-rt{t tKltG v!

tt_rl{ rca,-rs

t what Dcrida tcs our f.om ihe dFricnc. ofbcins l@kcd:t by his cr. Bui @ ir b rl< in? Is it his dntrust ofc logic ofsai6e that prcvcns him f.om poking out hs own cs when he nally graps th. $'h? Or ir rh. verr irnpossibiliry ofsrupitrg rhc truth rhat protecrs Nm "Thc Animal That Th.rcforc I An (Mor. to Follow)" is billint scqucl

Fo redco

will

be

supri*d

cr

with Jao-Luc N.ncy,' on. rht oFns onto dtcndcd rcding' ofrhc ctmenr ofrh. in.l by D6erts, Kut, Hcidcgg.r, la, nd lnin*, md on thr rc@stiiurd hk whol. work $ ropilosophy. This rcating of his own pat is no eid.t - it is Drid's contriburion to th. th;rd C..sy @nf.rcn c i 997! ddorcd to his work, .otirl.d "L'animd auobiographiquc." Insread ofconf.sring his !ru.h ro Sr. P.ter rhe pclly gata, Dcnida k provokcd norc profoundly by thc .cq6 of .a y <onpalio, otr@ i sod to c Esrptiar, to bc lcr out thc dor. This papo is r hd rr to follow.r Noocttrdcrs, my aim hcrc is to lay our a ounb.r of n' principal conccms, to show why n rcpreents onc of the r i"pa"dbl, airical cngrgcmena our rine, nd alons rh. way ro wcevc a rapon* thar "f conrinuG c covesrion. Derida's original publishcd paper, frcn which wc includc selction hcc, stns nmbe of hra, nd mn86 to ack mosr of rhem *kh his usul clcgnc.. I try, i vario wys both to atrrm nd ont*t Dcrid's atnoF dira/ @nriburion ro rethinking of h. animal quction. I nih vious stnds ofhis di+nosis: (l) rhe intimare connc.rior b.twcen ou thinking about nimls, nd our self-undcrstanding: (2) ho* ou crnivorous d oth.r dploitariv pnctices n.td o b callcd what 1|.y ae violcncc and gcnocidq (3) how our *poicnct of thc otho enimd opcns in utiou wrys onto 'abyssel ruptura" ofany happy dom6riqred coccprii?tion; and (4) rhc imponc. frhc logic ofracrific in undcroding why rc e6r o wc do. I ls sutg.r rh.. omething of rhe abysrl dimcsion of our rclarion to ilnals is kr tde one w 6ll oot more fully our hkto;@l .ngg.n.ns with diF.rcnr imals end ofrimals. Thi' would give thc ap.ricne wirh Ft or @mpon a 'pcies li.nitcd, if sFciai sisni6de. Findly, I arguc foraprnding our horians away fom foru o thc idividual ainl to brcadc envi.omcral conccrns, cpccially thinking throush our rolc in thc impoilcd turuc of rlc rcb of lfc on
1

to his "Erting Vcll" t

d;w

''Hallol" said Pigler. "wha re you dotr8?" . -. "Tracking sometl:ins," eid Mnni.-rhe-Pooh v.ry myrer;ously. "T.cking whr" srid Pigler, coming closer. "This,ust wLa I aJt mysclt I ask mself, \7hari" "Vhat do you think you'll m*cr?" "I shll hevc ro Mi nril I .arch p w it," eid vinnie-rhe-P@h. "Now, look thcrc." Hc poincd o thc ground n fron ofhim-" \har do "Tacks," said Pisler. "Paw-m|c." Hc gve sqk of ocicmcn!. "Oh, Pohl Do you think ils a - a - v@rei" (.d A. Milnc)5
"A cat may

donl rchcmb.r wfi..." (rdis

lok

ar a king," sai

cdo

Ali. "l'v.
)

read rhar

some book, but

whilc, quitc propedy, Dcrrida.csL$ dini'g for h c sratu of a pnl guq rfr ecnr &orn qich he sca out d ro whjch hc rcpcaadlv cmms, i rhat ofn enounrc wirh his et. Doida turens nor on his m wmns of thc et, bur on cipcri.dce ofbciog sen by hk (fernalc) at, *1ro, norcon secs him kcd,

faucd,

of our rclatiorohip to "uimals" {ud to spcifc individul onls), md thc qucstion ofwho '1" arn, the truth ofmy bcing, thc "autobiognphi<1" qucstionWc may rdmit that thc "otfici h* a rolc to play in dctcmining who I d. I cor br aurho unlcss orhcn rad, or * lcxt buy, my books. Bur the look of a qr rhatcns to intcnupr fally whet Ric@u. rculd call thc onsruaive dcrour Jrtough rhc oet.

wc c old, on his As *irh Hii.lr.od's re.ring,up crmcn :ngl*. this allow Dcrrid to oen e bwd dim.rcion ro . mst domctic of Unlikc Nrgel! bn, for erample,T whac somcing li.n (e bt ulcs ronar) obrrucb rh. work of cmpathy om th. b.Aiig, rh. er i r "ili.," e dG comp on, a crurt ore shes i svn life *irh. Ad ... 'pacc, Dcr'd is of@u6. op.ning up et nro quctions at one'rr thc quction

sc

*.

saa.

lat

Tlc

no nanc what kid of o7s o7 is a puc reGrcncc to mysclf. l apprcl'cod im'ediely *hcn I hcr lc broche creckjing b.hind mc is no rhar rbac n onaz t ra n is th.t I rh I hvc a bodv *hich on bc hun . . . in short that I n m

l@k which th ./cs

moifo

Vh

*,

"lneblc.

To manif* oesclf a hce is ro impor on*lf . .. without rhe inrcm.d:ay of y imag.. in onc's nudity, n. i onc\ dcirutio ad
hungcr.

(lainr)'

The ph.nomcnology of rh. l6k, of b.ing l@k d t, doc not ofcou* bcgin wnh Drida nd h (r, and ir is inuctvc ro rcmird oursclva *ha po*c6l work ir dGs for borh Snrc od lsinu befoe him. I Sanrc's clcic ualwis.ro

thc look of c other afecs an intcntionl revcrsd in whch I eoeriencc nrclf obimificd, ocn "rleourcd" by thc othcis ge. Spsificdly, I qpcricnce my own subjccriviry and freedom thering in tbc prcscncc of thc othc. Vhr his *pedcne shows ro Sanrc is rh. rruggl. for 6edcy trenr in human itrrcrsubj<s och crion, the instabilir.T rhar ais on thc nccring of projecting a world. Sanrc's other is not linited to rhc actual pence of the oorhc hunn. A N Szo,gsign, cnckting bkd.h.s, or .r.* on thc si.s mle mc blush. Hc docs nor, to my kowlcdge, giv. c nimaj s gar srtu ompaablc to tht of mn. But thc r*on for this oclusion may bc strg.r thn it sems. For therc is no bcttcr model fo the objetifring gu rhm that of thc prcdator weighing up dinncr. Thcrc re mrny kinds of look or gm rht of love. adoration, pridc, cory, piy, erc. The .cdua'c focu of thc modaliry of the look Sana chma suggcs a tal intcrucaving otthn frcedom whch, for Sne (q Hcg.ll disdnguishcs m. &om r'c aimI, wirh tlc inability rlly to rcogniz that frecdom in rhe ocr. Vhcc rhc othc n an rnimd, wc mry suppos. rt a le hc dilccid insublitie do no anc, ad we co g.t on wirh rhc ocydy bsins ofsubjust'on. For laina3, roo, crpicnc of thc oc h incomplae *idrout rhe

vo

o
-

dFinc. of b.ns addrerd by thc othc. Thc 6e-to-fe tclajo nczw "Don\ kill mc" - i: n o ddrs. fuain thac is a rocml or blckagc of our omd inrcnlionat srdc, sd rhc displaccmcnt of rhc princy of lhc ubiccr.
ortl thc othe consisrs not in thc fact rhr rh. oh.r (- rh Nd) k @gnitiv.ly lliv. o. r@sivc, g.ncrating fo exarnplc "thc problem oforhcr mindi - but mthc tht thc othcr, by addrcins nc, inwkc an obligation, an innitc obligtion, that *cetds knowledge "a such.' Tle "ab'si is not so mucl my ufatlomrbly dap isnnncc of wh{ n nighr bc li&. ro b you bur nrhcr rh inclculablc gp bcrwctn knwlcdg. u
Thc "ablssal" dirncnsion ofthis cxpcdence
such

ud cponsibilicy.

