet of aristocratic gentry that London succumbed to the sentiment which

spoiled another beautiful little parable of the instinctual life. (19)

Another critic Mary Aller also talks in the same line. He focuses on taming of nonhuman and

civilizing motif. Imposing civilization to wild and using them as own property is injustice to

nonhuman. His view about White Fang’s characters:

What the author intends as the virtue of adaptation comes across instead of a

character who sells out, at least so it seems to the American reader. The case for

civilization is apparently viewed differently in Europe, however, where White

Fang outsells The Call of the Wall. (73)

Maxwell and Mary Allen both seem to be interested in the issue of White Fang’s

civilizing process. Making White Fang civilized in Southland spoils his instinctual life of

Northlond for Maxwell. Marry allen and Maxwell argue in the same line and compare White

Fang with London’s another animal novel The Call of the Wild which also features animals as

the main characters.

Similarly London’s White Fang is also viewed as a children’s literature. Some critics

analyze it as an adventure novel too. One of the critics of White Fang Ruby Jean Myers describes

White Fang from children’s perspective. He writes:

 11

Early in the novel London’s writing style asserts itself as unique in his ability to

reveal the thought patterns of animals that are based on logic with no analysis of

“why”, only the importance of “What” and “how” “where” and “when”. “why” is

unimportant. Throughout the book, London points out this type of reasoning not

only in White Fang’s mind but in the minds of all the creatures of the wild. (187)

Ruby Jean Myers finds London analyzing animal’s psychology which resembles

children’s psychology. The “why is less important for children’s world. Even though they think

for the “why”, they do not bother for the answers because in most of the cases their reasoning

power cannot reach to the answer of the “why”. But such as “what” and “how” they can see with

their eyes. Ruby Jean Myers Seems to claim that London points out this type of reasoning

throughout the novel which is a children’s perspective to view the novel.

Moreover London’s two animal novels White Fang and The call of the Wild are

described as having the features of fable and parable. By fable is usually meant a work in which

beasts both speak and represent human qualities, and by parable is meant a work in which the

principal agents are human. Both fable and parable provide moral lessons to the readers. The

moral of fable is appropriate to be far more worldly than that of parable. Fables deal with how

men act on earth, parables with how they should act to gain salvation. In this regard Donald Pizer

makes a criticism, he writes:

What appeals in the two works is not London’s dramatization of a particular late

nineteenth-century Darwinian formulation but rather his powerful use of the

principal ethical thrust and formal characteristic of the fable, with an admixture as

well of the parable. Characterization is at a minimum in the two works; dogs and

men are types and the types themselves are moral in nature. (110)
 12

Another critic of Jack London, Earler Labor is interested in London’s symbolic

wilderness. Analyzing London’s works he provides four separate versions of the symbolic

wilderness in London’s fictions. Among them the first version where he explains about “white

silence” is related to White Fang too. He writes, “The first of these four versions is the White

silence, the vast still wilderness of the Northland. Here, nature is cold, austere, and unavoidable,

man, puny and insignificant” (149). Here Earle Labor takes the cold and harsh nature of the

North land as White silence which resembles wilderness of nature. White silence where man is

tiny and needs to do struggle for survival. Labor further writes:

The northern wilderness is, in one sense, a “wasteland “as Mills calls it, yet it is

not without a stern moral influence. The god of the White Silence is harsh god but

a just one: he is an inflexible disciplinarian who brooks no violation of his strict

code. He is indifferent in that he neither helps nor actively hinders man in this

creature’s petty enterprise, nor do these enterprises appreciably alter the

wilderness. On the other hand, man himself, in order to survive, must be altered;

and this alteration is for the better, morally speaking, because it calls forth such

virtue as courage, integrity and brotherhood. (150).

Early Labor through these lines digs out London’s representation of nature in White

Fang. White silence here refers the remote, pastoral, pristine, cold and wild nature depicted by

London in White Fang. Nature is neither partial nor it helps or hinders man’s activity. That is to

say, according to Early Labor, the nature depicted in White Fang is indifferent towards the

creatures. So all the creatures either man or animals have to do struggle to protect their existence.

Similarly London’s depiction of wilderness in White Fang is analyzed in the same line as this

research focuses on by another critic Gorden Mills. White Fang’s instinctual wilderness is not
 13

the subject to be controlled by human beings. Rather the changes depend on evolution itself. In

this regard Golden Mills writes about White Fang’s instinctual wilderness with a reference from

Burning Daylight. He writes:

The theme of White Fang, condensed on to an incident occupying only one

paragraph, appears in the conclusion of Burning Daylight, where it is intended to

serve as a parable. In this incident, Elam’s dog, brought with him from Alaska, is

discovered in the act of attacking a new born colt. It is said that his old hunting

instincts has been aroused. When Elems speaks to him he returns instantly to

“man’s allegiance and no longer threatens the colt. Civilization prevails. (339)

Here Gorden Mills highlights White Fang’s instinctual wilderness in relation with

human civilization. Due to the effect of human civilization wilderness is affected though the wild

instincts rooted in nature cannot be removed totally. Gorden takes the reference of Burning

Daylight which is also another animal novel featuring animal as the main characters written by

Jack London.

In the same way, Hab Zwart in his book Understanding nature writes about London’s

novels as a reference for understanding nature. He finds London’s animal novels are not only

about animal’s stories but also about the nature. He states:

London’s novel could also be called a novel about a particular landscape, namely

the Yukon region, just as Melville’s novel is about oceans as well as whales. It is

perfectly possible to read and treat London’s book as a landscape novel, or as a

historical novel rather than as a dog novel likewise, writings by Iven Pavlov on

laboratory dogs or as much about laboratories as they are about dogs. It is through
 14

the animal subject (whale dog or otherwise) that a particular world (the Pacific

Ocean or the sub arctic wilderness) is opened up to us. (33)

The above reference indicates that London’s novels such as White Fang are not merely

about the adventures of animals. Rather we can find the serious issues of nature or environmental

problems and several other issues if we dig out them keenly. White Fang openly depicts the

nature of Yukon Territory and its ecological importance.

