Beyond the Anthropological Difference

60 Pages·2020·4.512 MB·English

by  Matthew Calarco

ElementsinEnvironmentalHumanities
editedby
LouiseWestling
UniversityofOregon
SerenellaIovino
UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill
TimoMaran
UniversityofTartu
BEYOND THE
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
DIFFERENCE
Matthew Calarco
California State University, Fullerton
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
UniversityPrintingHouse,CambridgeCB28BS,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,NY10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,VIC3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108797375
DOI:10.1017/9781108862769
©MatthewCalarco2020
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2020
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
ISBN978-1-108-79737-5Paperback
ISSN2632-3125(online)
ISSN2632-3117(print)
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
ff
Beyond the Anthropological Di erence
ElementsinEnvironmentalHumanities
DOI:10.1017/9781108862769
Firstpublishedonline:June2020
MatthewCalarco
CaliforniaStateUniversity,Fullerton
Authorforcorrespondence:MatthewCalarco,[email protected]
Abstract:TheaimofthisElementistoprovideanovelframeworkfor
gainingacriticalgraspofthepresentsituationconcerninganimals.It
offersreflectionsonresistingtheestablishedorderaswellas
suggestionsonwhatformsalternative,pro-animalwaysoflifemight
take.Thecentralargumentofthebookisthatthesearchforan
anthropologicaldifference–thatis,foramarkerofhumanuniqueness
determinedbywayofasharphuman/animaldistinction–shouldbeset
aside.Inplaceofthistraditionalwayofdifferentiatinghumanbeings
fromanimals,Isketchanalternativewayofthinkingandlivingin
relationtoanimalsbasedonindistinction,aconceptthatpointstoward
theunexpectedandprofoundwaysinwhichhumanbeingssharein
animallife,death,andpotentiality.Theimplicationsofthisapproach
arethenexaminedinviewofpracticalandtheoreticaldiscussionsinthe
environmentalhumanitiesandrelatedfields.
Keywords:anthropocentrism,anthropologicaldifference,ethology,
intersectionality,ontology
©MatthewCalarco2020
ISBNs:9781108797375(PB),9781108862769(OC)
ISSNs:2632-3125(online),2632-3117(print)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 TheAnthropologicalDifference 5
3 FromSpeciesismtoAnthropocentrism 14
4 AnthropocentrismandIntersectionality 21
5 Indistinction 27
6 FromEthicstoEthology 34
7 BeyondAnimals? 38
8 OntologiesandFormsofLife 42
References 47
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
BeyondtheAnthropologicalDifference 1
1Introduction
TheaimofthisElementistoprovideaframeworkforinterpretingandgaining
acriticalgraspofthepresentsituationconcerninganimals.Inaddition,itoffers
reflections on resisting the established order and suggestions on what forms
alternative,pro-animalwaysoflifemighttake.Centraltomyargumentisthe
idea that the search for an anthropological difference – that is, a marker of
human uniqueness determined by way of a sharp human/animal distinction –
should be set aside in favor of other ways of thinking about human-animal
relations.1Isuggestthattheconcernforestablishingananthropologicaldiffer-
ence,coupledwiththeestablishmentandmaintenanceofaseriesofpractices,
institutions,andideologiesaimedatgivinghigherranktothosedeemedtobe
fullyhuman,remainsoneofthekeyobstaclesonthepathtowardamorejust
andmorerespectfulwayoflivingwithanimalsandothernonhumanbeings.In
placeofthisapproach,Isketchadifferentwayofthinkingandlivingbasedon
what I call indistinction, a concept that points toward the unexpected and
profoundwaysinwhichhumanbeingsshareinanimallife,death,andpotenti-
ality. I then examine this alternative mode of thought in the context of con-
temporaryworkonintersectionality,theenvironmental(post-)humanities,and
relatedfieldswithaviewtowardestablishingdeeperconnectionsbetweenthese
fields and pro-animal research and activism. This work, then, is primarily
written for and addressed to the following audiences: scholars and students