Nos for ravins we mighr inaginc thrt dre uimal *"uld bc a godscnd, illus' vhen arkcd rrarig his cl in an excnplrr way. Srr'Bcb' his oo. ebout thc niml othcr, hc insts ther thc uiml hu a &e 'o. ooly by ualos, c humu. And it quickly beone clerr that Lvinx edhcrcs to a vcr traditional accormt ofthe grcat chiin of beig, doubdng for enmplc. rhat a
snkc couid havc a fce. Hc writcs:

r wha momcnr you have thc righr ro b. callcd 'fcc.' Ihe hd fcc is completcl), diFcrcnt, md only eftcvards do ft di$ov.r the facc of r aimal. . . . Thc hunan brcdts th pure beig, which is always p.sirt.n6 i bcin8. Tha i Dryi's ida. fi< b.iog of animds is ctrusdc for lif.. A strusslc for lif. without thi6.'t
say

I cano

It is t.mpdt to no.e lsiotui

A snake

su3gest thr in his pocm

"Thc Snakc" D. H.

twr.nc

is

b.ing

th lvidsl

ro my wr.rrough On a hor hot day, and I in pyianx for thc hert

.dc

Somonc wa befo.c s. t y *rd-rough And l, lke sc(ond comer, wiring.

Ano @*.d r me raguey, 5 ofnKrng caroc oo, And flicl.red hi\ tuGork.d tonquc fom his lpr,

ud

mus.d mon.nt. '?

\lc know that Lvin rake for s@rd sonc son ofconncctio bctre.n fee od luguagc, so it is epecially Jgnifent a D*rida will spak of the et
"addrcssiog"

oc. But * wc noed ;n thc ec ofSne, rh.re may be a srngt *ructural r<mn why the aninal is given a .rivariv. .thicl surus. tain6's enrirc foc on the cicl is ar dtidorc rc wha h. b.lqes .o bc man's tundamcnally murd.rou natur dispGition. Subsr;bing i is wy ro Tcnnon's .Narue red in rood ad cl*" mcus that "the animal" a.lready ha a placc in tsid philosophy, thc ondition tht mn musr ovctcomc - long bcfore ' .herc n any m.rinswi(h cer, bar, or snake.'3 Ad ir roy b rht thc n. of te with an oiml , all to of$ ren fo philosopher, the sne ofa rnual reenaamcnt ofa poblcmetic internl clarior to our

All tht sugcts that Dcnida's ct sc.nc fai f.om inncent on. Rther n h* ben tacked back and fonl mry tins bcforc. Bur if Dcnid is inded walking in thc foo$reps of ohcs, pfhaps rhe poinr of his invoarion of rhs domcstic scenc is precisely to rcist th* teleologiel opentioro, by nnding rhc
most at homc. this mcthodologiql rcsistrnc by poiting out thc rwin Dur'd dgc6 rht b6ct he.e (1) o dclue thc inal Ghe cad unknowable, d (2) to pproprite the cat (388). His fsus o the or's lookins . n i5 hvc wn, ifthc ct is to hclp us avoid such a choice. At thc se tinc, d giv.n a role in ddcminingwho 1m, this *petiene also sco6 d autionry

u,h.ilit (.r

mrl

ny)

&n

\9hcn we

fel

mat

bralc on my own self-underrandirg. This is thc profourd lesn of A. A. Milne's mctaphpicd ralcs. disguised u childrcni soria. Th< bd of Vozle in he sme ciclc is in ct rlrat Poh md Piglet are'lrackins" rcund nd 'oud thcmselvcs. Piglel dGs no$o mrch have mom.t of insight about th o rcmcmber someing el* he necds o do. \lhcn lsis Curcll's Lion uks Alie "wlnt's this? . . . Are you animrl - or vcgcrbl. - o. minrel?," md the Unicom cplics (before Alice m) "Ils a fabulou monsrerl." rc fiod a simih auroery

and to be afu wil! nor only be the qustion ud e question of whar wc call rhc din). we shall disovcr rnhc:long rle qu<tion of r}re d b?on qu6rion, rhr which begins by wondcring wl whcthe u animai (butwhichone?) oer r.Dli6 in itswn nmc. (Deaid)F
To

lillou

'arr,

'ft.

rnle of th paper plR)r on th. mbigr/ f ,. sis," bo "I m" md "l follow," ctretins a cenain dnturbane ofthc clariry and auronony of"lc pc{ \vkh . lishl rouch of wordn Derida is e+nacdng thc move from don.

'!n."

b.ing-in-ewodd, ro Ndcy s a$enroo o bcing-with. And the vuiou smotic rwucs of "following" prcmisc to allow : mulri-fecttcd oplomtion of rhc @mpld intercc of "mu" and "animal." Thc mrdpley ptopos that wht it is ro br mc ud whet it is to b< human re prcirly not ro bc di*ovcrd in drc knd ofoidcntiary momcnr tht D*ancs nounced. A we wll se. Derd wll c*ok thc sensc of thc indubiblc whcr' laying orr rhe dinensions ofour violcnc gist:ninals. A play on thc Frcnch rnis only u cnabling dwicc, alowing u to rhicken . disenrial plot, nuch * Hcidcggc dcploycd rh. ,.mc rcsourcc of ,' g'' (thcrc is, bur /iral/, "it 8iv6') to suggGt a ce.tin !@cprviry itr our rchtion to bcin6 Thc idiosrcruics ofa natunl languagc can provokc us to e<plore prhways ha can ltc bc wn to havc coneptual signi6ene thet g6 bcyond thrt singular
the

C*taian subjec,

ro Hcidegg.r's

origin. But Dcnida followr up rhr linguLric play wi a norc difcc c.i.quc of the linguistic landsope in which wc cncout< oimals. Vc may suppor at thc dzmage, if ary, done by urr'g c word 'ldf' - is i, Nicshc s clmplc - ro rpply ro .tl l.ves, durgc do& ro u, to out osnnive cpciy,r' nor to thc lavs. But th< u* of thc wod 'nimJ" o \hc animal" to tcfcr to my and rll living ceturc is @naptul violcnce thar .rpcdnio*ly lghimeta our cud violcna. Dcrrid nor qutc ghr ro suppos rhar no philo'opher has cvc mdc s poinr beforc,r6 b hc k righr to drw a...n.o ro k,gain. Dcnidr toys with thc ide rr thcrc is: dep onnection berwccn nmins and dcath, that neming alrcady anticipra c abscncc ofsomcthing, hc n cd ro b ablc ro refs to ir ftcr ir is gonc. In nming, wc misht sa is thc beginoing of hou.nins. H impo.ttly distG himsclf fiom tht wholc vio of ntue (in.ldins "ims') dEr woold hvc it vcilcd n gd*, in los - vie hc anributc both to Hcidcggo od to Bcrjain - but thc advcnt oflagu:ge not mmbiguoudy bnng los oo thc soc.'7 Unls, * hc cms to suggcr, c 'los" is that of e gifr of dcrh (389). But I havc doubrs about th. Th. violccc lods.d itr rh. wo.d imal n or thc produa ofnaming. rc do ot z rhe cretres of thc wold "animl' or "the minl." Rthcr "animrl" is e catcgory, onc ofrhc s'nc order a 'mn." To cdl it a etcgory rathcr tho i' impo.tt. Ct gori6 d. grcs wys in (hurnaa) cae up rhc *orld. Violnc! s6 r rwo lcvels. Fns, tlae wh.h etesorid disrictions (ma/nimal, m/womn) c affirmations of thc vcry kind of diincions hat would block fl. ex.sion of cotuid.radon (fr enple, fron ,n ro anin.t). Fo n ;s no accdenr thar thes etcgorial distinc' tions actudl wicldcd by only onc of.ch pair. (Unl6s w. go \v. tsee bclowl, it n only men who daigmtc imis s suh, and no vicc vcsa.) Send, crgor.s raz bc dcploycd noniall/ nd d6.ripriv.ly so a such violcft. br appi.d to rhis ot that spcilic aniod. "AinI," ir othc words, ir onc of rhc we e/ "Oth.r."' Fouetk *gins Ma"as aad Ciliatioa with z grotc from Dostoiasky's "tr r by con6ning o.'s ishbo rhar one is convioced Dialt ofa of onc's om smiry." Of ourc i}rc impliddon s p.irly at wc do bcli*e this. And what rhis rrgues, I sutt6r.d 6rlic.. is rbir hc way we .cer uimals is deply eught up with thc ongoing ncd for symtl. rtrminn

dc

ft

Br

wi'.i

"fo".

"*"

AI\I

I A/I AL

P H I I-OSOP

H Y

Derrida negotiates the issue that I have dealt with in terms of categories and in connection with the question of the continuity or discontinuity between humans and animals. He is suspicious of continuity theses, but his affirmation of discontinuity (an abyssal rupture) is one that holds between "we men" and "what we cal/animals" (my emphasis). (Echoing Nietzsche,re he writes that humans are those who have assigned to themselves the right ro use the word "animal" [400].) This careful formulation ("what we callanimals") opens up a whole can of worms. l,et me just a make a couple of comments: (1) Derrida seems to be worried about continuity theses because of the biologistic reductionism often associated with them. But perhaps instead rn'e should be more cautious in supposing that "biology" has the best handle even on the description of animal life.)O And does not the Benthamite reference ro suffering ("The question is - do they suffer?") that Derrida quotes approvingly suggest precisely
names
a

fundamental continuity? (2) It is surely true that berween "we men" and "whar we cal/animals," there is an abyss, but that is not surprising if these are opposi-

tional categories legitimating violent discrimination. But do "\rye" need to "endorse" the practice of calling them all "the animal," "animals," etc.? And if
we did not, would the abyss remain? Derrida attempts to make a pet out of a word-bird that landed on his shoulder while writing; he must have hoped it would work the same magic as trace and dffirance once did. The word is animot, in which he attempts to speak the plural of animals in the singular, and continually to remind us of how language is affecting our access to this complex world. It is an artempt to displace "animals" or "the animal" in our linguistic habit structure with a term that would disrupt

the pattern of homogenization. It zs a delightful word, but that may be the problem. We may precisely need tough new habits, reflecting all thar is now visible of the horizon of violence stretching our before us, nor a dainry new
indcidable.

