In Wolfe’s essay, “Human, All Too Human”, he writes on the growing interest of the animal. More and more, the animal starts to appear in all sorts of subjects that, the animal, has become the main focus for it’s own area of study. However, what troubles Wolfe is how we approach this study incorrectly due to our ethnocentrism affecting the way we conduct study on the animal, stating, “just because we study nonhuman animals does not mean we are not continuing to be humanist.” (568). The problem of studying animals is that we are doing it in our own way. We look at the animal based on our perspective and ideologies. Such as focusing on how different they are compared to us with no consideration towards them. This way of studying animals then imposes that humans are more than the animal. Further, putting a greater emphasis on the divide between us and animals. I think a good example of this can be animal documentaries, specifically those silent ones that has barely any narration, allows the study solely focuses on immersing ourselves in the animal’s world and their point of view.

This then builds on another problem he goes on to mention. He explains the process of pluralism and how it works with an example on cultural studies; as it aims to search for equality by choosing to “invite” past rejected studies into the broader social sphere. The thing about pluralism is that it, “extends the sphere of consideration to marginalized groups without in the least destabilizing or throwing in to question the schema of the human that takes such pluralization.” (568) The fact that the study that was put down for so long now has been “accepted” by the community comes to shows this notion of who is really in charge? Who has the power here to say “you can join us now”? The fact that the oppressed group has to wait for the dominant to accept them just diminishes the latter even more. As a result, as Wolfe fears that this may happen the same with animal studies if not done the right way.

Wolfe suggests to take on animal studies correctly, is to find a way to leave aside our humanist way of research and think of the animal as parallel to humans. Though avoiding this may be hard, he calls on Jacques Derrida’s essay on animality, which proves to be a form of answer. Based on Wolfe’s explanation on Derrida, we must focus on finding some similarities’ rather than differences. Describing it as looking for the limits we share with animals, what we both lack, as something to connect to animals (570).  Looking at it this way makes it easier to find a form of equal ground with one another without struggling to find similarities through our many differences. When we ponder on this, we realize that we don’t really know much about ourselves either. Maybe it’s easier to study animals because we can look at them as a subject. Though, it doesn’t feel right to try to understand non-human animals when we don’t really know ourselves. I find it that it is harder studying ourselves because you just can’t do research on yourself, your bound to have biases or mistakes. Perhaps that is why studying animals interest us so much, we can look at them and research them as much as we can. Through animal research, we can use them to compare ourselves and thus, understand them in order to find a way to understand ourselves.

Jacques Derrida raises some interesting issues in “The Animal Therefore That I Am,” things that I could relate to from my own experience. Several years ago, I got into an argument with a friend who happened to be vegan. In his view, any consumption of animal products was unethical and was linked to some form of animal cruelty. I disagreed with him, saying there is a way to fight for animal rights and denounce animal cruelty without ignoring the complexities involved in it. He considered animal rights activism as valid only when one fully stopped consuming anything related to animals. I advocated targeting such issues as the meat industry that directly caused harm to animals. As is evident by now, we could not see eye to eye on the issue.

Derrida’s words on animals, winding and complicated as they might be, made me think of that episode with my friend. Derrida refers to industrial farming that started with the Industrial Revolution. This was accompanied by genetic modification of animals in which the genes of animals are modified in order to create the versions of animals that best serve the purpose of humans. Humans, therefore, have created a “human versus animal” binary in which humans feel the liberty to inflict all kinds of “monstrosity” (as Derrida describes it) on animals. Humans lump all non-humans into the category of “animals,” making a distinction between themselves and all non-humans that seemingly gives them the license to do whatever they like to animals.

I don’t know if it’s an overstretch to link this lumping together of all non-humans to Saussure’s idea of language being arbitrary. The way we classify humans based on characteristics and qualities is completely arbitrary and invented by humans, causing us to completely overlook the fact that animals, like us, have the ability to feel, perhaps thus making it easier for us to treat animals the way we do, made worse by the rise of industrial capitalism and the progress in science and technology that have enabled us to treat animals in ways that are cruel and monstrous.

