Polly Klein
Interview by Emily Vandervort
About
Polly has run her practice, Tonglen Healing Arts for Animals, which is based out of Issaquah, Washington, for about fifteen years (as of March, 2013). She works with animals and their people, helping with “understanding and resolving the emotional and energetic components of [the animals’] behavioral and health issues.”
Interview
What, for Polly, is involved in the process of animal communication:
It’s a psychic connection that anyone is capable of learning how to do. Animals instinctively pick up on the thoughts and emotions of the people around them and people can use this capacity to cultivate the ability to communicate with animals intentionally. This generally involves visualizing in your mind what you want to communicate with the animal and then waiting to see what kinds of images the animal responds with. That said, communicating in this way comes more easily to some people than others depending on factors like the cultural views you grew up with. The workshops that Polly teaches involve helping people “get out of their own way” mentally and helping people learn not to second-guess themselves as much. Polly likened the process to how, in writing, people often need to allow themselves to just get ideas down, and if they are trying to simultaneously write and edit their work, this can be a major roadblock.
On encountering disbelief and/or stereotypes about animal communication:
She encounters a lot less of it now than she did when she first started her practice fifteen or so years ago. She thinks this is due in part to people’s expanding views on less traditional ideas like this and the fact that non-traditional practices like this are much more common now than they were when she started. She also thinks it’s due to the fact that her practice has grown, and to how she comes off as being pretty approachable and “normal” and OK with whether people believe in what she does or not. In addition, she thinks that perhaps she encounters less disbelief and stereotyping because a lot of people knew her in the profession she had before this and, whether they totally believe in what she does or not, they gained respect for her in that other professional capacity. She also has quite a few connections with veterinarians in the holistic community, and her accreditation from Bastyr lends her credibility as well.
On how animals perceive human ownership:
Some of it has to do with the type of ownership: whether the animal is a farm animal or an animal like a dog or cat that lives in a human’s home. She has a dog that is, to her, part of her family, but that doesn’t mean she views it as a human. The way she explains it, her dog is a much better dog than she is, just like she is better at being a human than her dog is, and it’s not a matter of one being better than the other, but of there just being different roles. When she looks at the question of perceived ownership, she sees it more as being a question of how the animal feels it functions in the group it is in – in its “pack.” She doesn’t believe the concept of ownership even occurs to the animal, especially if it has never known a different way of life. What matters more to it is its role within its community of beings.
Polly’s views on eating animals:
Polly believes that everyone must decide for themselves whether or not they’re OK with eating meat. If they are going to be OK with it, she believes that they should be able to accept the practices that happen to make that meat available to be consumed. She herself was a vegetarian/vegan for a time, but not because she just made a decision one day to become one; she just found herself progressively cutting out more and more animal products as she learned about practices she didn’t agree with, or as she made health-related choices. Eventually she had to start eating meat again because of health reasons, and she was troubled by this, but she told me that something she heard the Dalai Lama say once helped her reconcile herself to this. He said that he, too, was a vegetarian at one time, but had to integrate meat back into his diet because of health reasons. “He said, ‘Well, I made peace with it by saying, when I’m a vegetarian I’m a vegetarian, and when I’m not, I’m not,’ meaning that there’s a certain amount of meat I need to eat, but I can still honor this being for giving of its life.” She also said that she thinks it’s somewhat hypocritical when people eat industrially-produced meat but oppose hunting, because for one thing, that animal that was hunted and killed almost certainly lived a better life than an animal in a factory farm, and secondly, it means that those people are essentially saying that they are ok with eating the meat but not with “doing the dirty work.”
