While you work on your final self-eval, etc., a little food for thought (vegan, of course):

How Far Should We Carry the Logic of the Animal-Rights Movement?

Kelefa Sanneh reviews “Animal Liberation Now,” by Peter Singer; “Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility,” by Martha Nussbaum; “Fear Factories,” by Matthew Scully; and “Our Kindred Creatures,” by Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy.

It’s an interesting survey of recent work in “animal rights” that follows more of the liberal/pragmatic strain of philosophy rather than the French theory strain we read (Deleuze-Guattari, Derrida, Haraway, Wolfe). But very interesting to see the problems that arise when jumping off from the egalitarian notion of common “rights” rather than the “limitrophy” of Derrida.

Hasta luego, and have a great summer!

Foucault highlights a significant concept here: that sovereignty is based on the authority to determine life and death. By this, he means that the ultimate power of a sovereign lies in the ability to control whether an individual should be put to death or permitted to live. In Foucault’s view, the right to determine life and death holds greater importance as it symbolizes the ultimate power and control wielded by the sovereign. The transition from take life or allow life to make live or let die makes me think of the sovereign as taking a power trip. There is a saying that its easy to die but it take more effort to live. The new model reflects this as ” It is the power to “make” live and “let” die ” insinuates that there is a mercy in permitting death and the living part is a torture. The difference between disciplinary power and biopolitics is their target demographic.  Disciplinary powers target individuals in order to control their interest of an existing system.The strategies used associated with this is surveillance and knowledge. In contrast, biopolitics targets the mass and track/ manipulates the ratios of birth – mortality, reproduction, fertility, longevity, etc. Disciplinary powers shape individuals to conform to societal norms. An example of this is a student raising their hand in a classroom to cue that the student wishes to speak. An example of biopolitics would be the ability to declare someone dead even when they remain “alive”. The view of death changed as it became perceived as something permanent or constant and therefore, normalized. Even today there are individuals that are desensitized to death because it is so common or they are largely exposed to it. In the end, both of these powers are combined in sexuality as it is the point where body and population meet, which calls for both discipline and regulation.

Jacques Derrida in his work “The Animal That Therefore I Am”, he discusses and primarily questions the complex relationship between humans and animals. Derrida mainly focuses his argument on the idea whether animals can comprehend and “see” in the way humans can. The main concern of Derrida’s argument is what it means to be human and what sets humans apart from other animals. Through his thorough investigation of human language and how we speak of the animal, Derrida points out that language can happen to be found throughout the animal kingdom. This contends to the thought derived from humans that language is exclusive only to humans because we are physically and socially advanced compared to the “animal”. As Derrida points out, language is not a fixed system of linguistic rules, instead it’s communication that can be taken in many different forms in addition to human speech.

The question that typically comes to mind is, are humans animals? Derrida challenges the traditional mainstream idea that humans are not animals, where we use this idea to excuse our dehumanization other species and essentially place humans at the top of the hierarchy. Derrida argues that this human habit of this hierarchical style of thinking strips humans of the diversity and complexity of animal behavior because our idea is solely based on a false understanding of language. Derrida also looks at the irony in the story in the book of Genesis. Derrida points out in Genesis; God had created animal then created man. However, man was granted the power of naming the animal. This power not only gives the man power over the beings that existed before him, but it also shows that God wanted man to be a reflection of himself to represent his power. The irony of man having power over beings created before him causes Derrida to point out that humans considered themselves animals at one point until God granted them the power to name the animals. This sense of using language sort of granted power to man and fed into the idea that humans are on top of this animalistic “hierarchy”.

Additionally, Derrida addresses the limitations of language and the lack of understanding the experiences of non-human creatures. He points out the importance in paying attention to the nonverbal communication of animals, which (in my opinion) highlights the value and the consciousness of the animal. Through an examination of the various ways in which animals engage and communicate with, Derrida sort of create this challenge for us humans to reassess our position regarding animals and how our lack of moral responsibility can create ignorance amongst a species simply because we believe we are at the top of the animal hierarchy.