If

lion could tatk, we ..,lto ;o,

ffi^."l'l;

fvittgenstein)2r

Standardly, attempts have been made to bridge the man/animal gap (or to reinforce it), by focusing not on the language we use to deal with animals, but on whether it is precisely language that distinguishes us from animals. It would be something of an irony if the most notable example of our distinction here were a linguistic opposition that licensed violence, suggesting perhaps rhar language might ultimately serve ends not so different from those we typically attribute to our "animal origins." The question of anirnal language has a long history that I shall not reprise here. But Derrida makes the interesting point that in thinking about animal language we need not focus on the level of cognitivc sophistication possessed by this or that animal. We rnight instead consider rhe ethical issue - whether we could be "addressed" bv an rnimrl. Philosophers, l)errida writes, "have taken no account of whether n'hrt they call animal could look at them and address them from down the re . fronr r rvholly other origin" (3SZ. 'I'he point is that addressing and being aciclrcsscd rrc nrodes of communi-

-rH

I Nt Kt tvG

v\rt-t-H

c A-r s

cation, of responsibility, that, while often intenr'ovcn *rrh nhrr u.e hlrnlrns call a "natural language" (such as English or Frencht..lrc scpar:rble fiom such a capacity. Derrida could be said to be raking thc leap rhei Levinas was unable ro take when he doubted that the snake had a facc. I)erricla's reference ro being addressed "from down there" seems an obvious response to Levinas's seemingly theologically impregnated reference ro rhe Orher, a.s "rhe nrosr high." rs (NoT) CONSENT

If I can be called, addressed (accused, requested, ignored) by an animal, it is as if speech-act theory is being given a second life. First it saved some (mostly
analytic) philosophers from limiting language to propositions. Now it offers us way of getting into better focus something oF our conracr with animals. But it is worth revisiting the general claim about the connection between language and violence. Understanding "animal" as a caregory rather than (just) a name allorn'ed me to offer an explanation somewhat different from Derrida's oF the violence this word licenses. It is equally importanr to srress the general ambivalence attached to naming, and to the naming of animals in particular.22 For, on the whole, even if a name anticipates death and absence, rh; absence of a name can mean that death and violence are not even registered, let alone anticipated. The countless animals we kill to eat each day ae recorded, ar besr, as numbers. The tags can be reused, and there is no other locus of memorv.
a

Civing a name to a favorite farm animal is a sentimental interruption of a Process that will have to be overcome, usually with tears. But the true pathos of the absence of the name is perhaps best captured by the fact that in rhe sixth
of
n^"J.ot period of global species extinction that we are currently witnessing, mosr the species that become extinct each year die out before euen*ha,rirlg

been discovered, let alone named.2J It is hard to mounr a campaign ro prorecr faceless and nameless creatures;24 even an endangered lesserupoit.,l bande.snatch has a better chance. As we have seen, Derrida points ro a general version of this ambivalence when he speaks of the twin dangers - of appropriating the other (e.g., the animal) and of leaving it in silence (388). It i, on. of-^rh. grearesr achievements of deconstruction to have drawn our arrention to the fact that lences, but

,27,000

thinking (and responsible action) typically consists not in resolving ambivrin "going through the undecidable," finding "producti,rJ' *"y, of

acknowledging and responding to conflicting considerations.

And what is true of naming - that its relation to violence and cleath is ambivalent - is equally true of silence (and speaking out). Silence can presewe possibilities rhar articulation would premarurely close off, but, in many political contexts, silence is construed as consent, and can be fatal. Few animals are actually silent, though not many have a voice in decisions that affect their future. Animal rights advocates can be understood to be lending them a voice, enabling thern at least notionally to be represented.25 \7e may imagine that ideally those who represented the interests of animals and spoke up for them would somehow smuggle themselves into their client's lives, and allow their specific silence to be captured in appropriare words.l(, Befbre Derrida's doubts, it was Wittgenstein who remarked o,i, a big cat thar

"lfa lion coutd tlk, we coul nor understd hirft.' Uodentanding is aot jusr p.oposnioDI, bu ivolvs a efereoce ro fom of lifc, utupokcn bckoud conditions, o b;n8-in-ih.'wodd. tlingensein is nshing in D.r.idt bl$.

Thcrc is m "abusl uoture" bcrwcen "wc mcn" nd "wh w ell dimls" nd rhis fo.mlarion ; vcry delibentc. Thar ere ;s such ruprure s nor in dispute, Derrida clains 6rml turhe wc more podu.rivcly fo|] on "de(s.miniB rh. numb.r, fom, sc* o smcturq rhe foliar.d onsecy f rhh absel limit, thec edges, thn plrl repccd, folded s.rucuc' (399). Th. gme hu moved on. h is hee rhar Dcdid oounces his rhree-pan rhesis:

l_

rhr

this b/sal ruprurc does nor simply havc

vo

cdge Guch

Man and

2. rhis folded boder

hd a hirtory, told fron

one sidc,

th. onc e tak. ro bc

3. what wc takc to bc animal lifc" is "a hctcrogcnou muhipli.iry ofihc livins," or b.aer "a mukipliciry ot orgniations of rcltions bcen livins and ded." This omplcxity of relations cn nevcr b objc.tidd (3991
I wanr to punue here rhc re6ec.s o hisroy. Fo., of@use, timt nd histotT on alwF he counted on to sko a simple lioer boundry. In p.ticul!, ou rclationship to this cat, or this snalc, ids o thc whole huma rerd ofour dealings wnh rnimds. For thc sakc ofsimpliciry, I *aat ro gcsiurc 6 io rh.

di<tion of ou prrctiol involvcmcnt wirh imak and rh.n, bri.ny, our symbolic rclationship. ft witt bc my contention t Dcnidai expricncc of being seen, evcn ddre$ed, b)' hir cat, reqer some rcference to this brckground ro b< undertood. Fisr, it is clw at th. key srs6 i rhe d.vcl" opment of humrn civiliadon hav. been m:rkcd by tsfomatios in our rcltiors to oimels, d hcne in ou dominot attude. Fo hurcr, o e oe hud, aimals ue wild, ofto unmuagcd rcscc offood, clothing and even tools (as wcll as a sore ofwidom!). Fo thc ncr, o rh. orhc. ha.d,
animls compcre fo rhe cops he grows, rhcy re pur ro work in he dds, ad ued for food, tdsponadon, security, and dothing. Household p.t! D particular ca$ nd dogs - h*e no less pncdcel r hisory, and onc parallcl rc thc doelopment ofthc homc. Doss hrve long btcn hunting ompoionr, bur alo house guards, ud alarm units. Aod cats bcgan then domGtic life p.ircllins rh. bodarid of.hc housc again$ poisonous snaket (Egypt ad atansr v.rmin (Euope) hat would dsrrcy food storc od erry disc-c. I point "ssru" wouid bc more ccumte in thc dncction of these b&kgroud conditios bceusc it suggests that bcing looked at by one's ot may bc somcthing of a cise. ft is nor clear, for mmplc, whether this cteature des any work 'pcil around the Dcrid household, whcthc she is n adocd princcs i shon what Hd oflife she has. Conprc the 'lok' ofa sheepdos, intensly aler, wairng for a precise signal he know aacdy whar to do wkh. Ad morc 'ha. gcnerally, rccall Vicki Harne's wok o nimalr. in which shc agu6 r rc

ll

qn

Bpilly dogs ud hom - wht would orhcrui* bc unulizcd posibilidc5 i nimals (nu.h s a mcntor might do for
unl@k .h.owh tiniry

on a sdga cncounta c lok of an uimd. At rhe mort rhe oimal\gae flick r rnd plg on.... Thrt look bcven niml
Nowhoc