It’s a psychic connection that anyone is capable of learning how to do. Animals instinctively pick up on the thoughts and emotions of the people around them and people can use this capacity to cultivate the ability to communicate with animals intentionally. This generally involves visualizing in your mind what you want to communicate with the animal and then waiting to see what kinds of images the animal responds with. That said, communicating in this way comes more easily to some people than others depending on factors like the cultural views you grew up with. The workshops that Polly teaches involve helping people “get out of their own way” mentally and helping people learn not to second-guess themselves as much. Polly likened the process to how, in writing, people often need to allow themselves to just get ideas down, and if they are trying to simultaneously write and edit their work, this can be a major roadblock.
On encountering disbelief and/or stereotypes about animal communication:
She encounters a lot less of it now than she did when she first started her practice fifteen or so years ago. She thinks this is due in part to people’s expanding views on less traditional ideas like this and the fact that non-traditional practices like this are much more common now than they were when she started. She also thinks it’s due to the fact that her practice has grown, and to how she comes off as being pretty approachable and “normal” and OK with whether people believe in what she does or not. In addition, she thinks that perhaps she encounters less disbelief and stereotyping because a lot of people knew her in the profession she had before this and, whether they totally believe in what she does or not, they gained respect for her in that other professional capacity. She also has quite a few connections with veterinarians in the holistic community, and her accreditation from Bastyr lends her credibility as well.
On how animals perceive human ownership:
Some of it has to do with the type of ownership: whether the animal is a farm animal or an animal like a dog or cat that lives in a human’s home. She has a dog that is, to her, part of her family, but that doesn’t mean she views it as a human. The way she explains it, her dog is a much better dog than she is, just like she is better at being a human than her dog is, and it’s not a matter of one being better than the other, but of there just being different roles. When she looks at the question of perceived ownership, she sees it more as being a question of how the animal feels it functions in the group it is in – in its “pack.” She doesn’t believe the concept of ownership even occurs to the animal, especially if it has never known a different way of life. What matters more to it is its role within its community of beings.
Polly’s views on eating animals:
Polly believes that everyone must decide for themselves whether or not they’re OK with eating meat. If they are going to be OK with it, she believes that they should be able to accept the practices that happen to make that meat available to be consumed. She herself was a vegetarian/vegan for a time, but not because she just made a decision one day to become one; she just found herself progressively cutting out more and more animal products as she learned about practices she didn’t agree with, or as she made health-related choices. Eventually she had to start eating meat again because of health reasons, and she was troubled by this, but she told me that something she heard the Dalai Lama say once helped her reconcile herself to this. He said that he, too, was a vegetarian at one time, but had to integrate meat back into his diet because of health reasons. “He said, ‘Well, I made peace with it by saying, when I’m a vegetarian I’m a vegetarian, and when I’m not, I’m not,’ meaning that there’s a certain amount of meat I need to eat, but I can still honor this being for giving of its life.” She also said that she thinks it’s somewhat hypocritical when people eat industrially-produced meat but oppose hunting, because for one thing, that animal that was hunted and killed almost certainly lived a better life than an animal in a factory farm, and secondly, it means that those people are essentially saying that they are ok with eating the meat but not with “doing the dirty work.”
Reflections
What surprised me about what I found:
Audrey, Lainie and I each interviewed a different woman who called herself an animal communicator, and I ended up being more surprised by what Audrey’s and Lainie’s interviews revealed than my own. I instinctively expected that these women would have liberal views of animals, being that their professions had pretty radical implications. I expected that they would likely condemn practices like animal testing and eating meat and institutions like zoos. What Audrey and Lainie found in both their interviews was almost the exact opposite: that these women were essentially apologists for these practices and institutions. This, to me, was very surprising. Going into my interview after hearing from Audrey and Lainie, I wasn’t sure what to expect from Polly. As it turned out, she gave what I think were much more nuanced, thoughtful, and somewhat radical answers than the other two women did (from what I heard), but she also surprised me when she explained the relatively mainstream, academically accredited background that she had personally and professionally.