During a warm summer day my dog happened to walk in front of a mirror. Upon noticing her own reflection, there was a sense of bewilderment radiating when she tilted her head to the side as confused dogs typically do. Not long after, she started barking at her own reflection for about a minute or so before becoming uninterested and moving on. While I found this a bit comedic at the time, I was also curious as to what caused her to bark at her own image. Jacques Derrida opens his piece of The Animal That Therefore I Am by sharing a similar story of his own personal life. In his account, he describes a time when his cat saw him naked, a rather humbling experience. For Derrida, this moment flipped a switch within him that drew him to asking questions related to the pre-established binary of humans and animals. Throughout his work, Derrida tackles what it means to be human and what it means to be animal, making it clear that the relationship between these two is not as hierarchical as thinkers have made it out to be. He particularly invokes the words of famous philosophers such as Descartes, who claimed animals to be mechanical beings with no thought behind them. This ties into Descartes’s larger argument of “I think therefore I am.” Derrida challenges this notion of self-awareness and consciousness which can also be seen in how the title of this work parodies Descartes’s words. Rather than perceiving humans as a dominant species purely based on their ability to conceive thought and reason, Derrida argues for a deconstruction of this binary between human and animal. Their relationship is not a fixed one, but instead a byproduct of man’s desire to placate themselves above others. This rationale can be seen through the use of the biblical story of Adam and Eve. The notion that God gave humans the right to name animals is used to indicate the inherent higher status humans contain. However, Derrida posits that this advantage is merely one of perspective, as “everything seems to happen as though God still wanted to oversee, keep vigil, maintain his right of inspection over the names that were about to echo out”(Derrida 386). By stripping the human away from this position of higher social standing, Derrida allows for readers to see the interconnectedness between humans and animals. For it is this message that he wishes to convey by the end of this piece, understanding animals in a way that allows us to learn from them and not impose our dangerous beliefs onto them. The population of people that own pets can sympathize with this. While domesticated, pets bring us happiness and companionship, something that I’m sure Derrida fully understood as well. As for my dog, I also care about her and appreciate her more now than I did before. Through these small changes in our thinking, we can move toward a healthier relationship with animals where we can grow with one another. 

Blog Post #5:

If you were given the opportunity to remain in a dream for the rest of eternity, would you take it? Of course, the answer to this question can vary greatly depending on what one’s dream may entail. When we often think about dreams they are serene and idealistic pleasantries which we indulge ourselves in. They are akin to a safe haven, and yet, our knowledge of dreams is quite limited. Sigmund Freud attempts to tackle the topic of dreams in his work The Interpretation of Dreams, a psychoanalytical piece. One means he utilizes for this is by weaving a connection to the Oedipus complex. The Oedipus complex is a theory where children have an innate sexual desire towards their parent of the opposite sex and resentment towards their parent of the same sex. The key here is the innateness of this feeling, the nature of it being unconscious, with Freud himself suggesting that these dynamics are universal. Therein lies the fundamental aspect of this theory, the concept that our psychology plays a pivotal role in molding our personalities. This means that part of who we are is inherent and inevitable. In this sense, dreams are the gateway connecting us to expressions of ourselves. Whether that be fears or repressed desires, dreams tap into our unconscious self which reveals our truths. However, it is not always as simple as recalling a dream and having a journey of reflection. According to Freud, dreams are layered and not as upfront as one would hope. There resides latent content that can obscure meaning by distortion and symbolism, almost “expressed as it were in a pictographic script, the characters of which have to be transposed individually into the language of the dream-thoughts. If we attempted to read these characters according to their pictorial value instead of according to their

symbolic relation, we should clearly be led into error” (Freud 793). To Freud, dream interpretation is a challenge and one that complicates even more due to the process of dream formation. This process involves what Freud coins as condensation and displacement. Condensation serves to condense dreams making them smaller and digestible but losing some of the meaning imbued into them. Displacement explains the way in which emotions can be scattered onto random dream elements that seemingly have no relation. Both of these concepts contribute to etching symbolic meaning into dreams, and only a person who can dissect these puzzles in their mind will be able to reap the rewards. Returning to the aforementioned question, I believe there is a comfort in staying within a dream. After all, if I could dream of being at an amusement park for example, why would I want to leave? Conversely, there is also a danger to remaining at a fixed point. Freud sees dreams as a method to which we can learn more about ourselves, and in order to put that knowledge to use we must awaken from our dreams. There is equal importance to dreaming and to experiencing. 

