Using ideas from the Bible, Derrida turns his anecdote of his cat observing him in the nude to extrapolate some ambiguities about what it means to “follow” being, and contrasts that with ideas of authority. I think ultimately, Derrida uses this seemingly surface level encounter with his pet to show us how shame is something that inherently belongs to humans, it is entwined with our creation, and perhaps is what distinguishes us from other animals. 

Derrida makes a discursive argument about how being “seen seen” by an animal, or seeing it seeing you, kind of awakes us to ask well, what does this cat see when they see me naked (382)? Animals don’t necessarily look for anything when they look at us, so why do we feel shame? And then on top of that why do we feel shame at being ashamed, which is probably even more silly. The argument Derrida makes here is that, since the story of Adam and Eve, humans can never recover the primordial innocence that Adam and Eve supposedly had in Genesis. We can’t rewind the clock to the moment where we always were naked but also never were naked, because it meant nothing anyway. 

The idea of this primordial innocence is complicated, too, though, once Derrida starts extrapolating the different versions of the book of Genesis and explaining his ideas about following/follower. He says that in the first narrative, God commands man-woman to command the animals, but not yet to name them; in the second narrative, the naming of the animals is performed at the same time as the commanding of them, and it is done solely by Adam: “[God] lets man, man alone, Ish without Ishah, the woman, freely call out the names”(385). In this second version, the idea that Adam, who was created after the animals, who has  not yet realized good from evil because Eve does not exist yet, somehow under some basis has dominion granted to him over the animals. He follows the animals chronologically, but maybe not in terms of authority. 

Adam’s power to name the animals does not couple with the fact that he and the animal are the same in their bareness. Similarly, Derrida feels shame in being naked in front of his cat because that is his pet, implying authority, but is also ashamed at being ashamed since the cat is simply seeing, and this feeling of being “seen seen” reminds us of our oddly related–both temporally and hierarchically–connection to animals. 

Derrida Mentions his point of view on what he has become and that there is on the more he wants to follow as to “I am following” is as to how he is “after the animal”.  “inasmuch” he is alongside” he will become like them more. Where He will end up become an animal while been near animals and that’s why he follows them as a chase of feelings. Derrida views the ideas of other philosopher as it’s something that animals have no way of respond to a specife language because its only seen as something that can´t be define or it’s unable to be understandable. Do to the only thing that a cat can say is “purred” and with out knowing what it actually is says. They think it’s ethier a yes or a no. Two of the animality that are looked at are “gaze” and “seen seen” by what is known of what it is. And since it’s seen by animals, what do I see and what is the difference between both of us. Some of the ambiguities that he finds between competing account is that god creates man in his image but he brings male and female into the world at the same time. Naming will thus have been the fact of man as a couple, if it can be put that way. Where man is the one who follows the animals as to where at the end woman comes. “The husbandman cried out the name of each beast,” one translation (Chouraqui) says; another (Dhormes): “Man called all the animals by their names” (Gen. 2:20).Let me repeat: it is only recorded thus in the second narrative. If one believes what is called the first narrative, God creates man in his image but he brings male and female into the world at the same time 387. Derrida respone to this is that the word is have ¨both a general and strict sense: what abuts onto limits as Limitrophy – growth nourishment (thinking) of boundary in difference. Also what feeds, is fed, is cared for, raised, and trained, what is cultivated on the edges of a limit. Derrida’s response is that “”I am uttering an asinanity” should confirm not only the animality that he is disavowing but his complicit, continued and organized involvement in a veritable war of the species. Such are my hypotheses in view of theses on the animal, on animals, on the word animal or animals.”

The bathroom. What do we do there? Well, we use it. We relieve ourselves of the waste within our body. We then either complain about there being no toilet paper or condemn the person who thought that the terrible quality of bathroom toilet paper was appropriate for use. We wash our hands. We might check ourselves out in the mirror; I know that I do occasionally. Do we talk to the people beside us? Normally, NO. That would be rather strange. You hear someone pissing next to you in the other stall and you say: “Dang! You were really holding that in.” I’m sure we all know that that would be kind of inappropriate. Most people don’t go to the bathroom to have riveting discussions or mundane conversations (there is definitely intent by going into one, but not the conversational kind), and yet there can be discussions to be had.