Most of the collaboration in this project happened in the planning stages and in outlining what strategies we wanted to use in investigating the realm of animal communication. I think the main advantage of doing this as a group project rather than individually was the amount of information we were able to accrue from different sources and subsequently the ability to compare this information and get a sense of what human communication with non-human animals means to different practitioners. Originally we hoped that all three of us would be able to be present at each interview, but between each of our busy schedules, even scheduling interviews individually proved challenging. Considering this, I think we were lucky to get three different interviews at all that we could bring to the project, and I doubt that doing this project individually would have yielded results that were as interesting.
Although we shared what we found with each other when we came together for group meetings, I would say that the majority of the time spent on this project came from us working on our own. Even so, the work definitely felt cohesive in that we were in frequent contact with each other, sharing what we had completed so far, what possible next steps would be, and questions we might ask the people we interviewed. Having considered the three different viewpoints our interviewees brought to the project, I am not sure that we came away with any one particular conclusion about animal-human communication; it is probably more likely that this prompted more questions for us, both about animal communication itself and the implications it has (or, sometimes more surprisingly, doesn't have) for the animals, the humans who communicate (or attempt to communicate) with them, and for society as a whole. For instance, what does it say that two of the women we interviewed asserted that animals -- beings with whom they could supposedly have meaningful and mutually understanding interactions -- are more than willing to sacrifice their lives for humans in order to become nothing more than a meal or a public spectacle? And why, if the ability to communicate with animals really is innate in everyone, is the idea so widely viewed as absurd?
One of the most interesting things to me about this project was the lack of academic literature concerning animal-human communication. With the growth of interest in animal studies in recent years, I think there has been an increasing level of openness towards the idea of viewing animals as beings worthy of our consideration and care and also a growing perception that animals constitute a legitimate subject of theoretical inquiry. In light of this, it was somewhat surprising to me that academic writing on the topic of animal-human communication seems to be virtually nonexistent. Even this absence, though, is indicative, speaking to the overwhelming skepticism that still faces the notion that it might be possible to communicate in a less abstract way with animals, or even the idea that animals might be intelligent enough for this to be a possibility.
Equally interesting to me is the belief that when communication with animals does take place, that it can be translated into words. What I think this suggests is that even individuals open-minded enough to accept that human-non-human animal communication is possible are still operating on a primarily anthropocentric level. To be fair, perhaps it is unreasonable to expect that we can understand them through a different medium. After all, language is the tool that allows us not only to communicate with each other, but arguably also to form coherent thoughts and ideas. Then again, if human beings once communicated with each other psychically before we had language, which Polly Klein suggested in her interview with me, maybe language is an unnecessary vehicle for animal-human communication.
Perhaps, too, it matters less what medium the communication takes place through than that the communication of humans with animals is taking place at all, or at least being attempted. This reminds me of when our class discussed animal emotion earlier in the quarter. Some scholars and theoretical writers warn us to guard against anthropomorphization, claiming that it is an arrogant human presumption and that describing animals in human terms does the animal a great injustice. I think this is a valid point and that animals have identities in and of themselves that in no way require human definition in order to be real. I also think, though, that if, in the process of learning to relate to animals compassionately, humans occasionally think in anthropomorphic terms, this still represents a positive step towards reversing the cultural attitudes that condone violence against animals. After this, perhaps we can work towards respecting animals for what they are outside of a human context. Until then, I think that fostering compassion and understanding for the other beings we share this world with, whether that is through attempting to communicate with them non-traditionally or simply trying to understand them better, is exactly what we as humans should be working towards.
Audrey, Lainie and I each interviewed a different woman who called herself an animal communicator, and I ended up being more surprised by what Audrey’s and Lainie’s interviews revealed than my own. I instinctively expected that these women would have liberal views of animals, being that their professions had pretty radical implications. I expected that they would likely condemn practices like animal testing and eating meat and institutions like zoos. What Audrey and Lainie found in both their interviews was almost the exact opposite: that these women were essentially apologists for these practices and institutions. This, to me, was very surprising. Going into my interview after hearing from Audrey and Lainie, I wasn’t sure what to expect from Polly. As it turned out, she gave what I think were much more nuanced, thoughtful, and somewhat radical answers than the other two women did (from what I heard), but she also surprised me when she explained the relatively mainstream, academically accredited background that she had personally and professionally.