Blog Post:

The question “how does it feel to be a problem?” is one deeply rooted in bigotry and malice. It is a question that, in the context of The Souls of Black Folk, dehumanizes the oppressed for an unjust reason. Yet this question is not one posed by an oppressor but rather someone who had faced oppression, W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois being the one to pose this question to his readers signifies a deep understanding of, not only societal norms, but also awareness. He knows how he is perceived by the people around him, by the white people who perpetrate the prejudice he faces. In posing this question, he effectively antagonizes those who see him as inferior while also establishing the grounds for what he plans to delve into. Being aware of your standings can serve as an instrument used against those who wield prejudiced beliefs against you. Du Bois coined the term double consciousness which he described as the struggle of engaging with black culture and also conforming to the dominant white society. For someone to have a double consciousness means to see themselves through the eyes of other people, rather than seeing themselves for who they truly are. This adherence to the gaze of others is done because they are given no choice in the society they are present in. However, this naturally generates a feeling of othering which leads to internalized racism and a split of the self. Instead of one whole person, “One ever feels his two-ness,— an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder” (Du Bois 846). The positive light to this, Du Bois outlines via the metaphor of the veil. This veil is one that all African Americans figuratively wear, preventing white people from seeing them as true Americans or even human. On the opposite side, African Americans are able to see. White people can only see in a defamiliarizing way but African Americans are aware. Those who live on the dominant side of the veil live in ignorance and those on the opposite side understand how subjectivity is created. It is a painful gift to have for African Americans, but it is powerful in allowing them to achieve levels of understanding that others would not. Nowadays, racism still exists but not to the same extent as it did before. In my opinion, the most similar experience to that of double consciousness in modern times is being transgender. Many trans people experience gender dysphoria, the feeling of their body not aligning with their gender identity. There is also the toxic expectation to uphold stereotypes and norms in order to be perceived for who they are. From one oppressed group to the next, history does not always change which highlights the importance of learning from it to create a healthier environment.

A bit early, I’m posting the final questions for the supplementary essay (for A Contract Students Only). A few notes:

Answer ONE of the four questions

Follow directions carefully: download the file and write the response on the template. Other file formats are fine (Pages, .pdf, whatever).

Due Wednesday at 5pm via email. One day late gets you a “minus” and more constitutes a breach of contract and bumps you to a B contract.

Here’s the template and GOOD LUCK: 306 exam template

What does Derrida observe about the different ways philosophers and creative writers think about animality? (see p. 377 ff.) Note that a bit later, Derrida supplements this contrast with “two types of discourse” about animals (382). What are these two ways of looking at animality, “the animal,” animals, an animal?

• Derrida points out that in the case of creative writing, writers would depict animal characters in their work as a being capable of responding to humans. Derrida shows this using the Alice in Wonderland part of his peace where he talks about the Cheshire Cat. The Cheshire Cat is not in any sense, maybe apart from its looks, a cat the way we would define a cat. No, the Cheshire can speak, it can have or imitate human emotions, and can even hold a conversation with Alice and last time I checked, my cat can only meow and not speak perfect English to me.
• In the philosopher’s case Derrida observes that they define animal as not man/not human which is to say that it can’t communicate or respond like humans can therefore they are below humans. Derrida shows this when he says “all of them say the same thing: the animal is without language. Or more precisely unable to respond…the animal is without the right and power to “respond” and hence without many other things that would be the property of man”. Thus, giving us humans the power to do whatever we want with said animal.
• Derrida supplements these two ways of thinking about animals into the two types of discourse that are occurring regarding animals. One is more of a philosophical discourse in which the animal is something that is “seen and not seeing” which is to say that the Animal is an object because it can neither respond nor communicate with me therefore, I have the ability to do with it whatever I want, the same way I can with other objects. The other form of discourse is a more ethical discourse in which Animals can in fact respond and communicate with humans, the problem with this however is that, well if they can communicate and respond to me, how is that possible when the ability to talk or respond is only available to the human, the man. If animals have the ability to do that then what makes them the animal and me the man? And for that matter, if animals can respond, does that make me an animal? But animals are supposed to be below humans, if that’s the case can I really treat the animal as just another object knowing this key detail?

There are some challenges  Wolfe discusses such as fragmentation which is animal studies that emerged from various disciplines that was leading to different development. There  is also interdisciplinarity which shows the nature of animal studies that make it challenging to trace its history and define its boundaries  Animal studies have also struggled  to gain institutional recognition and legitimacy which has hindered development.

There are also ethical concerns about the ethical treatment of animals in the study of animals and their relationships with humans. Wolfe also believes that  the present moments in 2009n is special in the development of animal studies as a field because it represents a critical error where they show the importance of studying animals in their own right. The emergence of animal studies as a field reflect a broader cultural  and  intellectual  movement  toward acknowledging the agency and  significance of non- human animals  in shaping human societies  and the natural world.

The  emergence of animal studies as a field  reflects growing concerns about animal  welfare  environmental  and the ethical treatment of animals  Wolfe argues that embedding animals studies within genealogy of other identity based fields like women’s studies The problem with embedding animal studies within this sequence it conflicts the experiences of  non human animals with marginalized human groups.

