Anthropomorphism and Morality in "Fantastic Mr. Fox"

Anthropomorphism in narratives has existed since ages past, but for the sake of this discourse, the only historical context needed is one of the use of anthropomorphism in children's stories, and specifically films with anthropomorphous animals.

Perhaps it is unfamiliarity that makes children so interested in stories involving anthropomorphism, in the sense that although the animals talk and behave, and sometimes even walk as humans do, the very idea itself is one that is strange and- using the word loosely- imaginative and thereby appealing to children's need for newer stimulation for thought.   

This article discusses the historical context of anthropomorphism in children's literature, and this one offers a criticism of such anthropomorphism as being harmful to a child's learning because the child projects humanistic notions of living onto animals.

However, what is the main concern of this present article is what the use of such narratives tells us about the complex thought processes that exist behind the use of such narratives.

Is Anthropomorphism of animals harmful?

Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" could be called a  deconstruction of such narratives of humanized animals.  It does this not by removing the humanistic traits from its characters, but by exaggerating them. All the animals in this film are very human- like from wearing clothes to having jobs to experiencing  existential crises. 

"Who am I?"

                                   

Mr. Fox asks Kylie, his wife at one point, ‘Who am I?’ and then continues, ‘I’m saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know? … And how can a fox ever be happy without a, a – you’ll forgive the expression – a chicken in its teeth.’

This is Mr. Fox's main crisis: of how he is forced to lived humanly within a humane society, when really, he feels like a "wild animal" as he himself says. He cannot steal chickens from farmers for example, because there is a moral code with a justification (he could get into trouble) behind it that prevents him from acting out in this manner. It is really anthropomorphism that is Mr. Fox's enemy.

 What this offers is a critique of applying humanistic values onto animals, because in essence, this signifies a philosophy of moral absolutism, where morality is not something that is simply born out of societal context probably as a means of survival. In other words, our moral values are limited to context, and are irrelevant when applying to other cultural contexts (or species, in this case). 

This interpretation explains the somewhat unusual ending of the film. Unlike most children's narratives where the character does something wrong and then finally learns from his mistake, thereby resolving his moral crisis, this film ends with Mr. Fox continuing to steal. This is not an immoral end, but rather could be seen as a moral fulfillment in that Mr. Fox has come to terms with his own moral standards. 

Mr. Fox's son Ash goes through a sort of crisis too because of the fact that he is unable to live up to his own societal standards. His own narrative also consists of himself trying to find fulfillment of  the self by negotiating with the societal standards that loom over his life. Ash's cousin Kristofferson on the other hand is valued in society for his athletic skills. This shows us of how these characters' complexes and crises are all in on way or another, driven by similar structures to morality that denote the position of the person (or animal, in this case) in society.

With its ending, the film is not suggesting that stealing may be good or bad. It does not attempt to take up a distinct position, but is rather simply trying to point out that the discourse of stealing is one that should be flexible, and that any absolute position adopted regarding the matter could limit our understanding of the discourse itself and its role in society. 

Without a transcendental signifier such as God, Truth, etc as is the case in a post-modern world, morality has to constantly be re-evaluated according to context because what you consider moral could easily also be considered a prejudice by others, and  may also be an unrealized signified causing harm to the self and to others, without even being necessary in the first place for one's context.  

In this sense then, the film deals with perhaps the most relevant issue to people from since ancient cultures, which is one of negotiating  the self's identity (morals and all) with the culture it belongs to.