This makes me reflect on the conversation I had with my friend all those years ago. Let us say it is only the meat industry or the fur industry that are examples of animal cruelty. However, the way Derrida discusses the feelings of animals makes me question some of my own stances on this. What constitutes animal cruelty and what does not? Are the degrees and extents of animal cruelty not something decided by humans too? Do we really take the animals into consideration when thinking about animals? What can we do to make sure that animals are being treated properly?

But then again… is humans consuming animals not part of the entire ecosystem? After all, if I came across a large carnivorous animal in the woods, would I not become its next meal?  How does one reach an ethical position in which animal rights are protected and the evolution of humans is equally understood?

We need to keep grappling with these questions.

Cary Wolfe wrote a detailed essay to explain the nuance of animal studies in its current state. Citing Derrida, primarily for his work in the spoken essay“The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow)”, which eloquently confronts the human psyche’s predispositions and systems of beliefs on our understanding of animals and the nature of their peripheral existence. The work done towards animals and around them, at first, is encapsulated in language that is theorized to be in direct allegiance with what divides humans from animals. Quotable Divine intervention. 

Despite the mysteries of the universe being incalculable, hardly anyone can sleep without the big focus tuning toward the unknown. Certain religious texts have explained the meaning of man in reference to animal, as well as distinguished the purpose of animals as separate from them. It may have answered a general rule of thumb to live by, and perhaps to die by. But that was not enough for all the mysteries of this existence to be answered. What creates the strict difference between humans and animals? Many have written books and theories, eloquent diatribes on “factor x” or the course on tool building. What truly separates the animal from the human? What all these theories fail to deliver is a symbolic reassurance. Perhaps cynically, a referential suggestion on how to degrade mystery with belief, and extend a livable, tangible paradigm above said beliefs. Soon, the focus is no longer on how animals failed to evolve to their particular Anthropocene, but on where they fall ever so distinctly far from human. Now, as God would have it, suggested wittingly by Derrida, the animal is there to serve humans. How the jump went from the mystery of coexisting survival in nature to subjectification (then objectification, i.e. food, “it”) is the intellect socially playing mental gymnastics trying to rationalize the root of a mystery. Yet in this phase, between understanding the divine and nature, the industrial monster made disaster and delay possible.

Humans as a collective may one day discover that they are superior in some measure, yet the industries’ lack of compassion and delayed social sciences for animals is below depressing, it’s mesmerizing. What is the measure of greatness if it is not conscientious?

With years apart, the spirit of their writing carried the determined allegiance for decency for animal rights. Yet I’m not too sure where they would stand on mock meats. 

In Derrida’s essay “The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow)”, he discusses/implies the difference between the way philosophers and creative writers positions themselves when it comes to viewing the nonhuman animal. There’s an obvious split between animals and humans and philosophers essentially objectify animals because of their lack of language or thought, by human definition. The poets and creative writers on the other hand, think about animals and animality in a different way; they validate them in what they are and recognize that they are real like us, not just objects. This can be seen in the Alice in Wonderland references throughout the text, where Alice talks to the animals like the Cheshire cat. The animals are given more human-like qualities, they can speak and think and give opinions on things. He then states that it essentially comes down to what one’s idea is of responding or distinguishing between being responded to and being reacted to. They can respond but not in a way that we understand. Derrida emphasizes that not only do the animals speak and respond, they speak and respond in a way that disables the linguistic norms; it pulls apart the normal functioning of language. The hedgehogs who are playing croquet in the Alice in Wonderland reference essentially disable the game, which metaphorically disables the game of language. He talks about the gaze of the animal and how there’s a limit to which we can know what the animal can understand about us. Philosophers position the human as the viewing subject or the one that perceives. Derrida notices that humans are viewed as the perceiver but he also attempts to see himself as the perceived through the animal’s eyes. For example, Alice observes that cats talk, they purr but we don’t know whether the purr is a yes or no. Derrida is interested in this idea of irreducible capacity, which animals have. Therefore, he is unable to treat the animal as an object or an “it”. This sort of discourse out-slips the human contract, in terms of the Saussurian langue. It has to do with a scientific empirical gaze; when we look at the cat, we are able to identify it scientifically; you belong to a certain species and you’re related to the bobcat, etc. Derrida sees himself in the mirror of the animal and thinks what he looks like in the eyes of the cat. This honestly interested me, and I found it funny how he mentioned that he was unsure as to who was the hunter and who was being pursued in the moment where he felt the need to run away and cover up.