Wolfe also impulses towards diversity which is commendable and argues that the inclusion of animal studies within the sequence of identity based fields overlooks the fundamental differences between humans and animals and risks detracting from the focus on human experiences of oppressions and exclusion. Wolfe highlights anthropocentrism, objectification of animals, dualistic and ethical blind spots and overall Wolfe argues that the application of humanism is the study of animals and human animal interaction that reinforces the objectification of animals and the ability to ethically and engage with different experiences and relationships within the animal world.

I found Derrida’s reading of the Book of Genesis and the naming of the animals to be the most fascinating part of the essay— though the rest of the essay is just as dense and beautiful and utterly amazing. The moment that stood out to me the most after our class discussion, when I reread sections for group work, was something that I saw as an offhand comment during my first reading. Derrida mentions that the naming of the animals takes place before Original Sin. This is true in both biblical accounts of naming, as the naming takes place during Genesis I & II, and Original Sin in III. But why is that significant? It took a few minutes of recall back to four years of Christian high school to remember when one bible instructor stated that sin always brings death. Adam and Eve were covered in animal skin after hiding in the bushes, but no animal would have needed to die if they had not sinned. After all, they could eat from nearly every tree in the garden.

So the names came before sin, and after sin follows death. Derrida argues that nature is not sad because it is mute, but mute because it is sad. And why is nature sad? Nature is sad, aphasic, and mute because it did not get to name itself. Sadness, as wonderfully stated by Derrida, is “[a] foreshadowing of mourning because it seems to me that every case of naming involves announcing a death to come in the surviving of a ghost” (Derrida 389). In order for preservation and remembrance, the animal must be given a name. Names are built upon the basis of death, and in Genesis no one gets to choose how they must be remembered. Not even Adam and Eve, though Adam got to choose the names of the animals, got to pick their names. Is it a stretch to say that Derrida attributes sin and death to the naming of the animals? By giving names to others, we have killed ourselves. We have set ourselves up for death. 

Taking inspiration from Walter Benjamin, Derrida posits that being named is this passive act unable to be reappropriated. Nature and the little cat cannot speak, they cannot change their names, nor can they shed their current ones. Derrida mentions many words (ironically) to explain this mute sadness. One of which, Benommenheit, is a mute stupor or daze that the animal finds itself in. Likewise, the word Umring describes the feeling of being deprived of access to its opening. In other words, trapped. Assigning names to animals is violent, it is an assertion of power that may or may not have been given to us (depending on religious views). I do not know which truth I would prefer. But when Derrida feels shame standing naked in front of his cat, as silent as it is, could it be because of his guilt of giving a name to something that was innocent and free without it? I see it as such.

Jacques Derrida explores the complex relationship between humans and animals in “The Animal That Therefore I Am,” focusing in particular on the topic of whether animals can speak like people or if they are sentient. Derrida explores this issue from a variety of angles, including linguistic, ethical, and philosophical ones. The central subject of Derrida’s research is what it means to be human and what sets us apart from other creatures. “The animal that I am (following), does it speak?” suggests a contemplation of language and communication as a major feature of the human species. The many kinds of language are essential indicators of human exceptionalism and are frequently employed to support the hierarchical division of labor between humans and other animals. Derrida problematizes language itself in order to refute this anthropocentric viewpoint. He contends that language is more subtle and dispersed throughout the animal kingdom than being exclusive to humans. Derrida contends that language is not a fixed system of linguistic rules, but rather that communication can take many different forms in addition to human speech.

Derrida breaks down the distinction between the human and the animal in order to respond to this query. He challenges the mainstream intellectual tradition in the West, which has historically dehumanized other species and placed humans at the top of a hierarchy. Derrida argues that this hierarchical style of thinking ignores the diversity and complexity of animal behavior because it is based on a false understanding of language and consciousness. Derrida also looks at the question’s political and ethical ramifications. He questions the moral grounds for animal abuse and exploitation by contesting the notion that humans are superior to other species. He makes the case for a more inclusive ethical framework that values all living things for their own sake and acknowledges the moral obligations that result from our interactions with them. Moreover, the essay by Derrida addresses the limitations of language and the insufficiency of human discourse in completely encapsulating the experiences of non-human creatures. He highlights how important it is to pay attention to the embodied presence and nonverbal communication of animals, which defies linguistic description but nevertheless has value and significance. Derrida argues for a more complex comprehension of the relationship between people and animals and highlights the shortcomings of anthropocentric thought. Through an examination of the various ways in which animals engage and communicate with the outside world, Derrida challenges us to reassess our moral responsibilities and reconsider our position in the larger community of living things.