In this way the present research examines representation of nature in a literary or non-

literary text. The tool to analyze the text is ecocriticism. It explores human and non-human

relationship. The animal world may be presented apparently pleasing, loyal and even courageous

in a text. Ecocriticism keenly analyzes such text and explores the actual construction of the

animal world. Ecocriticism’s examination of representation of nature does of course not limit

itself to the way animals represented. It examines representation of landscape and of nature in its

original state. The landscape of pastoral for instance, the wilderness is deeply analyzed by

ecocriticism. And it demands an eco-friendly text and rejects human-centered view imposing in a

text. The main task of ecocritism is to make us aware about importance of environmental

balance. Thus this research goes through the line of ecocritism to read London’s White Fang.

Many critics applied different perspective to criticize White Fang and presented their views. But

the perspective of ecocriticism is an innovative approach to be applied to read White Fang.

 15

A critique of Anthropocentrism: Nature Culture Dialectics

Culture is man-made and nature is self-made. There is confusion about the cultural

construction of nature. The culture tries to define the nature. But the intrinsic value of nature

cannot be grasped by the definition give by culture. That is to say, nature in itself is untouched

by the definition given by man. It is because man imposes his own perspective defining the

nature. And this is what the anthropocentricism is.

Jack London’s White Fang is a story of a wolf that lives in natural landscape. Later White

Fang is taken to the human settlement. It explores the symbolic wilderness of White Fang.

Wilderness of White Fang refers nature. Human character’s behaviors with non human

characters refer culture. White Fang, a quarter dogs, is wild when he lives in his natural

habitation and a tamed as well when he comes in to contact with human characters like Gray

Beaver, Beauty Smith and Weedonscott in the novel. Darwin’s theory of ‘survival of the fittest’

is applied whether White Fang lives in nature or he comes in to contact with human. In the

chapter The Wall of The World London narrates:

He was fighting, tearing at a live thing that was striking at him. Also, this live

thing was meat. The lust to kill was on him. He had just destroyed little live

things. He would now destroy a big live thing. He was too busy and happy to

know that he was happy. He was thrilling and exulting in ways new to him and

greater to him than any he had known before. (64)

One day, little White Fang’s instinctive fear of leaving the lair is overcome by curiosity.

The cub comes outside the cave’s entrance. Exploring, he finds a net of small ptarmigan chicks
 16

and eat them. When the ptarmigan he returns, he fights with her until she drives him away by

pecking his nose. He learns the law of meat: “eat or be eaten”.

The novel portrays two worlds, the world of nature and the world of humans. In both

these worlds, all life is subject to the law of the survival of the fittest. Famine is well known to

the human and animals, and when it comes, the old, the sick and the weak die. When the Indians

have no food to give the dogs, the dogs return to the wild and try to stay alive until the famine

passes.

Russian anarchist Peter kroportkion viewed the concept of “survival of the fittest” as

supporting co-operation rather than competition. In his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

he set out his analysis leading to the conclusion that the fittest was not necessarily the best at

competing individually, but often the community made up of those best at working together. He

concluded that:

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in

societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life:

understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense―not as a struggle for the sheer

means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavorable to

the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to

its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest

development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the

most open to further progress. (105)

In an anthropocentric view, either the nature is conceptualized as wild as

remoteness. The ‘wild’ or ‘remoteness’ resembles uncivilized. Man is given the position of
 17

trainer. Humans always put themselves in the central position and judge or control over non

humans. The opening lines of the novel illustrate it:

Dark spruce forest frowned on either side the frozen waterway. The trees had

been stripped by a recent wind of their white covering of forest, and they seemed

to lean towards each other, black and ominous, in the fading light. A vast silence

reigned over the land. The land itself was desolation, lifeless, without movement,

so lone and cold that the spirit of it was not even that of sadness. (3)

Here, London creates the remote picture of nature. But nature is not completely a

product of discourse; it exists in its own too. The attempt to define nature, or the wilderness, in

any objective way, leads us to back to the constructedness of our concepts. Hans Bertens in his

book Basics Literary Theory puts forwards the ideas about the relationship between culture and

nature under the topic of “Ecocritism”. He writes:

Where do we draw the line between nature and ourselves, that is to say, between

natures an culture? If I drive west twenty minutes I find myself surrounded by

pasture land, numerous ditches and even more cows, with one in the horizon the

spires of village churches. Is this nature? (18)

Human’s intervention in nature deteriorates nature’s intrinsic value. Remoteness or

wilderness is also the qualities of nature. But it is not like we human conceptualize the ‘pasture

land’, ‘numerous ditches’ and the ‘cows’ with human’s intervention become culture. Men pose

them, control them, take care them and restrict over them. That is to say, humans think for the

instrumental value of them and ignore the intrinsic value of them.

London puts the wolves in the natural state in the beginning part of the novel. The human
 18

characters, Henry and Bill are introduced in the novel. Beauty Smith, Weedon Scott and Gray

Beaver are introduced in the second part of the novel. White Fang enters in the novel only in the

second part of the novel in the chapter ‘The Lair’. Step by step the he brings White Fang in

contact with the human characters. Then London gradually transforms White Fang into civilized

pet from his wilder state while coming at the end of the novel. In the chapter VI named ‘The grey

cub’ London writes about the Grey Cub (White Fang) that:

The Grey Cub’s eyes had not been open long, yet already he could see with steady

clearness. And while his were still closed, he had felt, tasted, and smelled. He

knew his two brothers and his two sisters very well. He had begun to romp with

them in a feeble, awkward way, and even to squabble, his little throat vibrating

with a queer rasping noise (the forerunner of the growl), as he worked himself in

to a passion. (53)

The grey cub is the fiercest one among the others. His wild instincts since his birth are

quiet natural. Vibrating throat is his inborn quality which refers wilderness. In a short time he

learns hunting, fighting and ways of being safe from the enemies. As a wild, these are the

qualities he carries from his parents. In this line London writes, “It had come down to him from a

remote ancestry through a thousand lives (59).

Coming into the end of the novel, London takes White Fang in the zone of civilization.

Weedon Scott takes him to California. Weedon Scott lives in a large country estate in the Santa

Clara valley with his extended family. As soon as White Fang arrives there, the family and their

dogs, including a sheepdog named Collie, begin adjusting to him and vice versa. As London

explains:
 19

The months came and went. There was plenty of food and no work in the

Southland, and White Fang lived fat and prosperous and happy. Not alone was he

in the geographical Southland, for he was in the Southland of life. Human

kindness was like a sun shining upon him, and he flourished like a flower planted

in good soil. (207)

This motif of civilizing White Fang is problematic for ecocritics. Obviously, London

raises the issue of ecological consciousness. But his view of controlling White Fang’s wilderness

is not fair. This is the culturazation of nature. White Fang’s instinctive qualities are dominated.