who hope to gain a fuller sense of what is at stake in recent work in critical
animalstudies;advocatesforsocialjusticewhowishtoknowmoreabouthow
animalissuesmightfigureintheirworkforthereconstitutionofasocietythat
eschewsrhetoricsandpracticesofdehumanization;andreadersconcernedwith
environmental justice and politics, who are seeking an alternative way of
broachingthegapbetweenanimaladvocacyandenvironmentalissues.2
1 Anoteonterminology:Iusethephrasehuman/animaldistinction(withaforwardslash)todenote
thetraditional,binarymannerofseparatinghumanbeingsfromanimals;Iusethetermhuman-
animal (with a hyphen) to refer to similarities and differences among these beings that are
nonbinaryandrelational.Asjustnoted,thegeneralaimofthisbookistodeepenthecasefor
eschewingthetraditionalhuman/animaldistinctionandtocreatethespaceforalternativewaysof
thinkingandliving,ataskthatultimatelyrequirestheinventionofalternativeconcepts(besides
“human”and“animal”)thatdojusticetothisrichervision.Likemanyauthorswhoworkonthese
issues,Idesiretomakeuseofanotherlanguageforthebeingsunderdiscussion,butthestandardly
proposedoptions(forexample,thehybridtermhumanimal,orwritingtheterms“human”and
“animal”inquotationmarksinordertoindicateironicusage,andsoon)donotstrikemeas
suitable.Consequently,Iwillusevariouscombinationsandreconfigurationsofthetermshuman
andanimalthroughoutthebookwhileacknowledgingthattheyoftenfailtodotheworkIwould
likethemtodo.
2 Readerswhoaresomewhat newtothese issuesmightfindanearlierwork ofmine (Calarco
[2015])tobeahelpfulprefacetothisElement.Forreadersalreadyfamiliarwiththatearlierwork,
thepresentprojectcanbereadasanattempttofulfilladebttocorrespondentsandcolleagueswho
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
2 ElementsinEnvironmentalHumanities
1.1ThePresentSituationConcernAnimals
The first task on the path that lies before usis to provide a forthright account
ofsomeratherdispiritingrealitiesconcerninganimalswithinthecurrentestab-
lished order. Indeed, for those of us working in the fields of critical animal
studies and animal activism, surveying the present state of animal welfare is
arathergrimaffair.Asthedailynewsofatrocitiesinslaughterhouses,research
labs,jungles,andoceansacrosstheglobeattests,violenceagainstanimalshas
been steadily increasing across multiple registers and domains for the past
several decades. In just the past four decades, the number of land animals
slaughtered for human consumption in the United States has increased from
3billiontomorethan9billion(JonesandPawlinger,2017:131,n.148),while
the annual global production of meat has more thantripled, from 100 million
tonstoover300milliontons(FAO,2014:53).3Atpresent,theglobalnumber
of animals hunted and subjected to violent experimentation runs into the
hundredsofmillionsonanannualbasis,4andthenumberofanimalskilledby
automobiles on roads and highways in the United States alone has been esti-
matedatsomemillionanimalsperday(SeilerandHelldin,2006).
Animalsarealsosufferinginever-increasingnumbersfromtheseverebreak-
down in the biophysical systems and habitats on which they rely. While
climate change is already causing substantial deaths among certain animal
species,increasinghabitatfragmentation,soildegradation,freshwaterscarcity,
and other forms of ecological collapse are poised to accelerate this threat.
Arecentreportnotesthat,since1970,therehasbeenagreaterthan50percent
declineinvertebratespeciespopulationsduetotheseandsimilarcauses(World
Wildlife Fund, 2014).5 While environmental scientists research the breaching
of various “planetary boundaries” that threaten to undercut a “safe operating
spaceforhumanity”(Steffenetal.,2015),thesesameprocessesofdegradation
havealreadyledtothedeathsofcountlessindividualanimalsandtheextinction
of numerous animal and plant species. Pro-animal activists and theorists are
now facing serious questions about what animal liberation might mean when
animals would be liberated into a world and a future in which the ecological
haveaskedforfullerdiscussionoftheideasonindistinctionbroachedinthefinalchapterofthat
book.