Judith Jack Halberstam discusses this issue in the section, “The Bathroom Problem” of his piece titled Female Masculinity. He points out the way that space known as the “Women’s Bathroom/Restroom” becomes a place where a person’s gender, regardless of whether they were born female or identify but don’t necessarily present themselves as a woman, can come into question. The degree to which people can be considered “women” depends entirely on their appearance and their presentation. Do they “look” like women?

The fact that this question comes up at times even for women who are biologically female highlights the failure that is the term: “women” as people who fit under it can easily be disregarded and questioned. The gender binary of “man” and “woman” is an oversimplification to the complex library of words, labels, and ways that people sense themselves to be. There is a spectrum to being a “woman.” Are you being a “good” or “proper” woman by having short hair or letting your bodily hair grow out and show?

For some people, these characteristics can be enough to rescind another’s “womanliness.”

Now, what about the “Men’s Bathroom/Restroom.”

Halberstam points out the sexually charged energy and homoeroticism that inhabits this male-occupied space. Gender does not really come into question. Instead, “maleness” becomes a kind of air that fills the space, regardless of how well a person presents their “manhood.” On the side of homoeroticism, the “Men’s Bathroom/Restroom” becomes an area of pleasure and ecstasy for those who use it to practice that there, and an “office” of measurement where one can easily peer over (by the design of urinals) and see what the other is packing. There can be expressions of aggression and actions of violence but those depend entirely on how “insecure” or “unsure” a man is in his own gender and/or sexual identity.

The “Women’s Bathroom/Restroom” differs in that it has regular women become the “police” of gender. Those who make sure that they are the highest symbolic and presentational expression of “womanliness” use that imaginary superiority to tell other women whether they are “women” enough.

From my perspective, I view this as a kind of grasping of the “gender binary.” The “coming out” of so many people have demonstrated that the “binary” is an obsolete concept. There are no two genders. There is a branching of so many genders. Yes. The genders of “woman” and “man” exist within it as well, but they are not alone or the “default.” In the words of Judith Butler, “Gender reality is performative which means, quite simple, that it is real only to the extent that is performed.” I stand that “Bathroom Politics” further exemplify this statement.

In this reading, Dubois highlights the phantom of the “double consciousness”. This “double consciousness” is rooted in the idea that African Americans, in particular, struggle to place and understand themselves as a culture and as a people within this society which is run by a white culture. This understanding of who you are and what you should be as told through a white lens is unfavorable to people of color as it tends to discredit and degrade them. The theory of the “double consciousness” Dubois notes comes along with this idea of conforming yourself as a black man or woman to this world that caters to the complete opposite of what you are, white—being an African American and being hyper-aware that you are an other and that you will be treated different cause one to want to change to be valued and treated on the same level as their white counterpart. 

I find this discourse of the “double consciousness” very interesting as it tends to only apply to people of color. People the majority in any society tend to model everything around themselves so, while being able to understand the struggle that people of color have they will never truly know what it means to be hyper-aware of the fact that “you are different”. Not only does the “double consciousness” speak to the alienation that Dubois had encountered during his lifetime but, we still see it in society today with the popularity of the phrase “whitewashed”. This phrase tends to get thrown by people of color to other people of color who act like or conform to the world of their white counterparts. I don’t see this as rejecting your culture or your people but, being aware of the “double consciousness”. Those people who are called “whitewashed” understand that the world revolves around the white man so, they attempt to change themselves to fit that visage. 

In his book “The Animal That Therefore I Am”, philosopher Jacques Derrida presents an anecdote of him walking naked in his home in front of his cat. While this may be seen as as a degrading and shameful act, it is important to understand how animals view the world as opposed to humans. Animals have a completely different way of viewing the world that humans may never be able to fully comprehend, as much as they try to. They do not have the same mode of language that humans do, so certain structures and labels do not have the same weight in the context of an animal. They have no conception of modesty and immodesty and the idea of nudity does not apply to them. There is no idea of being “naked” – animals are technically already naked, so there is no immodesty attached to it. Similar to Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis, when you are always nude, you are never nude. It is simply their way of being. From the perspective of Derrida’s cat, they may just see him as an equal rather than taking in his nudity as a failure, which is a common reaction from humans. This interaction can blur the boundaries between the human and the animal, similar to the nature of the title of the book.

The cat is also refusing to be conceptualized in human terms in this interaction. They do not bother applying human terms, limitations, or concepts. It is simply being. Without language (at least in human terms), animals lack the access to being “as such” of what it is. Because Derrida has the typical human language, he can label himself as an animal as seen in the title. The animal does not other itself in relation to the human in the way that humans may do to animals or even to other humans. They have their own signs and structures that we as humans cannot even begin to comprehend.