His wilderness is culturalized as civilization. One of the writers of garden history Simon Pugh

opines his view about nature in his essay Garden-Nature-Language that:

The ‘natural’ is the cultural meaning read into nature, meaning determined by

those with the power and the money to use nature instrumentally, as a disguise, as

a subterfuge, as a pretence that things were always thus, unchangeable and

inevitable, which they never were….The garden is a better remade nature, but in

respecting the inherent goodness of nature, what is unpleasant in the real world

becomes ‘unnatural’. In both cases ‘nature is a recipient of social values and

becomes a social construction. What nature really is not in question. The

implication of this for a world fast on the way to destroying its environment is

(sic) self-evident. (48)

Here, Puhg concerns for an environment under threat. Humans keep themselves in the

central position and use power and money to instrumentalize the nature. They construct nature as

they need. The purely intellectual awareness of nature is not the concern of human beings. What

they concern is what they need. What is unpleasant and unnecessary becomes ‘unnatural’.
 20

Therefore nature is only recipient of social values for them. But the intrinsic value of ‘nature in

itself’ of nature is neglected by humans. What nature really is not the question of human beings.

What nature really for is the only concern of them. And it is what the anthropocentrism is.

The narrator of the White Fang is omniscient. Though it is fascinating one for a reader

when the main characters are animals, it is a challenging choice for the writer too. Repeatedly,

the narrator confidently describes the thoughts and feelings of dogs and wolves and explains how

they experience the world. The best example of this comes when White Fang, as a small cub,

leaves the lair for the first time. He thinks of the cave’s entrance as a strange wall that his parents

have power to walk through. Then one day his curiosity outstrips his fear, and he approaches

“the wall of the world”. The narration of his first outing begins:

Now the gray cub had lived all his day on a level floor. He had never experienced

the hurt of a fall. He did not know what a fall was. So he stepped boldly out upon

the air. His hind legs still rested on the cave-lip, so he fell forward head

downward. The earth struck him a harsh blow on the nose that made him yelp.

Then he began rolling down the slope, over and over. He was in a panic of terror.

The unknown had caught him at last. It had gripped savagely hold of him. (62)

The narrator goes on to describe in great detail how White Fang learns to distinguish what

is alive from what is not alive, how he learns to interpret what his eyes are telling him about how

far away things are, what he experiences when he steps in to a stream and the current grabs him,

and so on. There is no way for reader to know how accurate these descriptions are.

Hub Zwart, in his case studies in comparative epistemology Understanding Nature,

bringing the reference from Dicken’s novel Hard Time writes that:
 21

The animal’s way of being is obscured rather than brought to light by the

restricted and impoverished language of facts, quantities and definitions. Rather

than allowing us to understand them, it is bound to estrange us from

them…..Eventually, however human beings rather than horses will find

themselves impoverished by this ridiculous procedure. Indeed, in Dicken’s novel,

the definition of horse is preceded by the definition of man as a “reasonable

animal”. In order to be able to perceive the world in factual terms, this is what we

have to become, depriving ourselves of other possibilities of interaction and

coexistence. (52)

Here Zwart is indicating that the factual and scientific understanding of the world

decrease our ability of discern what animals really are. Moreover, there is an intimate connection

between knowledge and interaction, between the question what an animal is and the question

how to approach them or how to treat them. What humans know about the non human is the

knowledge based on facts. That is why human beings deprived of the knowledge what animals

really are. To know about the animalness or animalhood of animals we should let ourselves to

understand animals in themselves. Zwart further writes in the same line:

If we are interested in addressing the long neglected epistemological and

ontological issues involved in animalhood, scientific and literary documents

constitute our obvious point of departure. A comparative epistemology will have

to follow these authors, take up the issues and questions raised by them, either

intentionally or unintentionally. We will have to scrutinize and question the

sources. To what extent do they allow us to determine what an animal is? To what
 22

extent do they shed light on the world and existence of animals? To what extent

do they provide a clearing that allows animals to really become discernable? (53)

Here, zwart raises the issues of objective representation of animals in literary and non-

literary genres. Do the writers or authors really understand the animals they put in their writings?

It is the major concern of Zwart. Keeping animals as their major characters, the authors or

writers certainly let us know about the animal’s world. But to what extent can we enter in to the

world of animals is the major issue. Entering into animal’s world we should be able to

understand animals in themselves rather than imposing our own point of view. Understanding

animals from our view is human-centered thinking and it is what the anthropocentrism is.

In modern society, human’s desires do great harm to the ecosystem and result in the

crazy plunder of the nature. What is more serious, it also destroys human’s inner world. Humans

are always focusing on their relentless inner desire, which has result in serious destruction of

ecosystem. Their determined conquest, crazy exploitation and unscrupulous plundering on nature

have directly led to the extinction of nature. The civilized society has to face a lot of social

problems because of the intense desire of the people.

London in his novel White Fang raises the issue of nature, but while raising the issue he

focuses in adaption of nature into culture. Under the guidance of the principle of “the survival of

the fittest”, he held the idea of anthropocentrism. In his eyes, the relationship between human

beings and nature is antagonistic. In describing nature he forgets the intrinsic value of nature and

forcefully imposes man’s perspective over nature. Culturization of nature is found as a common

issue in the novel. White Fang’s wilderness is reconciled into civilization by human-centered

behaviors of Gray Beaver, Beauty Smith, Weedon Scott and others. But White Fang does not
 23

lose his instincts intrinsically though it seems to be civilized apparently. London hints these

things at the ending part of the novel.

White Fang had come straight from the Wild, where the weak perish early and

shelter is vouchsafed to none. In neither his father nor his mother was there any

weakness, nor in the generation before them. A constitution of iron and the

vitality of the wild were White Fang’s inheritance, and he clung to life, the whole

of him and every part of him, in sprit and in flesh, with the tenacity that of old

belonged. (220)

Coming into the end of the novel London throws White Fang into human civilization as

a tamed dog in Weedon Scott’s family. He is taught to be loyal towards the master’s family.

Though he is taught to be civilized his inborn qualities are not faded by the civilizing motif of

humans. He still bears the wild nature. As the narrator has stated “a constitution of iron and the

vitality of the wild” is the inheritance of White Fang. The relationship between nature and human

beings should be reciprocal and harmonious. Only when people begin to cherish nature out of the

heartfelt love instead of utilitarian consideration can we protect nature effectively and achieve a

well-balanced relationship between nature and human beings.