3 TheFoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNationssuggeststhatthisnumberwill
increase to 455 tons by 2050. For more on this and related numbers, see Alexandratos and
Bruinsma(2012).
4 Thereisnosingle,agreed-uponsourceforthesestatistics,butallattemptsIamawareoftotrack
thenumberofanimalshuntedandsubjectedtoinvasiveexperimentsonaglobalbasispinthe
numberwellintothehundredsofmillionsperannum.
5 SeevanDooren(2018)andLorimer(2015)forinformeddiscussionsofthestakesandconse-
quencesofanimalextinctionfromaperspectiveconsonantwiththeargumentdevelopedhere.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
BeyondtheAnthropologicalDifference 3
infrastructure on which they depend is no longer functioning sustainably
(Best,2014).
Just this small sampling of the stark realities of animal lives and deaths
provides ample temptation to believe that mounting any serious resistance to
the established order is essentially hopeless. Alongside these difficult facts,
however,itmustbenotedthatinrecentyearstherehavebeenimportantpolitical
successes concerning, and improvements in the lives of, animals. Just as we
hear daily of atrocities committed against animals, we also hear of: animals
being released from labs and given new lives in sanctuaries; friends, family,
colleagues,andstudentsbecominginvolvedinpro-animalpolitics;andserious
policy discussions concerning animal rights and welfare among the broader
public. In brief, although the present is heavily tilted in the direction of
increasingviolencetowardanimals,therearegrowingnumbersofindividuals
and organizations becoming passionately involved in contesting anti-animal
violenceandextinction.
Itwouldnotbeinaccurate,then,tosaythatwefindourselvesinthemidstof
what philosopher Jacques Derrida calls a “war ... over the matter of pity”
(Derrida,2008:29).6Hecharacterizesthiswarasastrugglebetweenthosewho
inflict violence on animals and deny responsibility for it and those who insist
on compassion for animals and protest the violent nature of the status quo.
Derridanotesthatthewarisunevenlydividedatpresentintermsofthenumber
and force of those who support either side. In relation to the hegemonic
anthropocentric order, he suggests that those who defend compassion for
animals have “minority, weak, marginal voices” (Derrida, 2008: 26). Yet, he
isconfidentthat,despitethiscurrentinequalityinpowers,thewaroverpityfor
animals is going through a critical transitional phase that will lead to funda-
mental changes and improvements in how animals are treated (Derrida and
Roudinesco,2004:71,73).
Whether such shifts toward increased compassion will in fact continue is
somethingIwillnotspeculateonhere.WhatIdowishtounderscore,though,is
that struggles for animal justice are indeed passing through a critical phase,
althoughIwouldcharacterizethisphaseinslightlydifferenttermsfromthose
that Derrida uses. The crucial matter for us to understand is that even as pro-
animalresistanceisincreasing,suchadvancesinstrugglesforanimaljusticeare
beingeclipsedbytherapidexpansionofanimalviolenceduetoanthropocentric
economicglobalizationandecologicalbreakdown.7Thus,theverynatureofthe
6 Forathoroughandpenetratingaccountofthiswarfromadistinctlybiopoliticalperspective,see
Wadiwel(2015).
7 AlthoughIhavehereemphasizedanincreaseinpro-animalpoliticsamonghumanbeings,itis
crucialtonotethatresistancefromanimalsthemselvesconstitutesanother,oftenoverlooked,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
4 ElementsinEnvironmentalHumanities
war over compassion and justice for animals is shifting underneath our feet.
Now,morethanever,weneedtotakestockofourpresentsituation,understand
howwehavearrivedatthispoint, andbegintoconstruct alternativeforms of
resistancetothedominantsocialandeconomicorder.
