What follows are notes from the book Zoontologies edited by Cary Wolfe. There is a good introduction by Wolfe, and then subsequent essays by a number of authors. I didn't take notes on or even read all of them, but I broke down the notes by essay.
Introduction: Cary Wolfe
He notes the "steady influence of the "hard" on the "human" sciences, of late, and . . . ". . . the radically changed place of the animal itself in areas outside the humanities. Indeed, the humanities are, in my view, now struggling to catch up with a radical revaluation of the status of the nonhuman animals that has taken place in society at large. A veritable explosion of work in areas such as cognitive ethology and field ecology has called into question our ability to use the old saws of anthropocentrism (language, tool use, the inheritance of cultural behaviors in wild animals such as apes, wolves, and elephants, have more or less permanently eroded the tidy divisions between human and nonhuman. And this, in turn, has led to a broad reopening of the question of the ethical status of animals in relation to the human-- an event whose importance is named but not really captures by the term animal rights. Indeed, as I have tried to show elsewhere, one of the central ironies of animal rights philosophy--an irony that points directly to the pressing need for this collection--is that its philosophical frame remains an essentially humanist one in its most important philosphers (utilitarianism in Peter Singers, neo-Kantianism in Tom Regan) thus effacing the very difference of the animal other that animal rights sought to respect in the first place." xiiSo my thoughts on that are that this shift in the sciences that they point out is relatively new, and that if, as Wolfe suggests, humanities need to catch up then . . . this is why there is the relationship with science? gah.
xiv - note about one of the other essays (by Roof) "As he argues, belief in DNA would seem to require as well a belief in the commonality of all life, but at the same time 'faith in DNA also provides the illusion of mastery of all life located, via knowledge of DNA, in science and in the human.'. . . " As I think of this, it relates to this strong desire to master and know and understand, the kind of ownership that knowledge affords, which is central to the use of animals in science.
The comment about the use of animal imagery to denote lesser humans is mentioned by Wolfe in his introduction w/r/t a quote by Etienne Balibar "As Etinenne Balibar has observed, for example, "Every theoretical racism draws upon anthropological universals," underneath which we find "the persistent presence of the same 'question': that of the difference between humanity and animality" that is at work in the systematic 'bestialization' of individuals and racialized human groups." xx and later (xxi) talks about this essay published in the New York Times called "At a Slaughterhouse, Some Things Never Die" that" shows how the relations of hierarchy, dominations, and exploitation between humans and animals are uncannily and systematically reproduced in relations of class, race, and ethnicity among humans themselves." It's the last essay in the book and I haven't read it yet, but I want to because I imagine that it must be very difficult to sensitively compare humans and animals in the right way like the essay sets out to do (unfair labor practices is its topic, I think)
"In the Shadow of Wittenstein's Lion: Language, Ethics, and the Question of the Animal" by Cary Wolfe
Cary Wolfe also writes an essay called "In the Shadow of Wittenstein's Lion: Language, Ethics, and the Question of the Animal" which jumps off from a famous and "often misunderstood" statement by Wittgenstein : "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him." She admits she's not sure if she understands it . . . and I definitely don't. But this reminds me that this idea of language and, what I gather as the generation of who we are as a direct result of language (gleaned from the possibly inaccurate use of Wittgenstein in DFW "Broom of the Sysytem") and seems like perhaps something I might want to know about.
One little phrase he uses in this article that I really loved, for some reason, was "about our failure to be god."
Ummm. I'm not sure why I put a post-it note here, but Wolfe talks about Hearne's "contractarian view" which basically says that morality is a set of rules (a contract) that we essentially sign, and if we are unable to sign for ourselves and to be covered directly, it is only through the fact that those who have signed "love or cherish" us that we are protected. And so, in Hearne's words, "Those animals that enough people care about (companion animals, whales, baby seals, the American bald eagle) though they lack rights themselves, will be protected because of the sentimental interests of people." (6)
9 He quotes . . . someone else (and now I don't know who . . .I think it is Cavell)
"There is nothing to be read from that body, nothing the body is of; it does not go beyond itself, it expresses nothing. . . It does not matter to me now whether there turn out to be wheels and springs inside, or stuffing, or some subtler or messier mechanism . . . What this 'body' lacks is privacy . . . ." blah blah after that. I don't even know what this has to do with anything, but what I liked about it is obviously the part about wheels, springs, and stuffing.
I am reminded yet again that I haven't seen Blade Runner but it gets brought up ALL THE TIME in issues of postmoderism? or . . . something. And again in this article relating to the difference between animals, humans, and androids. :)
"From Extinction to Electronics" by Ursula K. Heise
She talks about electronically engineered animals that appear in films and literature, saying "Such representations of artificial animals touch upon a broad range of issues, from practical ones such as the domestication of animals, their use in scientific and military experiments, and their commodification in circuits of economic exchange, to more theoretical ones such as animal perception and cognition or the functioning of 'natural' evolutionary mechanisms in the context of technological innovation." 60I should also think about how cuteness is justified by science, or explained by it, how science warns against anthropomorphization or "cuteness" itself as a pitfall of research and it is then used by people opposing scientific study -- the part of the reason for viewing animals so "callously" could be attributed to the fact that anthropormorphiszation is suspect and can skew scientific results . . .
Remember the "now classic science fiction novel" "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
In her section talking about Jurassic Park (which is really interesting, by the way) she points out how this idea of dinosaurs and ecology became so popular when we were becoming increasingly aware of our own impact on the world and the danger of continued extinctions. She mentions a book by W.J.T. Mitchell called "The Last Dinosaur Book" which I gather is a "survey on the long history of dinosaur representations" so this might be something I'd want to look at again.
No comments:
Post a Comment