London starts this novel from the wild setting of far North. It is deep winter. Snow

covers the ground. The temperature is far below zero, and it is light only for a few hours each

day. Life is difficult; one has to struggle for surviving. London writes, “it was the masterful and

incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the efforts of life (3).” But

coming into the end he reverses the setting. Ending the novel in the Southern land refers

reconciliation of wilderness into human civilization. London writes in the second last chapter

“The call of the Wild”:

 24

The months cone and went. There was plenty of food and no work in the

Southernland, and White Fang lived fat and prosperous and happy. Not alone was

he in the geographical Southland, for he was in the Southland of life. Human

kindness was like a sun shining upon him, and he flourished like a flower planted

in good soil. (207)

Here, London, changing the setting to Southland, tries to reconcile the northern wilderness

into Southern civilization. That is to say, human’s intervention to nature is considered as

justifiable issue. London treats nature as a part of culture. Culture and nature are nixed up and

nature is treated as human’s possession. As stated in the above mentioned,” human kindness was

like a sun shining upon him”, human’s intervention is treated as a necessity for nature. White

Fang in Weedon Scott’s family is made loyal to everybody. Bertens Hans in his book Basic

Literary Theory raises this issue. Under the topics ‘Ecocritism’ he writes:

It seems hard to get away from the fact that all that can be said and thought of

nature belongs to culture, we night, with a sleight of hand, claim that we ourselves

and the human cultures that we have produced are part of nature too-and those

ecologists and ecocritics who see Earth itself as a living organism (‘Gaia’) would

support that idea- but that does not really solve our problem. (202)

White Fang in his own natural habitation, that is the northern “dark spruce forest”, lives

having and using his wilder instincts. Human characters are presented from the starting for

“cursing the power of the wild (13). Nature’s identity, that is white Fang’s own existence, is

denied. Rather the human characters of the novel always try to culturize White Fang’s wilder

instincts. Kiche, the she-wolf, lets Gray Beaver pet her, Beauty Smith loves to watch White Fang

attacks and kills the dogs from the steamboat and Weedon Scott tries to rehabilitate White Fang
 25

through consistent gentleness, kindness and affection are some examples of culturizing nature

those ecologists who see Earth itself as a living organism give the alternative view of nature to

the pessimistic view which h sees nature as a primitive force to be subdued and conquered. That

is the Gaia hypothesis. J.E Lovelock in his essay “Gaia” writes, “the gaia hypothesis is for those

who like to walk or simply stand and stare, to wonder about the Earth and the life it bears, and to

speculate about the consequences of our own presence here (12).”

With the continuous progress of civilization and the rapid expansion of population,

pressure on the natural environment has been increasing. Particularly since the industrial

revolution, human beings have constantly sought to conquer, transform and exploit nature to

meet their own desires for wealth. Jack London realizes that mankind should be responsible in its

care for nature, and his novel, White Fang, reflects a through thinking on the relationships

between humans and nature. Looking through the perspective of ecocritism London becomes

anthropocentric while depicting the relationships.

 26

The blindspot of Anthropocentrism

In the brilliant history of American literature, jack London is a shining star. He is

regarded as one of the most prolific and intelligent writers in America in the early 20th century.

In a good number of his stories, the central conflict is that between man and nature. Therefore,

when we come across his novel White Fang, our interest is aroused and subsequent reading of

the novel touches us to a great extent. We are sure that studying of this novel can not only

deepen our understanding of Jack London’s works, but also gives us a deeper insight into

ecocritism theory. The purpose of this thesis is to explore Jack London’s ecological thought in

his novel White Fang with an ecocritical perspective.

In modern society, human’s desires do great harm to the ecosystem and result in the

crazy plunder of nature. What is more serious, it also destroys human’s inner world. Human are

always focusing on their relentless inner desire, which has result in serious destruction of

ecocystem. Their determined conquest, crazy exploitation and unscrupulous plundering on nature

have directly led to the extinction of nature. The civilized society has to face a lot of social

problems because of the intense desire of the people.

In order to fully understand ecological imperialism it is essential to recognize its roots in

the anthropocentric world view. Its overriding impact was so profound that the resulting

environmental policies have altered the fundamental ecological cycles of the planet.

Ecophilosophy locates its sources in the 17th century Scirntific Revolution which has ostensibly

shaped the entire Western epistemology, reordered the socio-cultural and political structures of

western societies, and widely informed their discursive practices and economic mechanisms. But

more than that, it has unmistakably given impetus and scientific legitimacy to the colonial

expansion of Britain and Europe over distant territories. It is therefore no accident that the
 27

beginning of this process in the 17th century coincides with the emergence of the Scientific

Revolution and the imperious mentality of its anthropocentric ideology. Science then the world

came to be seen as divided into center and periphery, whereby the center’s economic growth and

material progress became increasingly dependent on a massive exploitation of the people and the

ecosystems of the periphery. Val Ploomwood in his essay “The Blindspots of Centrism and

human self-enclosure” argues that:

The epistemic and the moral limitations and dualisms associated with human-

centeredness are, I shall argue, harmful and limiting, even in their subtler and

weaker forms. People under their influence, such as those from the western

cultural traditions in which anthropocentrism is deeply rooted, develop

conceptions of themselves as belonging to a superior sphere apart, a rational

sphere of exclusively ‘human’ ethics, technology and culture dissociated from

nature and ecology. This self-enclosed outlook has helped to lose touch with

ourselves a creatures who are not only cultural beings but also natural beings, just

as dependent on a healthy biosphere as other forms of life. (99)

Here Plumwood focuses on human’s self-centered attitude towards nature which is

harmful for ecology and for all living creatures too. Humans always put themselves in the centre

and treat nature as the inferior. This misconception of humans hampers the reciprocal

relationship between nature and humans lead us to ecological crisis.

London puts very few human characters in the novel. It seems the humans are there to

help. London demonstrates how the wolf’s temperament and destiny are shaped by all the

individuals and elements that enter into his sphere of existence. But on the other hand, the few

human characters are dominant to shape the wild lives. The wolf is the hero of the novel but its
 28

life is always put into the control of others. The following lines of the novel demonstrate these

things:

It was in the line with these experiences that white fang came to learn the law of

property and the duty of the defense of property. From the protection of his god’s

body to the protection of his god’s possession was a step, and this step he made.