,oo

guBn6. rJonn Er8.r,_

Afrcr dark,

:ll es

lopards. (Netire Amdi@n Proverb lzunl)

reponse to Vitgenst in's clim that if

lion ould spe,l,

we @u-ld not

understand him, surely dcpcnds on c kind of lifc that lion is lading. Thc qurion rhen rculd bc: nor e manifold shape of e abysol rupturc betwccn "*e men" md "whn we call animali dcpcnd ro sr.t qr.nt o our nod. of nuru,l ensas.dcnt - cirher dirccdy, or indirctly, ecn thmugh thc d imagintio? This is rru. a.n fo thosc n;mals who e uc of our companions - mosdy dogs od ets. For thcrc is om*hing right about the sereotps we ha"c ofdogs and cas - thet dogs *c morc activcy @nerned to

dc

atio
li6,

cvery bir of it, whne .rs t6o 6 just .noh ro s.de .n insutablc nceds. To rcfomult rhis point - I sugstiry that thc quetion of the abys is inscparablc Fom rhc qustion of rhc kind of rcleionship er obtitr b.rw mn d o mimI." Th< rgon rhis is rc is suely at wht wc mean by an rbys is inscparablc fron a 6nurc of rcprc!.drrion, d hisioically cmbcdded forns oflifc arc jur what is hard to rcduc. ro "cp6enrarion. ' Though ifthe er that lools n. hursy ountair lion si$ing i a rce on thc idc of nrow trtl, I do not know quitc whc.c rhc ab$ is to b roud. Wc might oncludc thrt thc sirurion is pcrfecdy tnropr.n. ro ech parq, .hr is, I s.. rhc c:r looking rr nc in tim.. A sstcmatielly worked out elabontion of is point cn bc found the wari' undentanding oftheir cltion with aothcr qt - thc jaguar.ro Thc $fari' rc Soutl Americao tibe who used ro pncric tunerary qnnibalhm, ad who p;dc .elv.s on thejr hutins biliti.s. Thcn wod fo "j.sur" literally mcos "onc who klls ro ct," ud thc most dangcrou prcdaron in th. Am@ni minforcst. So tu o good. But thc wai' dont iust note e panllcl bcrwen thcmselva as huntcr ud thc jagur. They havc a tuy blown

shue a

il

iaur *

IHlumn and iasuir pespeaiv$ on raliry are mirror imags of cach other. . . . wari , ofcoursc, paccivc themseles es poplc md e jaguas r aind5. ro. rhen pa.t, ho'oe., jasus pcrc.ive rhems.lvcs * pcope, nd sc. \X/i' a jsua6. ... whcn a iaguar attacks a peron ... an odinary pcron . .. rc the jrg@ o a ftlinc with daws ud reth wdking on all fous. ... e jam, howoe, se himself * mn *dhng uprisht aod orying a bow md armws. .. . \h.n rhis jgu/hur.r meets pMn, to the jsus.y6, he looks likc a jaguar, so he shoots it.rl

\le

could ofcouae uguc rh:t rhis bclief h simply a wy ofcovering up the rel aby5s b.rwem man and j8uar. But thc \rari'ljagar ;dcntifieton s bed horh on a common being-in-the wo d (hnrind, ,nd rhe facr rhrt each is prey for hc orher. Fof he Wari , ifa jrgur could sp.ak, of@uae we ould undcntod him. All too well. Ad his sens. of broed eqaliry dd rfriprocity of, b<i8-ncommon beveen huans and aimals cxhibited by Vai'betie6 is lcs exotic thrn n night sm. reecring the shared sumptions of pre-indunial, preurban culture ewrywhere. \V have qpnded ihe @. etegory to mrke the point that e ch.er of rbe abys h ahered by rhe qualiry of rhe man/oimd relarionship. \le might think th.r rhe deepsr abysso would risc whec wc have very little engagcmerr

wnh oher lif.-fo.ns. And yer depite D.rida's disrusr of homogcnous

biological continuities, the way hc amplifis our undeatanding of animal life in rhc ihird pn fhis esk on tie rbysal rupturc surely oFcrs ur a surprising slimps. ofsome so of bridgc over rhe ab)ss. His 6sr chrcrciation ofniml lile is "a hererogenous muhipliciry of rhc livirg." Th;s gers redncd into "r mukiplicity of orgoiations of eltions betwen living ud dead." And ycr surely ris formulation opens the po$ibilicy of eil co!iuiry mons orher life-foms, ud bcrwen rhat mukipliciry and oumlvcs. For rhis acour i' bny bblrsiI I. .guaily o . . . writio& to "culrure" in general, p.rhaps lt/ould Plo hve blk d ar rhe sugcstion rhr philosophy to philosophy itrlt^ppltes "mediaed clrions b<wen life nd derth'? No. he would hve uked for n acknowledsment. Derrida himftfhs blen th ld in demotrrBrinstl. The irony would be that it is prccisely a non biologiel discourc of life thar ould epply equally to the huma nd th. nolhuman, problematizing rcmohat thc idca of an abysal rupturc.' If cosidcrion ofou log historyoformany differcnt pra.tici cng.gementr wit}r inls problenatirs thc idea thar ec is oy global sructure of rhe byss, howvr complexly foldcd, rhis o lcss ru for rhc rymbol;c rolc of '' nimls i hman sociery. Rthc rhan pursuc this cnormous ropic hcrc (ir eocompcses much ofrhe othropologiel Inerarure, as rcll as Vestern folkloic rrdrion) allow mc to mk obscration: hr mn/ nihak rc sybolely dcploycd u boundar negoriarns operators, serymrs hemselvcs, thr is, of abys ar leasr. Coyote, fox, spider. cat, jackn, iaguaCr - hve ell ben given rh wo.k to do-edueting mc., briging6.e, mediarig thetmsition bctwen lifc anddcath, ctc.llc perbaps lern moc bour how humns prcject onto imls rhan ayth;ng about rhcse anmls rh.ms.lv.s, lthough, * we mentioned wkh "rhedomcrc cr and dos," rhe boundaryb.ng mnased yery concree one dinension 's - the hman dwelling. But it might b. just this symbolic/projecv. rhar we necd ro have in vio whcn rrying ro underrand rhat ennal practie many humars engage thar of eating meat, underdetcmincd, mosr admit, by our nccd for protcin. Th drivns force ofHegel's accounr ofthe lifeand'deah srruggle is each parry's demonstration ro the othc thr rh.r. s soerhing ihey velG morc thm lifc itsell by being willing ro risk then lic. Mighi nor the letnimacl of meaoeating rest, alben psriousl)', nor on our clear suoeioitv ro lhc animal," but on our nccd ro demosthtc rhis ove. d

,,

in

D.rda's lysis of rhis issuc ir p.ofoud. ln a brcahrkidg lysis dawiog tosrhc th. shme aod trudry of Adm nd Evc, Ciin\ *ns of Fuk and cie, Bdlcphron's od.sry, nd Prom(hcu' @mp.nstory gii of fr. to n othcNi k d nd vulncrable m, Dcdida rsu.s th( wh. unnes both biblicl and Grek mh is a disrincive way of undcrmding thc propt privilege ofman o'er thc animal. a way pethaps ch*acteistic ofthe Vat. The
invaiablc schcma n rha

what is proper ro mm, his sup.rio;ry or dd subjstion ofthe mimai .. . his cmergence our of naturc. his sociality. hh accc ro kno*l.dg. a"d tehnic... all that is prope to m would derive liom thtu oritidryfalt, idccd fom thk dcfauh n ptopriery - and ftom thc impeativ. th( 6ds r h its imp.friive d rdilierce. (413)

This pasegc is thc key to rhe "conccn" of thc whol< prper, thar the quation of autobiognphy is t}at of my tztl, od n thc quction oftrurh in gencnl, and z7 rruth in prculr is ale srructurcd by this losic ofr6rirution, prlng ba.[, mking go, pning ight, rding o original fault. Mm n disrincrivc in lowing h. naked, ncding to & cloed, supplcmcnted widr tcchnics (likc fic, od, m night add, wnting od oen philwphy), arc of his lack Thc uinl sadly, blindiy, jr liv6 n or liv6 out irs impoErishcd position. This is thc ko7 to e primal cne with rlr ca, ehich ,nimal sces my nakdness. Thcrc is an implioton praliel pohapr wi Niewhc's rcognition that whilc mcn prcjet m impcnurbablc
silcnce onro women, ose r.fir-uilcd ships on rhc horion, womcn know benc - thet on bod it is all chattc ad coliio.l That wncn haw ofren ben uught

ro reifie thcm*lvc for mcn sugas tht pllcl logic continuc. God: prcfcrcnc for Ahd over Crin hx ro do, it is *id (and pcrhapc this is ome of thc point of c srory ofAbmlam ud luc), r1 hic willingns o engc in imal *cri6cc. And thcpointoftht, * I undcrtud it, s at n isn 6mation ofou disdncrivc privlese ovcr c ninai's mce nhas ofheing, and more broadly of oui non-natud saru'. Amls, cn, ac slarts d sccial ofcrings to our nccd for ritud synbolic confrmation ofour p<ulid *lf-undcrtanding. v/< y s''mis thi rh (dtcnl) uinl wc cr *rds in fo thc (intcrnl) ird * u* overcome. And by adng, of.oum, w. in.mla On this radi8, our divorour viol.ne rowds orhc uimat would rwe x a mrk ofou ciliation, ud hcnce indircdy lcgitimate all kinds ofothc olecc. If wc rc to targcr ryrhing fo rmsfomanon it would bt this culturc (o should wc say <ult) offault od sacificc. Derida's blliace lics in tncking it along the

etegory ncdiaron - ihc E$.pri. jckl god Anubk prdided ovfi th cmbalming of the dead - we pcrh:ps fiDd nt'cipatons of c cooccns of philophy itscll For much ofth. work ofphlcophy hc beo ro relioe the dm:ge done to our thinking by ric igid aetmcm of opposirios (r.ting

Finally, to the qrcnt rh nimls have ban dcployed mhologicelly

er.go.i6 d deprve) -

such

life/death, mind/body,

rlf/orho.

