Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Agamben and Animals and Anthropogenesis, Again

Well, yesterday was an Agamben day. Stuart Elden posted a visual image of the current entire 'order' of the Homo Sacer series. Then, a facebook friend posted this EGS video from 2011 of Agamben on "Animal, Man, and Language."

So, then I found this interview with Agamben from 2013 conducted by Leland de la Durantaye. (Sidenote, I found this interview while trying to find a transcript to the lecture above. Both because I don't really like watching long lectures on youtube, but also because I was having trouble hearing large parts of the lecture. During some of the Q&A, I had my volume up so loud, I was worried my neighbors would complain about my blaring my philosophy).

Now, anyone who has been following my work for a while knows that I something of a hate/love relationship when it comes to Agamben, especially in his relationship to other animals (there are plenty of blog posts on Agamben, but if you are really interested, I suggest reading my articles "Beyond Biopolitics" and "Species Trouble"). But this blog post is trying to update the debate with work from Agamben after the more commonly cited sources of Homo Sacer and The Open.

In the video above, Agamben makes a claim for the event of anthropogenesis (which he glosses in The Sacrament of Language as "the becoming human of man"(p. 68)). Anthropogenesis occurs, for Agamben, when "man" enters into language. In this case, man entering language matters for two different reasons: First, it means she does not have language naturally, but most be constantly acquiring language. This is opposed to the language (or communication) of nonhuman animals, which is already plentiful and natural (yes, this pretty much Bataille's claim about language, humans, and other animals in The Theory of Religion). So, Agamben claims in the interview: "Language is not made for communication. It is made for something else, something perhaps more important, but also more perilous. Language is, in fact, the principle obstacle to communication, which animals know perfectly well. They watch us sometimes, filled by a strange compassion for us, caught up as we are in language. They, too, might have ventured into language, but preferred not to, knowing what might be lost." In this move, Agamben enters into a series of thinkers who construct a human exceptionalism that operates on the otherside of the coin of the usual justifications for human exceptionalism. Normally, human exceptionalism is argued for by contending that humans are distinctly more important and impressive than other animals. We are smarter, we build things, we have morals, etc. However, there also exists an understanding of human uniqueness that argues we are special because we are less than animals, usually because there exists a gap between nature and ourselves that animals do not have to deal with. We see this, as I already mentioned, in Bataille, but also in Lacan, Schelling, even Deleuze, along with several others. Such moves sometime take on obvious description of the religious. In such moves, it is humanity's fallen nature, as opposed to the animal's non-fallen nature, which results in the gap from nature. Agamben from the interview: "that animals were never expelled from Eden. [...] If Elsa and Kafka were right, then through animals we remain close to paradise. Given that we live in the same world, however, this means that not even we have been expelled from paradise, only that for some reason we imagine that we have been. This is why we are so hard for other animals to understand." If animals still exist in Eden, and exist fully in communication and nature, they are therefore pre-political and pre-ethical beings. This is why in the talk above, Agamben is interested in distinguishing anthropogenesis from one of cognition (humans are like other animals, and then we somehow achieve a certain level of intelligence, and then we become somehow the human that is not the animal), but rather existing as principally one of language. We are the beings that can speak, and it is our speaking that is the on-going event that makes us human (first there was the word...). Why is it important that it is an issue of language, and not cognition, for Agamben? As he explains earlier in Sacrament of Language, "With a tenacious prejudice perhaps connected to their profession, scientists have always considered anthropogenesis to be a problem of an exclusively cognitive order, as if the becoming human of man were solely a question of intelligence and brain size and not also one of ethos, as if intelligence and language did not also and above all pose problems of an ethical and political order, as if Homo sapiens was not also, and of course precisely for that reason, a Homo iustus" (p. 68). Furthermore, "something like a human language was in fact only able to be produced in the moment in which the living being, who found itself co-originarily exposed to the possibility of both truth and lie, committed itself to respond with its life for its words, to testify in the first person for them. [...] [T]he oath express the demand, decisive in every sense for the speaking animal, to put its nature at stake in language and to bind together in an ethical and political connection words, things, and actions. Only by this means was it possible for something like a history, distinct from nature and, nevertheless, inseparably intertwined with it, to be produced" (p. 69). This is the second reason that man entering language matters for Agamben, for her entering of language is also the way in which she is able to exist politically, ethically, and have history instead of mere nature. "[A]nthropogenesis, is not in fact an event that can be considered completed once and for all; it is always under way, because Homo sapiens never stops becoming man, has perhaps not yet finished entering language and swearing to his nature as a speaking being" (p. 11). So, that which originally existed as a negative to other animals (language interrupts communication, we are confused and think we are fallen) becomes instead the very grounds upon which a certain power and potentiality exist (politics! ethics! history!). As an aside, this is why Derrida's critique of Deleuze, where Deleuze maintains that animals are not capable of stupidity and Derrida objects, is so important. Stupidity, like being confused if you are still in Eden, is a type of power. But I want to point this discussion in a different way.

