Jacques Derrida’s piece The Animal That Therefore I Am is rich, and I would like to explore Derrida observations on the impact of the human perspective on the animal, and how that relates to the way we as humans define ourselves. To start, I believe it’s best to review the pivotal scene wherein he in seen in the nude by his own cat. The immediate embarrassment felt, and the secondary embarrassment- brought out by being embarrassed at the thought that a cat could understand how immodest of a state you’re in. The shame becomes a marker for the human, a foundational point for our identity to be built off of. To reflect this back to Lacan, when we gaze back towards the “blind-seer” of the cat what we are given the chance to feel is the imagined aspect of it all. Like Nietzsche’s beehive, modesty and shame are created concepts and when we look into the animal eyes, embarrassed by our own reflexes, we are also taken out of our own perspective in a unique way. The foundation for our identity and meaning in itself; ideas that we take for granted as real is shaken. What I’ve struggled with most as I’m reading Derrida’s text though is what does this exchange mean from the cat’s perspective. The cat sees the human and cannot speak, it cannot voice any kind of reaction if it were to have one and this inability to connect is incredibly important throughout the text. The cat, the animot as a whole is trapped in a similar state to the subaltern almost, unable to communicate for themselves. Is the point of his argument then to consider the kind of communication that the animot do engage in that we have yet to understand? Is there something to be offered the human in creating space for a kind of communication that is radically different, free from all of our stylized rules and structure. The animal cannot engage in Speech, let alone the Lange but then what modes of communication do they have, and is the practice of waiting and attempting to understand them at all the important part. In Derrida’s eyes animals have undergone horrific treatment at the hands of humans, likening their suffering to the Holocaust and genocides. Is the goal then to encourage the human body as a whole consider a radically compassionate kind of communication? I do understand his idea of following and followed, the nature of us chasing and being influenced by the animal- unsure if we are dominating or being dominated but his constant reflection made it quite hard for me to simplify his argument.

On a separate tangent I also found Derrida’s argument that the human identity itself is ‘wrongly’ or at least to it’s own harm founded on our own dominance over animals. As heard throughout the course, yes meaning is only present through difference but I think on a certain level Derrida is asking us to question the nature of this. Dominance over others becomes our mode of defining self, and this is something we maintain even when it comes to each other. Racism is not ignored in his work, something I’m always glad to see when considering theory and intersectionality. My takeaway from this text, is that Derrida has used the human and animal dynamic of difference, dominance, and meaning in order to define a dynamic more fluid kind of identity. This fluid identity does not do away with difference, nor does it attempt to do away with the nuances and important distinction that come with difference but instead seems to open its arms towards multiplicity- without violent dominance.

About midway through the article Lacan uses the development of pigeon gonads to further his theory of the mirror stage. The reference is used to show that just like pigeons human development needs a stage of identification or really misidentification in order to form a sense of identity and complete his development. The theory itself is defined by the moment of identification one has with their mirror self- a self that is described and detailed by external figures. We’ve heard the idea that humans are social creatures, but this theory takes that idea beyond what was an innate desire for companionship and argues instead that in order to have any internal sense of identity the human will need external figures to guide him. While guide implies a more purposeful act, the real guiding would be through example- we want to relate to the people around us. Lacan’s theory makes the point that ego is dependent on an external other.

I’d like to take this theory and apply it to Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Lacan’s theory applies itself very well to Shelley’s text as the monster’s development embodies well Lacan’s concept of the mirror stage.

Frankenstein’s monster is immediately rejected by his creator upon the moment of his ‘birth’ and so he does not have the ‘other’ figure as Lacan describes it. The monster at this point of his development is trapped in his own baby stage- distracted by sensory exploration and unable to have defined thoughts without language. He is trapped in a limbo of sorts as he faces constant rejection and is denied the ability to identify with any humans. He’s forced to find his mirror in the DeLancey family, who are all kind and loving to each other, as he lives hidden within their home. They are whom his “Ideal I” is based on, and so he desire to become a kind loving man who is affectionate with his brothers and community. Because of his horrific appearance though he will never be able to achieve this. The asymptotic relationship between a man and his Ideal I is made literal in Shelley’s Frankenstein as the monster strives to be someone he will never be able to be. His trauma is furthered when, after he introduces himself to them and hopes to finally be able to identify himself within them, he is violently rejected by the DeLancey family, kicked out and sent back into the woods.