S?..t$ of Ma't' w. he lis* rcn plagua of hc concmpon), wold,r Derid dcs nor hcsnate i rhs *lcton to li$ ny of thc horrific ways n s,fiich wf rrer animls (394 t), 4cn using rhc word genocidc.r, "No onc can deny the unpreedented proportion of this subtdion of ih. ind. such a subjction ... o bc ollcd violce i c mos norely ral s.rBc"
As

ir

(394).1 "EErybody lors rhis," he rcpeats rhcroricdly. His poinr Qoing bac]< to c dtlc ofthc cuy) is th:t we havc hcrc somcdring qtc as indubiublc o D6di6i ogiro. Id.cd, r hc put' ir. "k pn ed6 rbe idubirble" (391, cvcn though ;r copic rhc opposite rclational pole (ori.nred ro rhc orh., nor thc sclo. Bur he is / insisting rhar we ned o rc rhe depcr picturc rcffetcd in rhis liry of ngish. His mswcr is t fu hundred ycr' go wh.a Beorhn insisred r rhe rcal qusdon wr nor whcrhe! rimls could ik o spcak, bu "Co they oFa?" - ocrhing changed. B.niam iMusu.acd a recnal from considcring eimals n terms ofthcr powcrs, .o considedog.Ieir

mr w:g.d orcr c manc of piry . . . w ... b.se rho* who violaG dinr f. br d.r d al60 rh senrinet of

Vht

wc havc

wnn*d
..

is

conpasion, /399)

ud.

tho* who apped to an nrctutablc terimony

ro

rh piry.

Dcnid ins;s we need " ro rhink" i! w, n i{ pssins rhroush citicl shasc, and thar rhinltlng is w L dhlisrio. fo. .ch of us.

'h

Daono, I would only mnr to sry rhar hc dis@ntiouiry hc sw bean nimals and hunan beings *rs rhe rauh of incomplca
Gcning beck to

itrfordoD. (Cors)r'

Howqc. dr's.rou! n nishr bc o dnir rhcm, i would bc jusr u foolhh to dismiss rh my "continuitie" bcrwc humro od oimall It is tclling thet in rh. 6fth ofhis Cn Mdiatio*.ao Hlusrr.{ eddcssc rh. quesion ofrhc othcr by rcfercne to ny "animatc orgennm." And it ould wtll bc asued dut much compsiod we fel fo r}lc physical pein of oth.r huas is drcctly aadztlc oihut twhtio m orhc mmmds.{ ls not Dcrida s 6rm srnd

aginst "homogcnous contiuiry" arldt in tnsionwith thc org:nismic undcrpionings oflh co'npisio? Perhps hc poinr is tht wc nst rry not to allow our moral imagioation to cd wi tho* crcaturc who t b tuction likc u5. Ad tht ir is where obviou @nriui.s brcal down rh.r e crhcd becins. To bc morally embred ir fiould nor be n<*ary ro bc tury (like a qr).he c' is drc ercmplary obiccr of @mpson - dpr6ivc, cuddly, mrm-blodcd mamm|. Thcre ue or'shclrcrs mny prr of rhe wold. C* bool ac publi'hos phnneno. Bur .ompion ha ns l;mits - marked pcrhps by I-cvin's doubr abour rh. facc of thc snakc. Perhaps we @uld propos. iNr@d an ob.etiu copsion, which do, a fi o posible not :o bc limitcd by our acoel epacicy tor fcllow-fceling, and reognia "life itself," in ach of;rs forms,

6 addcsing 6. This is rso to regst. a conc*n thrt bcirg ablc to "rddrcs the huan," in thc peronal way araihblc to Dcrrida's c:t. might bc rco high a bar
for bcing prorccred againsr violence,

Only conftcc. (E. M. Forsrc.) Dcnida lists our many abues ofnimis, nd rhen &mes rhis two-century saga trs of 'er on piry." k is eo. noting, howa.r, that *cn if"*cryone ktm" ach of rhe itcms o the lnt (394-5) (nd. in fct, many arc isnorut of c ongoing mrh of nas sp.ci$ diinction), very f.w put all rhis rogcther at one c. I is it noi clcar rht wc aI havc such a ll picru.c, *h'tc'c. inrerprctation wc subrcqucndy m:ke. Ihc fat th* thcre is no strong populu vision ofanother way forurd is.l$.riical. A supplcmcnt to inking the wa on piry, wc arc pcrhaps t timc at which rwo boad prcsa arc moving in opposire direcrions; c fi$t ir thc srowing imponancg of it l.onn ct.d pk"nn ,' (in its qreme form thc "9lo6l cnvircnmcnt.l cisis"), ud rhc seco ir c soth of an ind.dr@r adniaktacd micy whi rhc kd of knowlcdgc nccdcd for global citiznship has littlc local vrluc, od polnid power is ued to shchq our widc<ycd endve of ignor.e dd rrcsponsibility from t}Ic immcdiatc consequencer of rhen foly. l i, ihporint o ot. here a damatic shii in thc poliri.t Elu. of wht m;ght broadly be ca.lled rhe posrmodcrn, *cre rht h identin<d wirh he cridque ofgrand nanativc, r cruin irreduciblc pcspctivism, rd dri-rcalism. For h givc' a 6eld d:y to thosc wirh a senuin. eppec for *old-histoical domina.on. Dcrrida har ncvcr bccn r postrnodcraisr. Thc producivc cnsion in his wok s now bcrwecn r gcnuincly muki-lbld.d coosrru<rivsm, in which vriour lodcs inreeave and ply i]!cmselv.$ our whh!' a broadly narialisr hismry (logic ofthe gifr, logic ofsrcrie, logic of shmc, guik and fult, etc.), d wht I would ejl a h.dolosicd skcprickm, which woutd S@.aicdly wk out rllc backom dalr, ih. byrsl cackr ir ny and dcr), @ns<nsul complacency. Pcrhaps bc,ecn thcsc rwo peds, wc should not choo*, ocn if w. houghr wc ould. Do uimals ned our pity? Thc "rw on piry" is su.ly much getcr in scopc rhe th. diml world. Crinly thc US. wh.. child povcny 6 vegc @c. 20 pcraDt, hder thn y Empen @ud6, longsid. trarer GNP rhn any ountry in the history ofthe world, s wt cteds o thc poor ud to *ial minoridcs. Thc rolc of rcc in limidng piy s.ln delr cnough *hen we ldk at the *lctirc bis fo inrcmarionl mi|nry inedcnrion. Rlmd n, Bosnia y6. Onc of thc complicaring ftcrors n rhc "wr on piy' rhat most pcoplc have a *cll'doclopcd rnse of pi./; it\ just that w collud. with.ch o!he. o veil fom ouelvs the cciom that would surcly olicit it. Much of the bbaric interfa curo bchid clord door - in abnoir, lbomroric, sro'indurril produaion unns, at thc cnd of long ddv*ys. This suggeB rhr we .e, on "depion," on \elf-dcprion," od, ya, on thc ignoraocc rhar knows

frr

mny ihngs br

dcs

nor

cosd

them.

lirsr it must 5., ii is evcn then immediately drawn up into a elculation at it wodd prefer to hrve avoidcd.r Thc clasic dilcmma hee is a ofrhc butralo rhat falk rhrcugh .he winrcr ic a Ycllo*rode Nadonal Pk- The nngcs @1!6cue ir, bur in doing so would deprive the local bss (and cubs) of food. More brodly is ponrs to s.nuine anflic berwen animaj r;ghts advetd Guch d Ssred Rsan) add environhenialisrs Gu.h d Call.o nd Hlmes Rolsor' ll). The formcr fcus largel), o pdces ffatins dcnumenble individul omals, usually those uder huma control or managcrnenr. Tc lancr dcd wnh ccosystcms, with wys of p.omoting hcltfiy bddces bcrwan diffcrcnt spcics, etc. This h* rcproduced ocicnt splits berwen indjviduakn md holisn to such a point r}lat polniel objecions haw becn aiscd again* srong vcnioru of rny such holm. Aldo Lropold, a i6dy famou pionee ofthe lud cthic oncc eote 'A rhng is ighr whcn it tcnds to prcewe thc int.griry, rbiliy, dd Seauty ofthe bioric comnuniry. It is mong whcn k rcds othcoisc."aa Somc have responded with the charge of eco-fai.hm," for the apparenr wilingncs ro e.ic somc eninals (even hnsl) .o rhe g@Er good.6 It k clar cnough

If the quction of pir),

is undcnrood ndividualsrically,

ha

enviromeui

rhr thc sme Benrhm who sid ihr'Th. quesrion is: Can rhey suffer" hd a his motro not a qreson bur n exhots r.tion CaLaLna ("t- v cd.ulak!"). As rilibrid, h housht into tndcaft o he s.r. \vh.r Derrida scs * thc momcnt of'pasiviry (movint Gom : powc ro thc epacity to sutrcr) s imm.ditely obj.ct6cd. Jsr s rh. 'r,/ enters Ldinss fc.{o'f.c dyad, b . qu.srion of comprson, idgmcnt, in which cmpNion s nor catcuJation is alwzys o th. horizon. Th. followed by omprison ac d.cprions. Ifrhde is war on piry, k is, I bcvc. a conscqucne of what, und.r .n'dos hisoici condnos (mssive humao populadoo apmsion and "doelopmenJ), is a nasary commodifaton. And

comps(ion. k should be

llcd

be dcalt

th ir bv individurl

66

thar

wr onnot

be fought without addresins its undedlng

eus.