Most of the collaboration in this project happened in the planning stages and in outlining what strategies we wanted to use in investigating the realm of animal communication. I think the main advantage of doing this as a group project rather than individually was the amount of information we were able to accrue from different sources and subsequently the ability to compare this information and get a sense of what human communication with non-human animals means to different practitioners. Originally we hoped that all three of us would be able to be present at each interview, but between each of our busy schedules, even scheduling interviews individually proved challenging. Considering this, I think we were lucky to get three different interviews at all that we could bring to the project, and I doubt that doing this project individually would have yielded results that were as interesting.
Although we shared what we found with each other when we came together for group meetings, I would say that the majority of the time spent on this project came from us working on our own. Even so, the work definitely felt cohesive in that we were in frequent contact with each other, sharing what we had completed so far, what possible next steps would be, and questions we might ask the people we interviewed. Having considered the three different viewpoints our interviewees brought to the project, I am not sure that we came away with any one particular conclusion about animal-human communication; it is probably more likely that this prompted more questions for us, both about animal communication itself and the implications it has (or, sometimes more surprisingly, doesn't have) for the animals, the humans who communicate (or attempt to communicate) with them, and for society as a whole. For instance, what does it say that two of the women we interviewed asserted that animals -- beings with whom they could supposedly have meaningful and mutually understanding interactions -- are more than willing to sacrifice their lives for humans in order to become nothing more than a meal or a public spectacle? And why, if the ability to communicate with animals really is innate in everyone, is the idea so widely viewed as absurd?
One of the most interesting things to me about this project was the lack of academic literature concerning animal-human communication. With the growth of interest in animal studies in recent years, I think there has been an increasing level of openness towards the idea of viewing animals as beings worthy of our consideration and care and also a growing perception that animals constitute a legitimate subject of theoretical inquiry. In light of this, it was somewhat surprising to me that academic writing on the topic of animal-human communication seems to be virtually nonexistent. Even this absence, though, is indicative, speaking to the overwhelming skepticism that still faces the notion that it might be possible to communicate in a less abstract way with animals, or even the idea that animals might be intelligent enough for this to be a possibility.
Equally interesting to me is the belief that when communication with animals does take place, that it can be translated into words. What I think this suggests is that even individuals open-minded enough to accept that human-non-human animal communication is possible are still operating on a primarily anthropocentric level. To be fair, perhaps it is unreasonable to expect that we can understand them through a different medium. After all, language is the tool that allows us not only to communicate with each other, but arguably also to form coherent thoughts and ideas. Then again, if human beings once communicated with each other psychically before we had language, which Polly Klein suggested in her interview with me, maybe language is an unnecessary vehicle for animal-human communication.
Perhaps, too, it matters less what medium the communication takes place through than that the communication of humans with animals is taking place at all, or at least being attempted. This reminds me of when our class discussed animal emotion earlier in the quarter. Some scholars and theoretical writers warn us to guard against anthropomorphization, claiming that it is an arrogant human presumption and that describing animals in human terms does the animal a great injustice. I think this is a valid point and that animals have identities in and of themselves that in no way require human definition in order to be real. I also think, though, that if, in the process of learning to relate to animals compassionately, humans occasionally think in anthropomorphic terms, this still represents a positive step towards reversing the cultural attitudes that condone violence against animals. After this, perhaps we can work towards respecting animals for what they are outside of a human context. Until then, I think that fostering compassion and understanding for the other beings we share this world with, whether that is through attempting to communicate with them non-traditionally or simply trying to understand them better, is exactly what we as humans should be working towards.