The disharmony between the monsters reality and his ideal manifests itself in constant suffering, and he seeks out his creator with deadly passion (and consequences) in order to finally have some sense of community. I personally was very interested in Lacan’s theory but had the critique that individuals in his theory have no control over what form their ideal self takes, and wondered how this would relate to mental health as well as impact someone’s relationship with society. Why would there be a need for such power societal modes and methods on control that exist today if we really are “always already” apart of society? What happens if there is no healthy other for the individual to identify with? Shelley’s Frankenstein answers this, arguing to me that without the ability to identify with a community one’s sense of identity is permanently damaged, and can lead to intense mental and emotional consequences.

Through his study of “biopolitics” and “disciplinary” power, Michel Foucault illustrates how power functions in society. The primary differences between these two types of power are found in their methods, goals, and subjects of control. According to Foucault the first form, disciplinary power, is the careful control of people inside certain establishments like hospitals, jails, and schools. It is focused on using processes of monitoring, standardizing, and individualization to shape bodies, minds, and behaviors. The panopticon, a hypothetical prison design with a central observation tower that allows for continuous surveillance without the convicts knowing they are being observed, is one of the most famous examples of disciplinary power. Discipline authority works in this manner to shape and manage the person in restricted areas, encouraging compliance by strict regulations and hierarchical structures. However, Foucault’s concept of biopolitics moves the emphasis from controlling individual behavior to managing entire communities. This type of power encompasses wider societal issues including health, demography, and population well-being in addition to its influence within particular institutions.

Biopolitics itself is the study of population regulation, statistical analysis, and the application of laws intended to control society’s collective existence. Biopolitical tactics then focus on the health and vitality of entire populations rather than individual bodies and behaviors. An example of a biopolitical campaign would be theanti-smoking campaigns run in America. These campaigns use a variety of instruments, such as laws, educational initiatives, and public policies, to affect the general population’s health. Biopolitics is the study of population regulation, statistical analysis, and the application of laws intended to control society’s collective existence. When it comes to disciplinary authority, the focus is on the small scale, where organizations carefully control the behavior and identities of individuals. This is more so similar to a school setting where tight regulations, hierarchical structures, and surveillance tools are used to enforce disciplinary power. In addition to teaching, the aim is to mold each student’s conduct and thinking by enforcing discipline and conformity. With teachers acting as the watchers, schools have a panopticon-like atmosphere that functions as a form of disciplinary power. It is the constant observation that shapes people’s behavior and promotes compliance and self-regulation.

On the other hand, biopolitics addresses the health of entire populations by zooming out to the macro level. Campaigns for public health place more emphasis on the statistical patterns and demographics of smoking in society than they do on specific smokers. Policies are designed to affect the way people behave as a group and their overall health; this is a change from carefully controlling people inside of institutions to managing the health of society as a whole. A more expansive and abstract type of power is embodied by biopolitics, when governance transcends the boundaries of particular institutions to include the more general aspects of a population. The study of biopolitics and disciplinary authority by Foucault offers a theoretical framework for us to comprehend how power systems have evolved into contemporary society. It reveals how our idea of government is evolving from a narrowly focused, institution-centric system to one that is more broadly focused and population-oriented. With the use of these ideas, Foucault challenges us to consider the complexities of power critically, showing the ways that we manage the well-being and health of entire populations within larger societies as well as the lives of individuals inside institutions.

Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric combines and redeems the terms “procedure” and “rhetoric” to explain how interactive rules and systems are used in video games to persuade players and affect their thoughts and actions. His framework acknowledges the special qualities of video games as a medium for communication and persuasion, expanding the concept of rhetoric beyond conventional forms. Bogost extends the definition of procedure beyond what is typically thought of to include the systems, rules, and algorithms that control how a game is played. He argues that policies are not neutral; rather, they represent ideas, values, and beliefs. According to Bogost, a game’s mechanics and rules themselves can represent a certain viewpoint or argument. For example, a game that mimics a specific political or social structure subtly conveys information about that system through the player’s experience. Beyond only persuading players intellectually, video games can also affect their actions and behaviors within the game environment. This can also apply to forming viewpoints and attitudes that they carry with them outside of the gaming environment. He discusses the daily life simulator “Animal Crossing’s seemingly straightforward and lighthearted gameplay and illustrates how its underlying themes and mechanics provide players the chance to consider a variety of life, society, and global issues. The “Bells” that are used as cash are the center of the in-game economy. This simulates real-world economic ideas and might make players consider wealth, consumption, and materialism-related issues. By helping players obtain house loans, the character Tom Nook introduces the idea of debt. Despite its lighthearted presentation, it might make players consider their actual financial obligations and the effects of debt on their lives. “Animal Crossing’s underlying themes and mechanics provide players the chance to consider a variety of life, society, and global issues. The allure of the game as a mode is its capacity to elicit thought without being preachy, letting users make their own links between the virtual environment and the more tangible situations they encounter.