Environm.Dialism k p.eps anothcr owl flyins at duk. Nor i] environmentli'$ sharc rhe conccrn fo balancc and harmony. Some *rs hc valuc of chmse, den drmatic choge, dd see he plt as dynamic, turbulcnr placc. Bur rhc logicl conduion ofrhn h rhr rhe M:n might bc,a Fouoult purir (in a slighd/ ditrcrct sensc), "eoed like'pci. a fce dmwn in sand at c cdge ofthc sa."{? Ifwe *nd rwo-rhids ofthe spcd6 on le ple idro cxrinction, then die our ourslva, wc cn sume that dolurionary forcs would corinue, and perh:ps r n<p dominnr sp.cies, lcrs prcdispocd to violcnc, would emerse in a fcw million ycer. One would have to bc vrry paricnt, ud very dcrached to acquiere ;n a prc.s w'$ such ourcome. llhen one e8ccts on wher cactly is bcins lost by th drmric disposelofrhe fruir ofevolution, and whcc onc omo by thc valu* in pley in proesriflg such a loss, rhe a'rcB emerg sccmigly unbiddcn c surprising and itercsring. \Ve seem to vduc divcniry for its own ske, but lso for thc sakc of rhc ddelopm.nrd possibiliri.s r mdimiz6. A diye$ g.ne pool enhucc thc chenes fo individual adaptation rd sunival. And that sems to ptumore n.reeingly complex orgisms, and relriorhips bctw.cn them. Wc

valuc thcsc things wnhout spciGc rcfcrence ro the humn - rhar is, *c can imes;n v.luiDs anorher li+rrem rht hd he prop.ni6 wirhou n inclnng Harro lf we are gratctul for our capcry to apprcci:rc 'pi.rx. ^n\t\ing rhcsc rhings, bu what we a.c pp<aring wms to hrv. intinsic !du.. tuer than just osting asidc this ufshiomblc thought, wc might consider onc posiblc cxplmrtion for this - hat n is noi so much thar t\is buoym nturc ;nrinscvdu., but R!h.r that omc such oubcror prcduaivity lie at the hcm

it

n diffcrene, but symptoms of@m'ns.risis, ndw.wcrc to look ound fo the ofthc imbalncc wc would find li& unril wc lokcd dwn at rhc ground on which we are suding - thc aplosiw gro*th in the humm population. h ;s rhat, morc rhan anhing, that fores the rroum choces in which we gain, rnd orhc uimds (;ndeed entire sFcis) lo*. Ad hea I am not conviccd tbt

lf

inded our envircnmetal "problems" arc not

j6t

n advcnru.

oue

Dcnidt ct ha neow (or tcerh) s$ors cnoush

rc addrcss rhe

ralc

"f

such

,4s I prom;*d, I have strcngly suppofted D.ida\ p6it;on, md vigorously, I hopc, cntcrcd into dnical di.logu wi ir. I (tur ilth is thc kind of repon* hc cdling for. k wd els respons o all ninls who have lookod to us hrmans for eliel md a epons< o tho* who havc o od d*d will addrds us. One ofmy c"ncerns is ar therc is, ifonly in a rcsidual way, a cenain hubrir in iroisdng on bcing addrcxd by m enimd (once we hrvc disovccd tht this is posiblc!). Much of rht ro which we do violee h no ne, nrer know our nme, and not ddrss u. Vc mut pcrhaps begin with the rupt6 in rhe fmilT, thc wc od at hoo- But w. mut te stcp otrthc porch and rcflect on the violene that ;s b<ns donc in our nmc, wiour ou knowirs it, nd the violcncc happcning bchiod thc back ofhistory mcrcly a aggrcgated on*qucne of thc individually reonable things we do. Volce is nor, I belec, naruol humn disposirion. O. if ;t is, i( @ bc cvilied, e condirions o! which i( rhrv.s srocd of sustenancc. The rhrear of violcna-uoon-violcne borh fo humns and orhe animels, comes

wt

dc

ll

uony

lrsely fron incrcasins conpenniof' fo. sa.l.. rsou.c, drive! b/ ou. ow unprecdcntcd *pmsion of number. Thae arc oimisr who arsc rhat rhe humo population will lvclotr- themue.w.t frydchild.cn. Bur JRu4c cunenrly consrrucd would put s.sre prsswc rh sc o the plcas lnncd
repudiarion ofour nuow anthropocnrric selfishnss, to rrgue for monl evolution beyond a speic rribdnm. But paciGsm cannot be rcl on to peent wd. Instcd we need o comc to reognir thr our inre.<st, our inrcrase, our bdg<onncacd, bcingrelaterl, is in nccd ofenlightcnmcnt cvn for rhc g.ke ofour own snivl. \Ve ed ro omc to recognia that depcndenc - od inter-dependency - is the nameofthe sime. An rh.n we ned not fea the impuriry of motive at would svc ou.s.lB long whh rhe plaet.
s

It

t npdng to otl fr a dicres&d

pity' tdb ooty pcn of c sory. Wc ccd wr on thc culpaNc blindncrr r hilcs om u drc sita t *hid comF io'r i Folog" iczlly ruppnscd. And w ncd * on rlrc avimnnocl damcion tlu i mdriplying rlc occadorx cdling for coclr piry l wt ney rill pocect* Evilo[ttcrrlis i! dE owl ofMincrE for ou d'nc. ks rcrcccl om on h;gh dei ifw do or hDt rog.d, w *i[ rfty hg 6cp.nrcly. Folowig ou o*n rrrls a rod ro nowhcc.
In thc
drc

cd

'wu

on

f!o-rES

-rO

PAG

ES

116

ll.. i..i possrblc tirat votr rhink of me? ... Do I rclly cxist?' ... tha rvc do Irot l'rave, denttting scliwithout thc cgo)" t()-i. I.crvis (.arr<rll, I'ltrough the Looking()Ltss,it't'L-hc (.otrtplt''\l',r;i',i ,tl

'l

ll'.lil:trlfrtl(,rl fitr

rr

u'ord.

Ittti: (.rntl/(NcwYork:

" M6<lerrr Librarv, 193(r), p. 2(r8. I)errid;r useri l-cu'is (-rrrroll. 1., ,ttlt'trtts r/'Alice rllt /)d)ts des nten,eil/es" et "()e qu'Alice trluud de l'autre t/ 1tt ntirolr'. trans.,|acqr.res l)apv, ccl. Jearl (iattcgno (Paris: (lallimard, 1994). - l'rans. "Chasser": also "to l'runt." - Trans.

m<rdcrn French rhe noun, unc bta, is Irtrnlallv ttsecl to t-tteatt "ttttimal" rvith a slightli' fanriliar serlsc; as adjective bte n'tcans stupicl. Line btisc, rvhicl-r I havc taken the libertv of translating below with the necllogis nt asirtattity, mctlls a "stLrpid tt-tistrrkc" or "idiocy." -'l'',tt.tt"1d." 'frans.

In

Cla. also

THINKtNG 1
Scc " 'lrating

WITH

cATS

(DAVID

WOOE,)

2 .l

Well,' or rhc Calcrilrtion of the Subject, trans. ['e ter C<nnttr and Avital Roncll (Stanfbrd, (]A: Iir.rtervicw rvith Jean,l.uc N:rncyl , in L)erridr's Points ... Intcrttietus 1974 94 Stanford LJnivcrsitr. Pres.s, 1995). In this paper l)errida notoriously develo-rs the idca of a gcneraliz-ed carnophallogclcetttrisnt. For the ftrll dctails, scc rhe note aprencled to the sclccti<ttt fl'orn [)erric]a in this book. -fhcre is sorcrhing uncarlny, filr mc ar lcast, in l)crrida's pursr-ring here rhe thenle tlf fbllorvine in an autobiographical context. A year lrcfirrc prcsertting a PaPer at Essex entitlecl "Hcidegger afier l)errida" (198(r) I frrr-rnd Inyself at a Dcrrida confereuce in Chicago siated to prcscnr rl'rc paper jusr bcfore l)crrida's paper.'l-he hall was packed with reople nlakir.rg sr-rrc thcv hacl scats firr the firlkl.ving paper. Mv paper was entitlcd "Follorving Derrida." M1' 'l'birtleitry after Heidagn (Oambridge: Polity I'}ress, 2002) continues the same n'reditatiotr or.t the rnanv sctrses of "follorv" in Bnglish' ir-rclr"rding "utrderstaud."
"'l'l-re Aninral 'l'het I'herefirrc I Anr (lr'{txc Jacques [)errida, Oriricttl lrtquirl, 28 (\/intcr 2002), pp. 369-41 t3'

to Follou')," trans. David \lills,

5 []rcrn.r A. A. l\{ihrc, V/innic-7-be'l'ooh (NcwYork: Pcnsttin, 1996), chap. -3, p. -}2. (r l)errida's cat firsr c:rnle r() nrv rlttcnti()r't it't 'I'he Git'i rl'Deatl. rrrns. David V/ills