Agamben's insistence on anthropogenesis is a bit of a strange one. In particular, in both Sacrament and in the above video, he wants to insist on his conception of anthropogenesis against any scientific understanding of the human. At one point during the Q&A, he goes out of his way to say he is not engaging in a scientific understanding, but rather a "thought experiment." And earlier, during his talk, he has an aside that it is clear that the scientists have an agenda (as if philosophers didn't?). I point this out, because this discourse of a human exceptionalism (found here in Agamben, but found much worse in other thinkers) is a type of creationist thinking. I have tried to argue this before, but let me try again. Evolution, as we know, is the name we give to the forces that help select for traits that allow one to reproduce, and reach the age of reproduction, in certain environments (I know that is a little b-flat of an explanation). Evolution doesn't really care who you are. As such, it tends to repeat adaptive traits across multiple species. To believe that humans are inherently unique and exceptional against requires a certain, shall we say, faith. That there exists a group of beings with a certain cluster of traits, and that this group has fuzzy boundaries, and that almost individual trait can be found in another type of being, that makes sense to me. But that there exists an indivisible line between animals and humans (so that the phrase human animal sounds odd), well, that requires a certain transcendental intervention into what it means to be a human. It should not, therefore, come as a surprise the the creationist advocacy organization, The Discovery Institute, has a Program in Human Exceptionalism, and whose Senior Fellow, Wesley Smith, spends most of his time attacking vegans and animals rights advocates. To think the human as an exception from other animals, is to think the human as an exception from evolution, in other words, to think as a creationist.

Now, Agamben always makes this weird. Because at the same time he thinks the human exception, he also thinks it opposite. Twice in the interview, Agamben affirms that he is an animal. He further argues: "If the anthropological process I sought therein to analyze is founded upon an articulated division between “human” and “animal,” then their reconciliation is a philosophical task, consisting in deactivating both notions. Giorgio Colli once gave a definition of contact that seems to me prescient in this regard. Two things are in contact only when they are united by a representational void. The point at which the human and the animal are in contact is interrupted by what I have called the anthropological process." This exists in tension with his moves about the never ending nature of anthropogenesis, doesn't it? And perhaps the tension between myself and Agamben is over how to deactive these notions of man and animal, I'm not sure.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Call for Papers for an Edited Volume on Non-native Species

Call for Papers for an Edited Volume on Non-native Species

Within a growing literature of animal studies and animal ethics, scholars have critically examined factory farms, zoos, companion animals, and laboratory testing.  What remains underexplored are the logics of extermination deployed against feral or non-native species.  The existing vocabulary utilized to describe non-native species often represents these animals as pests that wreak havoc on the eco-system, promiscuously over-populate, and spread disease. This rhetorical framing justifies a militarized relationship to these species.  Furthermore, the debate over non-native species divides common ground between animal activists and environmentalists.  If the world is moving very slowly towards less cruelty in the treatment of animals and a modest increase in awareness about the basic dignity that should be afforded to all creatures, there is a vast slippage in the case of feral and non-native species that merits attention.

We are looking for essays that critically explore the affiliation between humans, non-native species, and the environment.  These essays will be part of a submission for an edited volume to be published by an academic press.  We are excited to invite scholars from a variety of disciplines and epistemic positions, including thinkers from multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary backgrounds.  300-500 word abstracts should be emailed to criticalspecies@gmail.com.  Interviews and reprints from journals will be considered.

Topics might include:

Bridging the gap between environmental ethics and animal ethics
Rhetorical examination of the tropes of nativity, exoticness, and/or invasion
Media and mediated accounts of invasive species
Ecofeminist approaches to overpopulation, fertility, and promiscuity
Queer critiques of reproductive futurism
New materialist and speculative realist interventions in non-native species
Colonialism and critical geographies
Economic imperatives and wild/pristine spaces
Defining ecosystem harm and the terminology of equilibrium, balance, and harmony
Questions of cohabitation and competition with endangered species
Introducing, re-introducing, and restoration ecology
The biopolitics of wildlife management and/or hunting

The deadline for submission of abstracts is June 6, 2014.  Please address correspondence to Dr. James Stanescu and Dr. Kevin Cummings.