One of my favorite games to discuss is Silent Hill 2. The game centers around James Sunderland, who gets an invitation to see his late wife Mary in the town of Silent Hill via letter. The problem is that Mary died three years before the game’s events. James visits Silent Hill, which is enveloped in a dense fog and a foreboding gloom, feeling intrigued and bewildered. He comes across unsettling animals and terrifying settings that make him question his sanity. The story reveals layers of psychological trauma, shame, and suppressed memories as James explores Silent Hill further. The characters’ unresolved traumas and inner demons appear to be reflected in the community. The decisions the player takes during the game impact the story, resulting in a variety of endings that present various angles on James’s adventure and the town’s evil influence. Deeply exploring the psychological and emotional dimensions of loneliness and hopelessness is Silent Hill 2. The game’s characters battle their inner demons and anxieties. James’s sense of guilt and his desire for atonement are at the center of the story. The town of Silent Hill represents his guilt-ridden brain and subconscious. As according to Ian Bogost, “Silent Hill 2” uses procedural rhetoric by influencing players’ opinions and delivering persuasive messages through the game’s interactive features. The game’s several endings, which are determined by decisions made by the player during the story, provide an argument against the objectivity of guilt, atonement, and the results of one’s deeds. It invites players to consider their choices by implying that moral decisions may affect the story’s resolution. Players are encouraged to interpret the plot in various ways due to the narrative’s ambiguity and open-ended nature. This procedural decision supports the characters’ subjective experiences and allows for individual introspection and interpretation. Through the ambiguity of the story, the flexibility of character interpretations, and the moral ramifications of the player’s decisions, the game subtly pushes players to consider the validity of its processes. In addition to provoking psychological terror, Silent Hill 2’s procedural rhetoric invites players to consider the nature of guilt, the intricacies of interpersonal relationships, and the subjectivity of reality.

Johnson’s work Melville’s Fist is expansive She starts her reading of Melville off with a review of the literature that currently exists today on the meanings and current readings on Melville’s Billy Budd and uses it to define Melville as a deconstructionist whose work posies itself the most popular readings of it created thus far. Popular readings of Billy Budd consist of it being a crucifix retelling, an allegory that one that leans into the strict definitions of good and evil, as W.Y Tindall writes, “each is more important for what he is than what he does.. Good and bad, they occupy the region of good and evil.” (2321)

The problem for Johnson, in regards to reading the text allegorically, is that it fails to properly acknowledge the “importance of the plot,” (2321). What Johnson feels is left unacknowledged is that if one were to go with the existing reading, that good and bad behaviors and people will always occupy distinct separate realms- goodness is what someone is and not what they do- then we are failing to see how the plot of the novel works against this concept. Johnson claims that Melville, “invites an allegorical reading and subverts the very terms of consistency when he writes of the murder,” (2321). She describes the plot’s form as a a ‘chiasmus’, in which the roles of who is innocent and who is guilty are reversed. Instead of supporting the claims that other authors have made of his work building up and on the stability of rigid concepts like good and bad Johnson argues that Melville is actually deconstructing these terms. She argues that Melville is instead concerned with the “ dynamic opposition” between what it means to be a human “being” versus a “human doing”. (2322) The concept is interesting, and presents the difference between a man’s actions and his declared ‘character’, the difference between one’s appearance and action that Melville questions. 

The way that Johnson uses Sassure’s idea of the signifier and the signified to describe how Melville does this is also very interesting, “The story thus takes place between the postulate of continuity between signifier and signified (“handsome is as handsome does” and the postulate of their discontinuity (“a mantrap may be under the ruddy tipped daisies)” (2324) Both Johnson and Melville are concerned greatly with the “deadly space between” both the story and the plot, the characters and their actions- it’s clear that through Johnson’s reading the point Melville is concerned with here is not the structuralist definitions of good and bad, but the flaws in such a reading and how there exists an uncrossable space between such labels.  This space, I’d argue, is where we, like Vere, see the usefulness of concepts like Law and Morality- to give us the tools to make sense of ourselves and our actions. Melville’s deadly space between calls to Neitzche’s applause of human beings creating society and meaning out of nothing, out of space. We create timeless and strong concepts, things that do not exist, and give them power, something that I think Melville would very much agree with. These concepts are not inherent nor permanent- but to struggle with them as well as need them seems to be a point many literary critics deem a part of the human condition. 