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.

“The Animal That Therefore I Am” by Jacques Derrida is a complex and influential text that explores the relationship between humans and animals, focusing on what I think is the question of what it means to be an animal. Derrida begins by recounting an experience of being observed by a cat while naked, which leads him to reflect on the gaze of the animal and its implications for human self-awareness.

One of the key themes in the text is the idea that humans have historically defined themselves in opposition to animals, viewing animals as inferior and devoid of reason or language. Derrida challenges this anthropocentric view, arguing that animals are not simply “other” to humans but are intimately connected to human existence.

Derrida also explores the way language shapes our understanding of animals, arguing that language often serves to distance us from animals by defining them in terms of human concepts. He suggests that we need to find new ways of thinking and speaking about animals that do not reduce them to mere objects of human knowledge.

Human beings have always defined themselves in pretty singular and unitary ways. We give each other names,attributes,actions,etc. Our subjectivity is always defined by a Cartesian assurance of the self, in that aside from any worldly deceptions , my mind is an individuated contained being. Is this really the case though ? Can we be sure that we can define ourselves as subjects purely on the fact that we can think ‘for ourselves’ and other ‘lower’ species can’t ? Well theorist Donna Harraway, famously challenges this line of presumptions. For Harraway, to say that human subjectivity is wholly created by us is incredibly naive. To say that us as humans are agents of our own becoming, speaks to our own hubris. In her work “Companion Species Manifesto”, Harraway offers up a new way of thinking about human subjectivity. 

Otherness for Haraway is not an absence or rejection of the things that make us what we are, but are precisely what we are. The human and animal distinction is perhaps not a distinction at all, as our ‘self’s’ are dispersed and modular pieces. In the same way a seeing eye dog is a sort of piece of us, as indispensable as an appendage, so are we to the dog. In this difference but simultaneously this modularity that puts into question the line many philosophers have drawn between man and animal. Take Kantian ideas of rationality and desire, that human beings to be fully human or morally good (which are often times people take to be synonymous with each other) must disregard all desire and must instead replace it with reason. To be fully human is to be in accordance with the freedom to make rational choices  and not be a slave to desire. Animals here are tantamount to automatons, to things. Yet Harraway points out this framing of animals as mere things,  misses the very fact that without dogs,cats,cows,chickens,etc , the human race would not be human at all. 

What Harraway seeks to do is not to anthropomorphize, to flip the Kantian idea, to say perhaps “we are the real animals, and my dog is my brethren” , as that simply reinstates the trap of interpellation. It seeks simply to ascribe human subjectivity back on to the animal when what Harraway wants is much like other thinkers: an empathetic embrace of difference. To understand ourselves, we must understand the other, and to understand the other we must understand ourselves in relation. Yet, that takes a compassion and empathy that is precisely lacking in the way scientists and philosophers have so often framed the opposition.

In “The Animal That Therefore I Am,” Jacques Derrida dives into some deep thoughts about our relationship with animals, especially focusing on how we see them and how they see us. He starts off by recounting a funny incident where he caught his cat checking him out while he was getting dressed. “The gaze of a seer, visionary, or extra-lucid blind person. It is as if I were ashamed, therefore, naked in front of this cat, but also ashamed for being ashamed. (Pg.372). This got him thinking about the whole concept of “the gaze” and how it’s not just something humans do, but animals too. Derrida then takes us on a philosophical journey, challenging the idea that humans are totally separate from animals. He argues that there’s a blurry line between us and them, and that animals have their own kind of awareness and agency that we often overlook. “From that point on, naked without knowing it, animals would not, in truth, be naked. They wouldn’t be naked because they are naked. In principle, with the exception of man, no animal has ever thought to dress itself. Clothing would be proper to man, one of the “properties” of man. Dressing oneself would be inseparable from all the other forms of what is proper to man, even if one talks about it less than speech or reason, the logos, history, laughing, mourning, burial, the gift, and so on” (Pg.373). He calls out the human tendency to see animals as just tools or objects for our use, instead of recognizing their own worth and dignity. Throughout the essay, Derrida pushes us to rethink our assumptions about animals and consider the ethical implications of how we treat them. Maybe we’re not as different from animals as we think, and maybe we should treat them better because of it. “The Animal That Therefore I Am” is kind of like a wake-up call to pay more attention to the animals around us and treat them with the respect they deserve. Derrida’s analysis is deeply philosophical and deconstructive, inviting readers to question their assumptions about human superiority and the treatment of animals. He emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living beings and the ethical imperative to recognize and respect the otherness of animals. Ultimately, “The Animal That Therefore I Am” prompts readers to reconsider their relationship with animals and to acknowledge the ethical implications of human animal interactions