1.2AGuideforReaders
With this rapidly changing context in mind, the reflections presented in the
pagesthatfollowseektoreframewhatisatstakeinpracticingpro-animalethics
and politics. The work proceeds with the hope that this reframing will afford
a better sense of (1) how the established order is structured and (2) how
productivelinkagesmightbeformedbetweenandacrossmovementsdedicated
to contesting (critically) injustice and constituting (affirmatively) more joyful
andmorebeautifulwaysofliving.
The argument unfolds as follows. In Section 2, I offer an extended critical
engagementwithphilosopherHans-JohannGlock,whoargues(contrathemain
thesis of the present work) for the importance of defining and maintaining an
anthropological difference. This section will be of particular importance for
readerswhowishtounderstandthereasonsforwhymanytheorists inanimal
studies and the environmental humanities find the traditional human/animal
divisionsoquestionableandwhytheselimitationshavegeneratedthedesireto
developanalternativewayofthinkingabouthumanbeingsandanimals.After
arguinginSection2that theprojectofdefiningananthropological difference
shouldbesetaside,ImakethecaseinSection3forshiftingthecriticalfocus
ofpro-animalworkawayfromspeciesism(whichcanbedefinedasaformof
ethicaldiscriminationagainstanimalsbasedonthesupposedsuperiorityofthe
species Homo sapiens) to anthropocentrism (which can be defined as a set of
institutions, systems, and practices that protect the existence and interests of
aselectgroupofbeingsdeemedtobefullyhuman).Icontendthattheconcept
ofanthropocentrismbetterexplainsthemannerinwhich(1)powerandviolence
are directed at animals and more-than-human others and (2) normative con-
siderationisoftendeniedtomarginalizedgroupsofhumanbeings.InSection4,
Iexplorepossiblerelationsbetweenthecritiqueofanthropocentrismandrecent
aspectofthiswar.Attendingtothechronologicalandontologicalpriorityofanimalresistance
allowsustocounterthewell-meaningbutproblematicnotionamongsomeanimalactiviststhat
humanbeingsarefightingonbehalfofanimalswhoaresomehow“voiceless”orwithoutagency.
Theperspectivedevelopedinthisbooksuggeststhatitismoreusefultoseethiswarasbeing
foughtamongforcesandpowersthatinhereinthefabricoflife-deathmoregenerallyandarenot
thesoleprovenanceofhumanbeings.Althoughitperhapsgoeswithoutsaying,Ishouldunder-
scorethepointthatarguingforthepriorityandirreducibilityofanimalresistanceisinnoway
intendedtodownplayordenytheradicalstructuralandphysicallimitsthatareoftenplacedonthe
agencyofanimalsbyanthropocentricinstitutions.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
BeyondtheAnthropologicalDifference 5
work on intersectional theory and practice. I suggest that if the analysis of
anthropocentrisminSection3isroughlycorrect,thiswouldimplythatthereare
fundamental historical and material linkages between the kinds of violence
directedatanimalsaswellashumanbeings,linkages thatmakeitpossibleto
understandintersectionalityinwaysthatgobeyondtheconfinesofintrahuman
injustice.
In the second half of the analysis, beginning with Section 5, I move from
a generally critical stance toward a more constructive and affirmative one
aimed at developing alternative ontologies of human-animal relations and
corresponding practices and forms of life. The term I use in this section for
thisalternativeontologicalperspectiveisindistinction,aconceptthatindicates
the ways in which the traditional distinction between human and animal has
collapsed,leavingtheregistersofhumanbeingsandanimalsinaprofoundstate
ofindiscernibility.Section6continuestheaffirmativerethinkingofpro-animal
thoughtandpracticeascomprisingthreeethologiesthatfunctiontoreconstitute
social, ecological, and mental relations with animals and a variety of earthly
others. The final two sections examine the implications of the central critical
and affirmative arguments of the argument. Section 7 explores the implied
scope of the critique of anthropocentrism and the indistinction approach out-
linedintheprevioussections.Iarguehereforanopen-endedapproachtoethics
and politics, which includes human and animal justice struggles but simulta-
neouslyopensontoavarietyofmovementsengagedwiththemore-than-human
world. In Section 8, I broach the difficult question of how to navigate among
the variety of ontological approaches and forms of life that are encountered
in a non-anthropocentric context. While arguing for an affirmation of plural
ontologies and forms of life, I also suggest that non-Western – and ongoing
indigenous traditions in particular – offer crucial resources for reconfiguring
relationswithplanetarykinofallsorts.