What was his god’s was to be defended against al the entire world- even to the

extent of biting other god’s. (115)

From the above line we can examine the relationship established by London between

human and non-human. Humans are given the superior position. Non-humans are treated as the

possession of human beings. This refers London’s anthropocentric attitudes in the novel.

Ecocriticism opposes such a view in literature. William Rueckert in his essay “Literature and

Ecology: An experiment in Ecocriticism” defines ecocritism as “the application of ecology and

ecological concepts to the study of literature, because ecology (as a science, as a discipline, as

the basis for human vision) has the greatest relevance to the present and the future of the world.

(2)

In this context the possible relations between literature and nature are examined in terms

of ecological concepts. Ecocritism, then, attempts to find a common ground between the human

and the non-human to show how they can coexist in various ways, because the environmental

issues have become an integral part of our existence. This is one of the problems that ecocritism

addresses in its attempt to find a more environmentally conscious position in literary studies.
 29

London draws the relationship between the human and non-human and speaks from the

side of human. Though he tries to go inside the animal world, he represents it imposing human

centered perspectives. The following lines of the novel further states about this:

To his mind this was power unusual, power unconceivable and beyond the

natural, power that godlike. White fang, in the very nature of him, could never

know anything about gods; at the best he could know only things that were

beyond knowing- but the wonder and awe that he had of these man-animals in

ways resembled what would be the wonder and awe of man at sight of some

celestial creature, on a mountain top, hurling thunderbolts from either hand at a

astonished world. (135)

One day, the cub goes to the stream to drink and sees three Indians- the first humans he

has seen. The men see the cub. When one of then tries to pick up, the cub bites. The man hits

him, and the cub cries out, bringing the she-wolf to his rescue. In this point the narrator describes

the cub’s mental status. The cub thinks the Indians are the godlike and “beyond the natural”.

Receiving man as more than natural London forgets the equal existence or coexistence of human

and nonhuman. London adheres to the view that mental life of dogs is different, even deficient,

in comparison to humans. The mental life of animals is characterized by dimness, by a “lack” of

ideas such as casualty. Although in his actual description London often depicts his hero as

sensitive, acute and intelligent.

In the essay “As environmental problems Compound” Cheryll Glotfelty writes speaking

on the behalf of the academics worldwide, “Work a usual seems unconscionably frivolous. If we

are not the part of the solution, we are the part of the problem” (1996: xxi). Therefore her

question, how then can we contribute to environmental restoration… from within our capacity as
 30

professor of literature” (1996:xxi)” is of crucial importance. But this contribution should be

focused on the literary as well as on the ecological concepts, not privileging one over another.

The task of ecocriticism is to formulate a conceptual foundation for the study of interconnections

between literature and environment. Literature can be taken as an aesthetically and culturally

constructed part of the environment.

London in the novel concerns about nature and human-nature relationship, and

eventually came to an ecological thought. Influenced by Darwin and other evolutionists, Jack

London believed in the influence of heredity and environment. He recognized that evolution of

species is the result of natural selection. One of the themes of the novel is that heredity and

environment each contribute to White Fang’s fate. London comes down on the side of nature as

being the more powerful force. White Fang’s fate is malleable, and he adjusts to whatever

conditions his environment presents in order to survive. Under the abuse of Beauty Smith, White

Fang becomes a killer seething with hate. Under the loving hand of Weedon Scott, he becomes a

gentle pet. While this theme is woven throughout the novel, it is stated explicitly in these lines:

White fang grew stronger, heavier and more compact, while his character was

developing along the lines laid down by his heredity and his environment. His

heredity was a life-stuff that may be likened by clay. It possessed many

possibilities, was capable of being moulded into many different forms.

Environment served to model the clay, to give it a particular form. (201)

London’s naturalistic tendency was emanated from Darwinian concepts. Naturalism

emerged in France in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and held away in the United

States between about 1900 and 1918. It developed out of scientific ideas that were popular at the

time, especially Darwin’s theory of evolution. Naturalist writers were interested in the closely
 31

related idea of determinism. Determinism holds the idea that the fate of an individual human or

animal is determined by the interplay of heredity and the environment. These writers often

created everyday characters. Then they subjected them to extreme circumstances to show how

innate traits and life circumstances combined to create their destinies. In White Fang also

London provides harsh conditions of life in the far north. White Fang is subjected to many

hardships. White Fang is a wild when he lives in his natural habitation. He becomes tamed as

well when he comes into contact with different characters like gray Beaver, Beauty Smith,

Weedon Scott and others. Even his tamed life with different human characters is not same. His

life changes when habitation or environment is changed. The plot of White Fang’s domestication

from wild state is woven in the interplay of environment and heredity.

White Fang is born in the primordial and savage land of the North. It is not a new setting

for London’s fictions, this land of the White Silence, delineated so thoroughly in London’s early

stories and novels. Here is nature, which London personifies throughout as the “wild”, both

man’s and beast’s great enemy. Nature is the inscrutable force that must be fought against day

and night for survival. And London presents the beasts as the part of the world who struggle for

survival against the world which the naturalists called “hostile environment”. Fang’s world in its

hostility and cold indifference is pictured poetically in these lines:

A vast silence reigned over the land. The land itself was desolation, lifeless,

without movement, so lone and cold that the spirit of it was not even that of

sadness. There was a hint in it of laughter, but of laughter more terrible than any

sadness--- a laughter that was mirthless as the smile of the Sphinx, a laughter cold

as the frost and partaking of the grimness of infallibility. It was the masterful and
 32

incommunicable wisdom of eternity laughing at the futility of life and the effort

of life. It was wild, the savage, frozen-hearted Northland Wild. (3)

Part I of the novel ends with the hungry wolf-pack almost killing the men. The men Bill

and Charlie are defeated by the hostile environment. Bill’s foolish attempt to kill the pack with

his meager supply of ammunition leads to his death, but Charlie struggles to survive and able to

live. London soon makes clear how precisely the forests are but another setting of the same

pitiless universe in which man constantly lives. The story the she-wolf and One-Eyed is woven

in the harsh environment where famine is common and they do many battles to survive. One-Eye

has to provide food for his family. In hope of getting prime food for the family meal, One-Eye

catches a ptarmigans, fights with lynx and wanders throughout the forest. London views the hope

scene as a zoologist watching the entire incident in a glass cage:

He lay down in the snow, depositing the ptarmigan beside him, and with eyes

peering through the needless of a low-growing spruce he watched the play of life

before him- the waiting lynx and the waiting porcupine, each intent on life’ and

such was the curiousness of the game, the way of life for one lay in being not

eaten. (50)

The horrors and the battle to death struggles are observed with the keen eye of a reporter

and analyst. The tone never falters in its massive swiftness and in its brutality. London indicates

that he is at home in describing the environment of Fang’s world.