Dr. Kevin Cummings is associate professor and chair of the Department of Communication Studies and Theatre at Mercer University.  He publishes in the areas of rhetoric and media theory.

Dr. James Stanescu was the winner of the 2012 international critical animal studies dissertation of the year for The Abattoir of Humanity: Philosophy in the Age of the Factory Farm.  He publishes in the areas of continental philosophy and critical animal studies and is the author of the blog Critical Animal.

Friday, April 4, 2014

The Invisible Molecular Moral Forces of William James, Or, The Hunt for the Misquotation.

This is a random story about a (mis)quotation of William James.
So, I was flipping through Jean Wahl's Vers le concret: ├ętudes d'histoire de la philosophie contemporaine : William James, Whitehead, Gabriel Marcel (and, side note, why is Jean Wahl basically not translated into English, or out of print?), and he had a quotation from William James that I had not seen before. Here is the quotation in French:
However, the footnote was a little wrong, and so when I went to check the suggested text of James, I didn't find it. So, I rendered the French into English (poorly, I might add), and googled it. When I did, I got several pages that suggested this:
"I am done with great things and big things, great institutions and big success, and I am for those tiny, invisible molecular moral forces that work from individual to individual, creeping through the crannies of the world like so many rootlets, or like the capillary oozing of water, yet which if you give them time, will rend the hardest monuments of man's pride." You can see one of the many examples here.
So, cool, now I have a quotation, no problem, we're off to the races. Except, of course, when I put this quotation into google, I got a bunch of weird hits. Besides a lot of those quotation aggregator type sites, there were a whole bunch of new age books, alongside Christian self-help books, and Arianna Huffington posted it to her facebook page once. And honestly, many of those books just randomly slotted that quotation with no reason why. It was weird. Also, needless to say, these fine books of scholarships had no citations to help me find the original. So, then I decided to just google William James alongside a shorter, unique phrase of molecular moral forces. And then I was rewarded with the actual quotation. From a letter to Mrs. Henry Whitman, June 7, 1899: "As for me, my bed is made: I am against bigness and greatness in all their forms, and with the invisible molecular moral forces that work from individual to individual, stealing in through the crannies of the world like so many soft rootlets, or like the capillary oozing of water, and yet rending the hardest monuments of man's pride, if you give them time. The bigger the unit you deal with, the hollower, the more brutal, the more mendacious is the life displayed. So I am against all big organizations as such, national ones first and foremost; against all big successes and big results; and in favor of the eternal forces of truth which always work in the individual and immediately unsuccessful way, under-dogs always, till history comes, after they are long dead, and puts them on the top.—You need take no notice of these ebullitions of spleen, which are probably quite unintelligible to anyone but myself."
There isn't really a point to this story. I don't know how the quotation first drifted. And I find it really odd that the strange quotation has ended up in so many different, and awkward, places (not as weird as the Beckett fail again quotation, but still). Also, we need more Jean Wahl in translation. You can see other tracked down misquotations here, and here.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Meditations on Second Philosophies: Comments on Anthony Paul Smith's A Non-Philosophical Theory of Nature

What’s in a prefix? The non- of non-philosophy, as Anthony frequently reminds us, is the same as the non- of non-Euclidean geometry or the non- of non-standard physics. Indeed, Laruelle, it seems, has taken to referring to this as non-standard philosophy rather than simply non-philosophy. The non- is not, therefore, an anti- or an un-, it does not signify either an oppositional discourse, or a mark of being outside and other. In the same way that non-Euclidean geometry is still geometry, or that people working on non-standard physics still see themselves as physicists. What does the non- of non-Euclidean geometry and non-standard physics have in common? Well, both are moves that question the defining axioms of their respective fields. In both cases they argue that the axioms that geometry and physics use to describe the world are not always sufficient for the task. Furthermore, these non-s are not primarily critical projects. They simply indicate a field in which there exist several positive projects (such as hyperbolic geometry, or string theory and M-theory). The non-, then, is fundamentally a marker of an immanent relation. It does not come from outside as a master discourse to finally tell philosophy what it is, but rather comes from within philosophy (or physics, or geometry) in order to re-examine its fundamental axioms in order for its intellectual projects to continue. Or at least I think so. This is probably a good as time as any to point out that I don’t know anything about Laruelle (and I know roughly the same amount about theology), but here I am anyway. But, if non-standard philosophy wishes to change or adapt axioms or principles of philosophy, what axioms and principles are under consideration?

Read the rest over at AUFS