2TheAnthropologicalDifference
Animalshaveoftenbeencharacterizedasbeingradicallydifferentfromhuman
beings, as lacking some uniquely human traits such as reason,consciousness,
language, orawareness ofdeath. Further, thissharp differencehas often been
thought to entail that animals have lesser value and importance than human
beings.Thiscombinationofasharphuman/animaldistinctionandvaluerank-
ing is often referred to as a binary and hierarchical account of human and
animal existence. It is a conceptual and normative pattern that occurs across
many cultures and intellectual traditions but with striking frequency in the
Western philosophical tradition in particular, from ancient Greece (Aristotle)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769
6 ElementsinEnvironmentalHumanities
andHellenisticphilosophy(Stoicism)tomedieval(Augustine)andRenaissance
philosophy(Aquinas),upthroughmodernity(Descartes)andGermanIdealism
(KantandHegel).8
Developing in tandem with this dominant philosophical discourse in the
West, there has been a countertradition of minor, rogue philosophers and
schools that offer more generous analyses of animal life and more complex
conceptionsofhuman-animalrelations.Thatthesekindofminorperspectives
have had a persistent presence in Western philosophy should not be entirely
surprising, for prior to the institution of ancient Greek philosophy, Homeric
epicalongwithlatertragicandcomicpoets(materialthatconsistentlyservedas
abackgroundreferenceformuchofthephilosophicalworkinancientGreece)
provided extraordinarily subtle reflections on the shared fate of human and
animal life.9 In addition, during the historical period in which ancient Greek
philosophy wasbecoming an established practice and way oflife, its primary
thinkersandschoolswereinfairlyregularconversationwithnon-Greekphilo-
sophical and mythical traditions that held more charitable and less anthropo-
centricideasaboutanimallife.10Thus,therehavebeenanumberofimportant
figures throughout the history of the Western philosophical tradition, from
antiquity to the present, including such philosophers as Diogenes the Cynic,
Plutarch, Porphyry, Montaigne, Hume, and Nietzsche, who have challenged
dominantaccountsofthehuman/animaldistinction,employingresourcesfrom
thiscomplexheritage.Verymuchlikethe“waroverpity”thatDerridasuggests
ischaracteristicofourage,therehasbeenanongoingbattlewithinthehistory
ofWesternphilosophysinceitsinceptionoverhowweshouldthinkaboutand
interactwithanimals.
Unfortunately, inthestandard narratives aboutWesternconceptionsofani-
mal life offered by contemporary pro-animal philosophers and theorists, the
importance andimpact ofmostoftheseroguefiguresareoften overlookedin
favorofanEnlightenmentnarrativeinwhichCharlesDarwinandevolutionary
theory are seen as the sole forces that deliver the supposed death blow to
reductiveandbinaryaccountsofanimallife.11Onthestandardreading,evolu-
tionary theory stresses the deep historical continuity among human life and
other life formsand undercutsthe ideaofthere beinganykindofontological
ruptureinthesedomains.Thus,ratherthanseeingadifferenceinkindbetween
8 ForacomprehensivecriticalsurveyoftheWesternphilosophicaltraditionfromthisperspective,
seeSteiner(2005).
9 Detailedaccountsof,aswellasprimarysourcematerialson,thestatusofanimalsinGreek
antiquitycanbefoundinCampbell(2014),Heath(2005),andNewmeyer(2010).
10 Ahelpfulexplorationoftheseancientcross-culturalconnectionsisofferedbyMcEvilley(2002).
11 Forarepresentativeexampleofthisapproach,seeRachels(1991).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University - Law Library, on 16 Oct 2020 at 18:19:47, subject to the Cambridge
Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108862769