Derrida’s anecdote and analysis raises some important ideas regarding human and animal relations. It is important to acknowledge their lack of language and how that affects their experience in the world. The absence of humanly structures present great differences, such as the concept of nudity. By understanding these differences, we are also able to determine how we are similar to these creatures, and how we can peacefully coexist with them.

Prior to discussing Derrida’s essay tomorrow, I wanted to share the wonderful obituary that Professor of Religion Mark Taylor (one of my early mentors at Williams College) wrote upon Derrida’s death in 2004:

Opinion | What Derrida Really Meant (Published 2004)

Op-Ed article by Prof Mark C Taylor says Jacques Derrida, who died last week, will be remembered as one of three most important philosophers of 20th century, along with Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger; says no thinker in last 100 years has had greater impact on people in more fields and different disciplines than Derrida, and no thinker has been more deeply misunderstood; explains what he meant by deconstruction; drawing (M)

Taylor nicely lays out the stakes of Derrida’s philosophy, often accused of undermining all foundations for ethics and moral judgment, as an enterprise deeply invested in moral and even religious questions. We see this in the very late essay (2002) that we’re reading together, where he goes “back to the beginning,” in a sense, troubling foundational moments in the mythic heritage of Western thought, asking us to rethink our ideas about what it means to be “human” and “animal” at once, what it means to use language (or be used by it), and what it means to “thicken,” as he says, the boundaries between concepts, rather than make defending them a life-or-death proposition.

All this is especially relevant this week, as we see colleges and universities turned upside-down, with college administrators ushering in police and expelling/suspending/encouraging arrest of students, staff, and faculty engaged in peaceful protest.

I can’t help but think of the high profile rats have gotten in Mayor Adams’s tenure. Meet the Rat Czar, who addresses herself to the manifestation of rattus rattus (Public Enemy #1)** as “becoming-rat”:

Mayor Adams Anoints Kathleen Corradi as NYC’s First-Ever ‘Rat Czar’

Mayor Adams Anoints Kathleen Corradi as NYC’s First-Ever ‘Rat Czar’

** Actually it might be billionaires who pay an average of 8.2% federal taxes, due to making a vast amount of their income from investments.

As fate would have it, the NYT served up a very Deleuze and Guattari-themed bit of culture today. [nope: not gonna rest until you get your free CUNY subscription].

The practices described unfold within what its 20 participants call a “polycule” based in the Boston area, in what seems to be a neologism that steals from D+Gs molecular/molar distinction. They are committed to sharing, yes, sex, but also dwelling space, intimacy, some possessions and money, in some cases legal marriage, and more, but very much within a subsuming meta-rule that refuses the kind of contracts, promises, and exclusions that characterize what D+G call “filiation,” the “arboreal,” rooted identity, and so on.

Look, I’m pretty boring (arborial, even) in my actual life, for better or for worse. But it is fascinating to see how these ideas from D+G from 1980 and from the rarified air of “theory” have percolated out (or rhizomatically propagated themselves) into culture in this form (and in many others).

I haven’t finished the study questions yet, but I highly recommend you read this brief but extremely helpful summary of the excerpt we’re reading from A Thousand Plateaus. It’s kind of unfair for me to drop this material on you, when we haven’t read at least the intro of the work (it’s in the Norton, for those who want to go the extra mile), but this piece gives us enough light to read by, glossing terms like “minor” and “minority,” “rhizomatic” and “arborescent,” “molecular” and “molar,” etc. in D/Gs work.

You would also do well to read the headnote to D and G in the Norton: it’s also pretty brief and gives a great overview.

Finally, and on a lighter note, here’s a link to a performance of “Ben,” the title cut from the soundtrack of the film Ben, which is the sequel (!) to the killer rat film, Willard (!!) that D/G mention. Michael Jackson, ladies and gentlemen, at fourteen. What an incandescent talent, whatever came afterwards. Also, I’m pretty sure I had that groovy wide-collar shirt.

No Title

CLICK TO SUBSCRIBE: http://bit.ly/1reuGJV Follow us on TWITTER: https://twitter.com/scream_factory Follow us on FACEBOOK: http://on.fb.me/1ojljJS Willard Stiles (Bruce Davison, Insidious: Chapter 4) is a young man with a big problem. He lives alone in a crumbling house with his ailing mother (Elsa Lanchester, Arnold, Bride of Frankenstein).