London’s central character White Fang enters into the novel very late, almost in the half

in the novel. The description of Fang’s initial experiences as a cub is elementary adventures in

their quality. The tone of the battles with the ptarmigan’s chicks and the hawks is lyrical. The
 33

psychology of the cub’s learning of the laws of survival is centrally important. Fang’s initiation

into the ritual of his world is poetically presented in the chapter, “The Law of Meat”. Here

London significantly presents t he naturalistic concern with physical survival. The instinctive law

of Fang is to kill or be killed. Fang learns in going on the meat hunts with his mother. This is the

law of life which is stated in the novel as, “the aim of life was meat. Life itself was meat. Life

lived on life. There were the eaters and the eaten. The law was: EAT OR BE EATEN (75)”.

The third part of the novel introduces the man-animals again. This tine the humans are

presented in a more primitive state than that of the trappers who survived from the attack of the

wolves before Fang’s birth. From the man-animals Fang learns the law of fang. It is clear that

adaptability to environment and the clever perception about the “law of life’ assure Fang’s

survival and gradual descent to civilization. With a human-centered tone, London pictures

Fang’s first conclusion about men:

They were superior creatures, of a verity, gods. To his dim comprehension the

were as much wonder-workers as gods are to men. They were creatures of

mastery, possessing all manner of unknown and impossible potencies, overloads

of the alive and the not alive—making obey that which moved, imparting

movement to that which did not move, and making life, son colored and biting

life, to grow of dead moss and wood. They were fire-makers! They were gods!

(86-87)

Gray Beaver sells White Fang to Beauty Smith. Beauty Smith keeps White Fang chained

up and teases him cruelly to make him as mean as possible. Beauty Smith forces Fang to fight

with wild wolves and bull dogs, a favorite form of gambling and entertainment. White Fang’s

reputation for ferocity grows to the extent that Beauty Smith travels around with him in a cage.
 34

Finally Weedon Scott who is a gold mining expert from California rescues Fang from ‘the mad

god’ Beauty Smith. Scott pets Fang and takes him to California, Southland of America or the

land of civilization.

Now London makes Fang’s progression to civilization to civilization that serves as a

backdrop to the episodes. The theme of adaptability too serves here. With scott, “it was the

beginning of the end for White Fang- the ending of the old life and the reign of hate” (173). The

new way of life is meant to convince one of the powers of environment again. As soon as White

Fang arrives in the Santa Clara Valley the Scott family and their dogs, including a sheepdog

named Collie, begin adjusting to him- and vice versa:

Not only was White Fang adaptable by nature, but he had travelled much, and

knew the meaning and necessity for adjustment. Here, in Sierra. Vista, which was

the name of Judge Scott’s place, White Fang quickly began to make himself at

home. He had no further serious trouble with the dogs. They knew more about the

ways of the Southland gods then did he, and in their eyes he had qualified when

he accompanied the gods inside the house. (197)

When White Fang saves Judge Scotrt’s life from the murderer Jim Hall, Judge Scott

becomes grateful so he calls the best doctors, rather than veterinarians, to care for wounded

White Fang. Finally Fang is cured and lives a domesticated life with Scott family. For London

merely places Fang on Judge Scott’s ranch in Sierra Vista, and transformation wild to

civilization complete. This is the setting in which Fang “being adaptable by nature” knows that

even here adjustment will be necessary. Fang concludes that the primitive life had been simple,

but in Santa Clara Valley it is different. How different are the two worlds as seen in the reference
 35

to the passages which describe the land of the White Silence, cited at the beginning of this

discussion, and the new Southland. It seems more than a geographical difference. Fang learned

that:

There was plenty of food and no work in the Southland. . . . Not alone was he in

the geographical Southland, for he was in the Southland of life. Human kindness

was like a sun shining upon him, and he flourished like a flower planted in good

soil. (207)

In this way the assimilation and integration of wild with civilization is completed in a

naturalistic framework. White Fang represents nature here. London is obviously conscious about

ecological consciousness. The novel interprets the double influences on animal’s existence by

genes and environment. In fact London’s conception of nature is contradictory because both

anthropocentrism and eco-centrism exist. Although emphasizing nature exists for man, London

still expresses his hope that nature and man co-exist.

Val Plumwood in her essay “The blindspots of centrism and human self-enclosure”

discusses certain characteristics of anthropocentrism. According to her, “radical exclusion”,

homogenization”, “denial”, “incorporation” and “instrumentalism” are the features of

anthropocentrism. Plumwood argues in the context of radical exclusion that:

An anthropocentric viewpoint treats nature as radically other, and humans as

emphatically separated from nature and from animals. It seems nature as a hyper-

separate lower order lacking continuity with the human, and stresses those

features which makes human different from nature and animals, rather than those

they share with them, as constitutive of a truly human identity. (107)

 36

In the novel too, London views human as superior and nature as inferior. Humans are

characterized as rational whether they are too mean in treating nature like Beauty Smith. Gray

Beaver who owns Fang and makes pet, also treats Fang inhumanly showing his superiority. To

quote lines from the book:

Gray Beaver continued to beat, White Fang continued to snarl. But this could not

last forever. One or the other must6 give over, and that one was White Fang. Fear

surged through him again. For the first time he was being man-handled. The

occasional blows of sticks and stones he had previously experienced were as

caresses compared with this. He broke down sand began to cry and yelp. (94).