(Chicago:

LJnivcrsityofOhicagol)ress, 1995),p 71:"Htxv*'otrldyoLrjtrstifr,thcfactthatv<ltrsacrifice all the cats in the world to thc cat that vou fecd at homc o'crv ntortting fttr I'ears ... ?" His rherne will bccomc r.r.rosr ap-ro5ite ro this papcr Atraharn's willingness ttt sacrificc Isaac illurninates rhc "aporia of responsibilitv" that afflicts rll o{-us when wc acquire special attachmenrs. We fincl ourselvcs infinitel,v betr:rving e\eryonc clse. ()n thc rvhttlc, Dcrrida ar!{Lles that the abyss alrvays threarcns our colnplaccncies, whilc I tend to rcsp<tnd that the abyss is alwal's l-ristorically and contcxtuallv lramecl. 'l'lrornas Nagel, "Vhat Is It l-ikc to Be a \\',tr?", I'hilosophical Ret,ieu,, 83, no. 4 (Octobe r
1974),

pp.435-50.

B 9

il
12

r3 t4

l5

l6

Rcirtgart/ lVothingr: [1943], trans. Hazcl Barnes (l.ondon: Methr-rcn, 198(r), Part III, chaP. I, section IV: "-fhc l-ook," p.259. llnrmanuel L.evinas, 'l'oraliq, and Infittity l19(rIl, trans. Alrhonso Lingis (l)ittsburgh: f)uquesne Universitv Press, I 969). 'l'his is In Being and lVothittgtess ()57) he clcscribes thc structure ol'"Be ing-seen-br'-anothcr." thc general structure of his plav No Exit. 'l-hc Prouoctttion o/'l.euirtas; Retbinking the Otlter, cds. Frtrn-r "'I'he Paraclox of Moraliq'," in Ilobert Bernasconi ancl L)irvid'$l'ood (Loncftrn: Ror.rrledge, l988), pp. 168 80, p. 172. l). H. Larvrcncc, "'l-hc Snakc," in Contf/cte l'oents (H.trtnondsworth: I)engtrin, 1994), P.349. '\X"ent Vrong," in 'l'hc Step [Jack; 7|urds a Ncgttiue Capabi/it.y See rnr. "Vhere l.cvinas (Albanv: SIINY Prcss, 2004 [ftrrthcomingl). '['bc Anitn/ 7'hat 'l'here-fore I Am, P. 379. 'l'houeh it is clc:rr rve would have no coqnitivc caPacitl, without ge neral terntsl Derrida's orvn rvords are : "At the risk ttf lteing rnistakcn and of hal'ing onc clay ttl tnake hgnorable amends . . . I lvill vrnturc to sav that ne\cr, on thc part of anv great philitsophi' fronr l)lato to Hcidcggcr, or anronc ar all r'r.'l'ro takcs tln, as a phi/osttpltit'a/ qttestiort in and oJ itsalf, rhc quesrion called that of the animal and of the limit bctu'ecn the animal ancl thc

fwo-rES

-ro

PAGES

133_13

agairtst the general singula that is /r

hunran, havc I nitticed a prctestation oJ'prittcipl'. and especiallva proresrarion of consequence it2,tl." In facr, in my essa\"'Cgmntet nc l)as mager: l)econ.struction and Humanisnr", n Atintt/ Oiltol cd. H. I)erer Steevcs (AlLranv: SUNY, 1999). pp. 15-36, p. 29, a paper originallv presented at the conferencc "-I-hc l)cath of rhe

Anirnal", Universiry of 'Varwicli, Novcmber 1993, I rake [)e rrida hinr.self to rask fbr his unthinking usc of thc rvorcl "aninral" and "the animal": "lt is instructive . . . rnd yet perhaps as llecessarv as it is a limitaticln, tl-rat f)erricl:r uscs the word.s'animal'rtr'the aninrrl'- as if
this were nttt alreadv a firrm of deadening shorthancl. Human/anirnrrl (or lt4an/anin-ral), is of coLlrse otte of :r set of tttpositions which anaestherizcs ancl hierarchizes ar rhc- verv samc rimc as it allows tls to continue to order our lives. Br-rt ... there are r.ro animals'as such,'rather onlr. the extraordinary varietv that in the animal alphabet rvoulc1 beein with anrs, ape.s, arachnids, aardvarks, anchovies, alligators, Amcricans, Australians . . ." \Vho is firllorving u'horn? l)errida and I arc pcrhaps plaving leapfrog. Lacan's "svntbolic" stage reflecrs thc same ambivalencc - tl.re acqr.risirion of language is both a

17

1l l9 20 2l 22 23 24

25

of l,acrn in his "Ancl Sav rhe Animrl Il.espondcd," tn Zoorxologies. 'fbe Questiott oJ'tbe Aninal ed. Can,Wolfc (i\{inncsora: Univcrsiq, of Minncsora l)rcss,200-3), which fbrrncd part of thc original 1997 Cerisy presenration. 'l'he list would incluclc macl, rerrorisr, criminal, er.il. In On the ()enea/ogt rf'Mordls, Nietzsche writes rhar narure ser irsclf the task (rvith man) of creating a crelrllre with "rhc right ro malic plomises." 'I-he ethological or fielcl studies approach of Niko T-inbergen is a good exarlplc here. t.udwig 'Wittgcnstein , Pltilosopbic,t/ Inuestigrrtions (C)xford: Blackwell, 196-l), p. 223e . What is true for narning xppcar\ irt nother levcl up, so to spcak, ir-r the battle over assigning nloncy valrtes to natural amcnities like watcr, n)ouniaills, crc. Sornerimes, to have a chance of rvinning you havc to play thc garne. But rvhat if, ulrimatelv, ir we rc uot e gemc? For tl-ris rnd other similar statistics sce [-le Eortlt S.ystent, cd. Lee R. Kurnp e t al. (New Jerscv: Prentice-Hall, 2003). 'fhe clcspair evinced by pronouncements about tirc cata.stnrrhe aheacl lrv pcople like Paul B. F.hrlich has to do t'tot rvith the fact that rhcrc are still sor-nc skeprical oprimists, but thar fer,v peoplc in a positiot-t to makc a differencc hirvc the reguisite combinarion ol'knorvledge, cottrage, intclligencc, ancl imaeinatior-r to pr()rn()rc eonvincinglv anorher parh. For a clear irccoLlnt clf the lcgal frarnelvork in which gir.ing a voice ro rhose u,irhour voicc makes scttsc, itt an cven less promisir.rg terrain, see Christopher Srclr.re, "Should'frees Har.e Starrding?" 11972), in .Should 'I rees Htn,e Standing nd Orher .rszz (l)obbs Fcrrr', NY: Oceana, I996).
power and a subjugation. See Dcrridr's disctssion

26 IIt:rtr cxtraordinan book, J. M. (loctzcc's character F.liz-abeth (.ostcllo exprcsses at least rhe ernpathic part ttf this achicvement in unc()mpr()nriring rclms: "'f irerc arc no bounds ro rhe sylnpathetic irnagination ... I can think mvsclf irrto rhe exisrence of a bar, a chimpanzee, or an
beingwith rvhon'r I share the snbstratc oflife " ('l'/te Lit,es o[Arnu/sfPrrnccron: Princeron tJnivcrsiry Press, 19991 , p. 35). Costello sccms ro share L)errida's scnse rhat rvc rrrc wirncssing ir war over rirv. lJut as I arguc later, r.nuch clf n'hat u'c collecrively do to animals is r.naclc possible bi. a handfirl of htrrans r.vith psvchopatl'ric prociivitics, rvhilc rhe rcst of trs casr oLlr eyes awa\,. Vicki Hearnc, Adnt\ !-sk: (.allinsAtirmls b. Narnc (New.York: Ilarpcr, i994). Sl-re argr-rcs persuasivelv against the obvious chalge of irnrhropoccnrrism. Is.she, too, scnsirivelv rla.,'ing in the abvssal rupturci A rcvierver u.rites: "-l'hc aurl.rtu bclicvcs thar the rrainins relarior-rship is a ctrmplcx and fiagilc morrl understanclirrg bctrvcen anirnal urd human" (Librau.lount/tl). Tal<er.r from John llergcr's Alout Looking (Nerl' \'ork: Panthcon, 1980), p.2(t. Cited in ( loetzee, Liues of'Anitua/s, t. -14 n. 1 1 . I arguc this 1-roint more generalh'in diakrguc with (.hris Fvnsk ar rhe encl of "Hcidcer:cr'Fr.r l)crrida," in 'l-hinking nfer Heidcgqt'r'(Carr,briiige: I'olitv I'}ress, 2002), esp. pp. 104_5. I drarv heavih'helc on convcrsltions u'ith Bcth (,onklin, u,ho has sruclied tl'ris rribe exrensivell' in the frelcl, ancJ <tn her brilliant (.'onsurning (irie.f: (.-otttpltssiott/1tc (,'nuibltstn tn tn Antzottiltn Soety (Ar-rsrin: Ur.riversirv of 'l'cxas,200 I). (lonklin, (;onsunting GrieJ pp. 186 7.
o\ste r, arr\/