Jacques Derrida embarks on a comical yet profound philosophical journey on what it means to be humans & animals alike in the first chapter of his essay The Animal That Therefore I am (More to Follow). He challenges our set notions on the distinctive boundaries we have in place that alienates us as humans from animals and urges us to think about the ethical implications behind these said boundaries. One such literature that introduced me to question this partition between humans and animals and its morality much prior to Derrida, was George Orwell’s book Animal Farm. 

Although the underlying themes of these two works might be different, I couldn’t help but notice a few parallels within them. Both of these works recognize a hierarchical structure. With Derrida’s philosophical examinations and Orwell’s allegorical narrative, they both converge to critique anthropocentrism and prioritization of human exceptionalism. 

Orwell’s story of the animals rebellion can be understood as a retaliation to Derrida’s note about the Western perspective; the one that puts humans at the top of the pyramid, giving ourselves the privilege to name and categorize animals or not categorize them at all and simply just make a clear cut distinction: us vs them. But the rebellion disrupts this notion as the animal’s aspirations for equality and self-governance parallels Derrida’s call for acknowledging the alterity (otherness) of animals and the human-centric perspective. 

Furthermore, Orwell’s portrayal of communication of language aligns with Derrida’s mention of the power dynamic behind naming. Derrida mentions the book of Genesis where Adam gets the dominion to name animals despite what chronological order might suggest (as Adam came after the animals). By this act of naming the animals, Adam assumes a position of or is granted this authority by God. We can argue that language ultimately becomes a weapon to a very one–sided hierarchical perspective, subjugating animals to a very simplified human understanding. Similarly, language gets used as a tool to consolidate and maintain control over the animals by the pigs. Here, the pigs use language to neutralize the gaze of animals through a very human attempt as we similarly see in the Bible that Derrida points out. 

The evolution of power dynamic amongst the many animals in Animal Farm, from rebellion to utter tyranny, blurs the complexities of interspecies relations but also questions the ethical implications of attempting to assert one’s dominance. Derrida’s point of view of limitropy, or to nourish the boundaries amongst humans and animals similarly and ironically enough, blurs the partition between different species. But, by nourishing this said boundary without our anthropocentrism, we come to better understand the differences between humans and animals yet seeing it and even celebrating it as one’s own unique individuality and not an inherent subordination.

The term “double consciousness” relates to the idea that one sees themselves through two distinct points of view. One perspective being how they see themselves and an alternate view of how others see them. This is typically seen and/ or associated with the African American community. The alternate perspective heavily influences how black individuals think of themselves. In Du Bois’ Souls of Black Folk, the narrator recognizes that the lingering question behind a Caucasian’s tongue is “how does it feel to be a problem?” This question is peculiar because it insinuates that the individual has caused a disruption or disturbance. Of course, the only “crime” they have committed is being born black.  Accommodating both perspectives causes an internal struggle to balance remaining true to and embracing their blackness with assimilating to white standards in a white dominating society. The three elements of double consciousness consist of the veil, twoness, and second sight. The veil is a figurative representation of the color line. It works as a one- way mirror where white people infuse their own fabrications of black people, and it is reflected at them. They have the liberty to self-identify so the idea of racial subjugation is lost to them. A sense of twoness comes from the reality behind the veil of what life as an African American really is– the black world versus the constructs and false ideologies made to dehumanize them in the white world. Lastly, second sight is basically the equivalence to having a third eye. This permits African Americans to peek into the white world, which is supposed to be unobtainable.  

“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.”(846)

Should the black community be grateful for the insight into the white world? Does it somehow provide African Americans with a tool to withstand the veil?