Although London seems to be sympathetic to Fang he does not stand Fang to resist. But

he represents Fang as subordinated and man as privileged. Nature is presented as “man-handled”

which means humans can do whatever they want with nature or nature is recognized as “other”

separated from humans. Plumwood further writes “homogenization” as the feature of

anthropocentrism. In her own words:

The model promotes insensitive to the marvelous diversity of nature, since

difference in nature are attended only if they are likely to contribute in some

obvious way to human welfare. The difference of nature is a ground of inferiority,

not just of difference. Nature is conceived in terms of interchangeable and

replaceable units, (as ‘resources’, or standing reserve) rather than as infinitely

diverse and always in excess of knowledge and classification. Homogenization

 37

leads to a serious underestimation of complexity of nature, and is implicated in

mechanism. (107)

The animal characters are homogenized or stereotyped rather than presenting them as

“themselves” .white Fang’s struggle for survival is stereotyped as pastoral wilderness. But what

is White Fang in itself is the neglected issue by Jack London. White Fang is wild, it is the fact

but he could not be too wild fighting with lynx and bull dogs:

It meant a fight; and this was the only way that was now vouchsafed him of

expressing the life that was in him. Tormented, incited to hate, he was kept a

prisoner so that there was no way of satisfying that hate except at the time his

master saw fit to put another dog against him. Beauty Smith had estimated his

power well, for he was invariably the victor. One day, three dogs were turned in

upon him in succession. Another day a full-grown wolf, fresh caught from the

wild, was shoved in through the door of the pen. And on still another day two

dogs were set against him at the same time. This was his severest fight, and

though in the end he killed them both he was half killed in doing it. (146-147)

In this way, London associates savageness and monstrous qualities stereotyping Fang’s

wilderness. Obviously fight is Fang’s instinctive quality and it is essential for the wild to survive.

But Wild’s fight cannot be the “severest fight” if it is for survival.

Similarly “denial” and “backgrounding” is the feature of anthropocentrism which

London also incorporated knowingly or unknowingly in the novel. Denial is the statement that is

not true. It also means the refusal to give or allow something that somebody has the right to

expect. In Plumwood’s words:

 38

Nature is represented as inessential and massively denied as the unconsidered

background to technological society. Since anthropocentric culture sees nun-

human nature as a basically inessential constituent of the universe, nature’s needs

are systematically omitted from account and consideration in decision-making.

Dependency on nature is denied . . .We only pay attention to them after disaster

occurs, and the only to restore the status quo, to fix things up. (108)

In the novel, London’s handling of the theme of domesticating Fang from wilder state is

anthropocentric. Nature in itself is denied by London. One of the environmentalists Clare Palmer

in his essay “an Overview of Environmental Ethics” argues, “if everything is part of one’s self ,

one is aiming at self-realization (which deep ecologists argue to be the case) than the Clare

conclusion to be is that the realization of all (living) organisms is necessary for one’s own full

self-realization (302). White Fang’s own self-realization is the denied part of the novel, although

it seems that London is conscious about it, in the ending part of the novel London says about

Fang’s realization:

He missed the snow without being aware of it. “an unduly long summer, “would

have been his thought had he thought about it; as it was, he nearly missed the

snow in vague, subconscious way. In the same fashion, especially in the heat of

summer when he suffered from the sun, he experienced faint longings for the

Northland. Their only effect upon him, however, was to make him uneasy and

restless without his knowing what was the matter. (208)

White Fang “missed the snow” and his “faint longing for Northland” indicates that he

wants returning to his own habitants. In favor of nature that is essential also to keep balanced
 39

environment. It seems that London is conscious about this essentiality but this reality is

knowingly omitted and pushed Fang to be domesticated.

In the same way, according to Plumwood, “incorporation” (assimilation) is another

blindspot of anthropocentrism. Human-centered view looks nature as a “lack” and tries to impose

human’s characteristics to non-human. Fang’s domestication is also a process of imposing

human’s value to nature. In Plumwood’s words:

We consider non-human animals inferior because they lack, we think, human

capacities for abstract thought, but we do not consider those positive capacities

many animals have that we lack. . . .The intricate order of nature is perceived as

disorder, as unreason to be replaced where possible by human order in

development, an assimilating project of colonization. (173)

Here, Plumwood argues that in anthropocentric view nature is treated as human’s

possession. He further says, this is the narrow view about nature which reduces nature into raw

materials. In the novel too, we can find the same type of reduction of nature. It is obvious that in

a naturalistic framework London raises the ecological issue in the novel. The description of the

wild animals, wild setting and the struggle for survival of the wild reflect London’s

consciousness about environmental issues. But ultimately he falls into the trap of

anthropocentrism domesticating the wild Fang. In London’s words:

All his life he had tended and operated on the soft humans of civilization, who

lived sheltered lives and had descended out of many sheltered generations . . .

white Fang had come straight from the wild, where the weak perish early and

shelter is vouchsafed to none. In neither his father nor his mother was there any
 40

weakness, nor in the generations before them. A constitution of iron and the

vitality of wild were White Fang’s inheritance, and he clung to life, the whole of

him and every part of him, in sprit and in flesh, with the tenacity that of old

belonged to all creatures. (202)

London is obviously conscious about Fang’s nature. He accepts that Fang “lived

sheltered and had descended out of many sheltered generations” which means evolutionary

changes occur in Fang’s different generations. London further makes clear that Fang “had come

straight from the wild”. And Fang is the combination of “iron” and “wild”. But even knowing

this inheritance of Fang assimilating him into human civilization is out of environmental ethics.

This is not a respect towards the biodiversity which may cause the extinction of the species.

Similarly, “instrumentalism”, as Plumwood argues, is the another blindspot of anthropocentrism.

In his words:

Human-centered ethics views nature as possessing meaning and value only when

it is made to serve the human/colonizer as a means to his or her ends . . . .

Instrumental outlooks distort our sensitivity to and our knowledge of nature,

blocking humility, wonder and openness in approaching the more-than-human,

and producing narrow types of understanding and classification that reduce nature

to raw materials for human projects. (173)

Animals live for themselves rather than to meet human needs. Human-centered view of

understanding animal is the “narrow types of understanding and classification” of animals.

Understanding nature as an instrument to fulfill human needs is an injustice to nature. It causes

harms to ecology. In the novel, there are many evidences of instrumentalization of nature.