 She goes on to discuss the kinds of language that are born of this kind of reading, the language of performance and one of cognition, which reminded me of the construction of Sassure’s study on lange as well. There seems to be a kind of language that people engage in, one Saussure would define as Speech, that is formless and it aligns itself with Johnson’s “performative” language as well. The act of speaking in and of itself is an act here and I’m interested in this kind of meaning given to language without action. There is an argument that words do not mean anything without action to back it up, but it seems Johnson and Saussure would argue against such a point. 

In Nietzche’s work “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” he explores what he perceives to be failures in language’s ability to describe reality, and asserts that language itself is built on deceit. He explains that we as humans do not have the cognitive ability to learn the “primal form” or name of objects and so “we possess only metaphors of things which in no way correspond to the original entities.” (755)  He goes on further to describe “truth” as a simple “peace treaty” between men, and we only seek these pacts out because of, “necessity and boredom.” ((753) Nietzche transforms the truth into the beliefs we maintain and abide by to maintain order. In his perspective, there is no universal objective truth.  

While his essay does at first imply that a man who does not throw off these false truths is doomed for an “illusory consciousness” that leaves humanity “rest[ing] on the pitiless, the greedy, the insatiable, the murderous- clinging to dreams, as it were, to the back of a tiger,” he does not believe that our delusions do not come without their benefits. He compares the lives of two kinds of men: the intuitive man and the rational man. Built upon his perspective of life in Ancient Greece, a time when “anything [was] possible” -as they believed in a world intertwined with Gods and invested in myth- he describes an intuitive man. An artist who is creative and joyful, while also heavily deluded about the objective truths of the world. This man while able to experience greater highs of joy also loses himself to intense confusion and sadness when hardship comes. He suffers not just more intensely but more often as well as he cannot learn from his experiences. Opposite to this is the rational man who seeks out truth and complete freedom from man’s deception. He detaches himself from emotion and lives a careful life. When this man suffers he learns from it, avoiding much hardship and he maintains a consistent emotional state. The cost of this though is that while he does not show his suffering on his face, wearing a “mask” he has lost his ability to connect with others, neglecting his emotional state. As Nietzche describes it then, It is not necessarily a happier life ahead for those who refute humans ‘inherent’ delusion. 

I believe his work is put to its most pragmatic use when we engage with it in its context, as he wrote in a largely Christian society, and his work challenged many of the traditional beliefs that upheld their way of life. In a patriarchal religion-dominated society, his work which is obviously atheistic was a much-needed perspective. To grasp Nietzche’s work fully you are asked to see the world within deep time, as he highlights that the universe, and nature itself, are both objects that act in a much greater scheme than we do, on a much grander scale. It is necessary then to understand the apathy that the natural world has for us, unimpacted or defined by our attempts to label and describe it. He puts into words a very objective view of what man is to the world and can relay our inability then to see ourselves for what we are – insignificant. This much has been an even more hated perspective when the religious implications are taken to the forefront. 

I do feel that his argument fails in its obvious antihumanism. Believing that humans have little to no desire to connect for the sake of it assumes a man is apathetic to his neighbor beyond need and boredom. He also does not acknowledge the other possible roots of language and its reasons for coming into being. Language not only functions as a tool for labeling and naming, a perspective he seems inclined to take as an academic man, but is a tool for human connection. ( Sign language comes to mind ) Many languages are founded on the human desire to be closer to and understand his neighbor, and if the language did only exist in the mode that Nietzche defines it we’d probably have a much thinner dictionary today. As Saussure describes it language is not just a physical mode of communication but a psychological one- an empathetic one. We use language to share and relay concepts to each other, a process that occurs internally, as we decipher the sound-images we hear into the concepts we come to understand them to be. In comparison to Nietzche’s dead language Sassure leaves the room for language to grow and evolve- changing with the individual as it does not assume a “fixed type” but roots language in the human desire for communication.  (865)