Putting a Human Face on Other Nonhuman Animals

In today's day and age, at least in the Western World, it seems like most people view animals as a means to serve humans. They are widely viewed as objects and machines without consciousness, put here to feed, clothe, and work for us. Many people view animals as being the opposite of what a human is, as man was made in the image of God. But, increasingly, it seems that people are beginning to recognize the "spirit" within various animals.
In Alice Walker's piece, she gives human features to Blue, her nearest neighbor. She describes him as a "crazed person" after his companion was taken away and that his "look was so piercing, so full of grief, a look so human." Through Blue's eyes, Alice Walker is able to relate her own human experiences of grief, sadness, and loneliness. She is able to identify with a non-human animal by giving the animal human traits.
I do this all of the time as well. We pretend that our cats are "little men in cat suits" as they run around the house. We give them the same traits that we identify with in order to feel closer to them. As i thought about this more and more, I began to ask myself what this might imply.
Why must we categorize these traits as "human"--and why do we have to impose a human perspective on other animals in order to identify with them. After thinking of this, I began to remember our conversations in class about categorizing and labeling everything that we can comprehend. We've categorized emotional traits as being human because they are what we experience first hand--they are the only emotions we are able to identify with because they are the only emotions we experience.
In Julio Cortazar's "Axolotl", we see the larvae of a salamander becoming incredibly humanized as well. The author draws attention to the vast differences theses creatures have with humans, but he makes sure to point out their little hands, with their little finger nails appearing so human. He says that he begins to feel their pain, their agony of living in this little watery tank, bumping into each other with their heads and tails. He goes back and forth--writing in a human perspective, then referring to the axolotl's as "we"--In this case, the author is becoming the axolotl. He is not developing the salamander larvae to become physically human, instead he is taking on the identity of this little creature. He describes these creatures as having a "human life" which they are unable to fully express. He writes, "Or I was also in him, or all of us were thinking humanlike, incapable of expression, limited to the golden splendor of our eyes looking at the face of this man pressed against the aquarium." The author has "buried" himself alive into the body and mind of an axolotl, yet the thinking of this creature is still described as being incredibly human.
Why is it that we must humanize animals to extend them sympathy? Might it be the same reason we are so interested in defining man as being the opposite of animals? It serves us a purpose. We dehumanize animals completely in order to cut all ties with them--in order to kill our compassion and love so that we are able to use and abuse them without feeling like we are doing harm in the world. And we serve ourselves a new, ethical (?) purpose in giving them human features. We can relate to them--they are closer to us so we want to extend our own ethical code to them. But why is it that in order to extend this ethical code, we have to define them as being more human? Because we are closer, must we be more sympathetic. Why can't we praise the differences we share as well? Were women giving extended rights because they were discovered to be more closely related with men? Were blacks emancipated because they were seen as being closer to whites than viewed before? I think so. We are constantly creating closeness in order to extend sympathy and rights. I don't necessarily think that this is negative at all, its just very interesting to think about.