Wherever White Fang goes, human characters use him but never try to let him what he is. Gray
 41

Beaver sells Fang to Beauty Smith. Beauty Smith abuses White Fang to make him as fierce as

possible. Beauty’s goal is to win money by entering Fang in dogfights. Weedon Scott too pets

him and uses for family purpose. The best evidence to be quoted from the book is:

Thus, in the early morning, instead of roaming and foraging, or lying in a

sheltered nook, he would wait for hours on the cheerless cabin-stoop for a sight of

the god’s face. At night, when the god returned home, White Fang would leave

the warm sleeping-place he had borrowed in the snow in order to receive the

friendly snap of fingers and the word of greeting. Meat, even meat itself, he

would forego to be with his god, to receive a caress from him or to company him

down into the town. (176)

When Weedon Scott pets Fang and teaches him how to behave with the masters, White

Fang loses his instinctual and adapts himself in the new environment. Then he lives for his “god”

rather than for himself. Therefore what is White Fang himself, what is his true nature and

instincts is backgrounded here due to human intervention in nature.

In this way, though London raises the important issue of the relationship between

human and nonhuman, he gives superior position to human. White Fang gets shelter from the

humans and in return humans always fulfill their needs from Fang. Life-centered system of

environmental ethics is opposed to such a human-centered opinion. As Paul W. Taylor writes in

his essay “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, “We are member of the Earth’s biotic community.

We are morally bound (other things being equal’) to protect or promote their good for their sake”

(75), White Fang’s protection should have been for the good of Wild.
 42

Conclusion

With the continuous progress of civilization and the rapid expansion of population,

pressure on the natural environment has been increasing. Particularly since the Industrial

Revolution, human beings have constantly sought to conquer, transform and exploit nature to

meet their own desires for wealth. Jack London realizes that mankind should be responsible in its

care for nature and his novels reflect a thorough thinking on the relationships between humans

and nature.

In White Fang too, London raises the ecological issue by showing the nature human

relationships. It depicts the harsh living environment of the wilderness, where life is hard on all

living creatures and human and animals must be interdependent on each other. Vibrant

ecosystem, the importance of the wolves, and the danger of the ecological destruction are the

significant themes of the novel. Certainly London is conscious about the importance of nature

human relationships. Therefore he raises the nature human relationship as the central issue of the

novel. But while showing the relationships he keeps human in the superior position and nature in

the inferior position. He describes humans as the giver and nature as the receiver. Domesticating

White Fang and assimilating the wild heritance into human civilization is his anthropocentric

stance.

Conservation should be to protect and promote “their good for their sake”. White Fang’s

transformation should have been for the conversation for his own wild instincts rather than being

domesticated for the service of Scott family. Ending of the novel is the beginning of White
 43

Fang’s transformed life. White Fang is beginning the ascent, but this ascent is towards the human

civilization to which White Fang does not belong.

White Fang is the representation of nature. Ecology demands reciprocal relationship

between human and nonhuman. White Fang comes into contact of many human characters and

each tries to teach him human civilization. On the other hand his struggle for survival teaches

him the law of meat “eats or be eaten” which is his wild instinct. But coming into the end of the

novel London throws Fang into the lap of human civilization which is not, in the eye of

ecocriticism, the proper place to preserve his wild instincts. London himself also accepts that

White Fang is forced to be assimilated with human civilization. To be quoted from the novel, “he

was compelled to violate his instincts of self-preservation, and violate it he did, for he was

becoming tame and qualifying himself for civilization” (205).

In this way, in White Fang we follow the trails of the wolf as he endures the wild and

cold north and even crueler men. But halfway through, White Fang is redeemed by the love of

the good “love-master”. Then he moves to Californian, the land of civilization, with the human

master. Where he begets children, alerts the master’s family, saves the household from murderer

and is canonized as “the blessed wolf” by the admiring people of Sierra Vista. Therefore coming

into the end he becomes a tamed dog, and does not remain the wilderness in him.

Thus, White Fang is a wild animal story offered to readers as a natural history. In the

novel, London represents animals in human-centered views. Despite the fact that wild animals

live lives independent from our own, throughout history people and cultures have given them

special meanings and responded them in terms of those meanings. London also treats the wilds

with this presupposed ideas created by human culture. The way we think of the wild animals

does have a major impacts upon their lives. Despite the fact that they have an existence
 44

independent of our constructs, the ways we view wild animals are not without consequence. Our

conception of animals helps to shape our actions toward them.

The earth-centered view of ecocritism demands fair reciprocal relation between human

and nonhuman in a literary or non literary work. To what extent animals are governed by

instincts or reason is the issue that will be continued to be a topic of lively debate through the

century. But it is the fact that animals live their own and bear their own existence. Therefore in

conserving them, we should have earth-centered perspective. London certainly raises the issue of

ecological consciousness depicting the human nonhuman relationships, but his treating of

animals as human possession makes him anthropocentric.

 45

Works Cited

Animals in American Literature. Urbana Champaign: University of Illionois Press, 1983.

Bertens, Hans. Basic Literary Theory. 2nd ed. London: Routledgr, 2008

Geismar, Maxwell. Rebels and Ancestor:The American Novel Allen, Mary.

Glotfelty, Cheryll. “introduction: Literary Studies in an Age of Environmental Crisis. The

Ecocritism Reader.” (1996)

Jack London, White Fang. Webster’s Thesaurus Edition. San Diego: Icon Group International,

2005.

Kropotkin, Peter. Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. Courier Dover Publication, 2012.

Labor, Earle. “Jack London’s symbolic Wilderness: Four versions”. Nineteenth-Century Fiction

17.2 (1962): 149p

Mills, Gordon. “The Symbolic Wilderness: James Fenimore Coooper and Jack London.”

Nineteenth-Century Fiction 13.4 (1959): 329-340

Myers, Ruby Jean. White Fang: Book or Movie?” Children’s Literature Quarterly 18.4 (1993):

187-188

Palmer, Clare A.” An overview of environmental ethics.”(2003): 15-17.

Pizer, Donald, ed. The Cambridge Companion to American Realism and Naturalism: From
 46

Howells to London. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Plumwood, Val. “Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason.” Human Ecology

Review 10.1 (2003):77

Val Plumwood’s Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason. Vol.3. Routledge,

2001.

Taylor, Paul W. “the ethics of respect for nature.” Environmental Ethics 3.3 (2008): 197-218.

-,Paul W. Taylor’s Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton University

Press, 2011.

Zwrart, Hub. Understanding Nature. Radbound university Nigmegen. The Netherland: Springer,

2008.
 47

Tribhuvan University

Ecocritical Reading of Jack London’s White Fang

A Thesis Submitted to Central Department of English,

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for Master's Degree of Arts in English

By

Ram Chandra Achary

Admission Year: 065/66

Symbol No. : -------

 48

Central Department of English,

T.U., Kirtipur

May, 2016