27

28 29 30

3l 32 ln OJ'Spirit: Heideger rtnrl t/tc Question, trans. (,eoflro' Rcnningron

anc'l l{achel llorvlbv

(Ohicago: Universiry of Chrcago Prcss, 1989), I)crrida arsucs rhat ir is problemirric ro sLrgscsr

f{o-rEs

To

PAGES

1 3A-1

4 2

33

(as Hcidcgucr rcpcats) that hutnatrs arc disringuirh.rblt'fr()nr.iirinr.rls bv rhcir arvarcne.ss 6f their rlrvn clearh. Whet kind of alvareness do t.r'crrirv h.irci lvlv first intrcdr-rction to thc jaguar came ir.r e lccrrrrc br (-1.ru.lc Ir:r'i-.\rr:rrrss in rhc lare 1960s. It u'as hcld in the (.ollge dc Francc, ancl thc r()()nr \\:1) tirlldcspirc rhe fact tha ir rvrs reining

34 .15

36 i7

38 .19 40 1+1

rt rvhich the jagrrrrr brings don n tirc tirrnr rhc hcal,cns. As he said violcnt lighrning Hash oLitsi.lc. Lri-.Strauss rarrsccl, and rcperrrecl rl'rc euiltl'sentencc. As he clid so, the bulb fell orrt ,rf rhc ianr.r illuminating rhe lccrcrrl, :rnd rrllcd tlt.tto the Hotlr, casting his paper intcl shad<lrr'. Hc mtlvccl :ru,al' ftrrn tl-rc lcctern intcl ncw light, attcl ntoved ()11 to thc ncxt scntencc. lrvcrything q'as finc. N,{rlrc:rrunruniri<ln for thc nrulriliccted narure tlf thc rnan/rninral abvss? Sce 6)u.\cit'ucr, trans. Walter Kaufhrann (New York: \'inrasc, 1974), sccrio (r0. 'Spe(er s oJ'tTItrx (l-onckrr.r: Routleclgc, 1994), nter litt a brilliarlr anrid()re dlur /i lct/rcig rIrc doctrirlc of the prc-enrptive stril<c clefcnsc rolicv thenratizcs rhc idea of anorher krnd of following, inher-iurncc, and tl-rc presumption clf ownership and lef:aliry, a rhcmc rcrewccl iu "Marx atrd Sons," in G/tostl1, I)entrt'ttion, c,-1. Nlichacl Sprinkcr (l.ondon: Verso, 1999). At rhe "Rctttrns to Marx" confct'cncc, l)aris, l\,{arch 200.i, I prcscnrcd a paper "(llobaliz.arion rirrd Frccdortr" (to arrcar in fL( .\:t('p Bnk) - in rvl'rich I insistcd rhar cnvironrnenral dcstruction nccded ro lrc included in the ]isr of plegues. I)errida agrced. I take up clscwhere thc vcxcd use of'thc cxrression anirnal l-rolocausr (in "'l'hc l'lrilosophv olViolcrlce... , sce below'). Mv r,'iew is thrt the exrrcssion is n,hollv justificd cven if politically divisivt. fhe rcasorls fbr this ale decp, and cotulectcd rvit[i thc clifficultl, rnosr of us lravc i conting to see that sonre social plactices \\.c take ralt in clear-headcdly michr bc Lrrterly ccrriternpriblc.'l-his contrasts with our. shar'dcondsnn:rrion oIall Nazi gertocidal activity. '.I-hc .lttcmpt to corlltecrt thcsc ct,cuts produccs cxtrenle reactions. J. N1. (,octz.ce's Itlizabcrh C,ostellt :rcldresses this very issuc head on (.sec Liws o,f- Anirrutls). And thc conrpalison, originallv madc by Isarc Bashevis Singer, is gaining currenc\,. Sec for cxaurple Clharlc.s 'livtttuettt l)artersort, Ltern/ T-re{.liuht: Our oJ'Atima/s tnr/ t/,c L{r/ttt'aust (New York: Lanrern Botrks, 2002). For a parailel trcatmctrt see Marjorie Spiegcl, fhe Drtdtd Lontt,trisort: Hurnn utd Anintl Slrtuery (Nerv York: lvlirror Uooks, 1997). I offer a str.rdv of the extcnt of ruch'u,irlcnce,,rnd the con-rplicrrl,of pl'rilosophv in violcncc, in "I'he Philosopiry of Violence: 'I'he Vioicncc of I'hilosophy," ro appcar in 7'lte Ste2t Bach. 'l'his remark is rnade [rl'F.lizabeth (]osrclkr, J. M. (-oetz-ee's central ch:rrecrer in 'l'he Liucs tlf Anintls, p. 61. l)cter Singcr's rcspollse to these 'l'anncr. lcctures, included in the voltrnre, is cspccially del ightful. (hrtesian fu[erlittttions, trans. L)orion (.iirns ('l'hc Hauuc: MartinLrs Nilhofl, i9(r0). Husscrl u'ritcs: "Now'itr case rhere prescnts irsclf, as clutsrancling in nrl,priurolclial srherc, a bodv'sin-rilar'to t-ril.tc - rhar is to s:ry, a body rvith cictelnrinariclns such that ir nrusr ellrcr lro a phenomcnal tdiringwith rline -it st'tnts clear u'ithotrt rn()rc adcl that, wirh rhe rransfer of selrse, this bodY must firrthr'virh apprclpriate fi'om minc rhc scnsc: rutttnate org(utirni'[nv
..

. hard. Hc got to fhe part

r

thcse rvortls, thcle was

emphasisl ((.arresian is rlot

Mtdiuions, p.

l1-1).

42 1'lrc point of'saving tt,itltout tr/utsl/ilott

in
bittcclttric proiection. Ir is not
organisnrs. "

these cascs atr:tutliro:tocctrtic projcction at ali.

is rliar oul capaciry to arrrcciarc rhe orher's suflcring It is insrcad a mamrnaloccnrric,lras hi.imans tht w.e fccl phvsical pain, but as "anirnarc

43 Although

this section "(.alcLrlating Pitv" is r t'$p(.)tti( ro L)cnida, ir is nor in fricr:r critiqrre of his broaclcr positiorl at all, which has alw,rvs becn ro insisr on rhc inrpossibifirv of avoiding crleLrlarion, elrd the clangcrs thr alisc if rve rry. 1-he point is, li<lrvevcr, rhar cnvilonmcnrrri collccrrls, howct't:r, do thrtutctr to tunl thc sccnc rvith the crrf inro a privilegccl plinrai scerrc
rtttt/grc:soi.

44 Alclo l.eopol,J, A.\,,tnl (.'otn4, Alntriar'(Nov \brk: ()xfirrcl Uuivcsirv l)ress, 1941)), pp. 224.\. 45 'l'on'r Rcgar.r, 'l'/te Case lb Aniru/llKl,ts (L3crkclcv: LJnivcrsitv of (lalifirrnir l)ress, 198-1). p. 262. 4(, I)ocr (iarv Snycler has srrggesrc,,i thc elrrh u'oulcl lrc letrer oli- ri.ith a 90 pcrccnt snrallcr
hurtrrrn ropulation (see his I Itc l)r,ttticc o/- tbe V''i/d lSan Francisco: Norrh lrornt, 1990], sonrc rolitical rrogrem fi,rm this is qtLitc anorher thing. An cxccllcnr reslx)llsc to thcse chargcs, arguirtg tirr conrrlcrncnr.rrirl'lrerrvecr.r rrnillial rights and cnvir.on'. tretrtal conccrlts, catl be firuncl irl J. 13aircl (.ellicot's "llolistic l:rtvironntcnral l..thics antl tlrc

p. 177).llut dcrivine

,GES

-a42--a70

47
4B

l)r<rtrlem of Eco-lia.scism," in 6is llt.yortl tltt l.nr/ I:thic (Al|>tuy: SLJNY l)rcss, 1999). As I undcrstand it, complcmer.rtarity docs nor inrplv perfecr con\ergcnce, but rerhaps allt>ws r-rs t<r articulate more ef-fcctively what l)e rricle has called rhc srace of the undeciciablc rhnrugh rvhich a clccision nrusr go ro lrc rcsponsitrlc. 'I'hesc are tlre last lincs of F.ucault's 'l-lrc order of"l'bings: Att Archaeolog, rt'the Hunan Sciences (Ncw York: Vintage IJooks, 1g73), p. -187. \7c r-night discovcr that the whole cucstion of-wherher values canltc rlcrived from facts is.r rnisunclerstancling. It cotrld not l)e itsclf a nonnrtivc isstrc withotrt begging thc cuesti<ln.