wake forest lopez mccabe neg kentucky round1

8/9/2019 Wake Forest Lopez McCabe Neg Kentucky Round1

1/23

1NC


2/23

K

Starting at 6:12

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9En!air"e#

Silence on the human exploitative gaze towards non-humans ensures that

anthropocentrism continues

$e%%& 'or( )niver#ity *epartment o! e*ucation& an* +u##e%%& "a(ehea* )niver#ity a##ociate

pro!e##or& 2( ,-nne C. an* Con#tance ".& *epartment o! e*ucation& 'or( )niver#ity& Cana*a& an*

Cana*ian ourna% o! Environmenta% E*ucation& $eyon* 0uman& $eyon* or*#:-nthropocentri#m& Critica% e*agogy& an* the o#t#tructura%i#t 3urn&4 C-N-5-N 7)+N-"

7 E5)C-37N 28& ,2;:1

/CE28>>be%%.p*!& p. 192;

e come to critica% pe*agogy with a bac(groun* in environmenta% thought an* e*ucation. Ofprimary concernan* intere#t to u# are relationships among humans and the more-than-human world(Aram! "##$%! the ways in which those relationships are constituted and prescried in modern industrial

society! and the implications and conse&uences of those constructs. -# a number o! #cho%ar# an* nature

a*vocate# have argue*& the many manifestations of the current environmental crisis (e'g'! speciesextinction ! toxic contamination! ozone depletion ! topsoil depletion! climate change ! acid rain! deforestation%

reflect predominant estern concepts of nature ! nature cast as mindless matter! a mere resource to e

exploited for human gain,$erman& 19


3/23

et a%.& 1991& p. !or>grante* un*er#tan*ing# o! human&4 anima%&4 an* nature4?B

3hi# Gue#tion i# *i!!icu%t to rai#e preci#e%y becau#e the#e un*er#tan*ing# are ta(en !or grante*.)he anthropocentric ias in critical pedagogy manifests itself in silence and in the asides of texts. Since it i#

not a topic o! *i#cu##ion& it can be *i!!icu%t to #ituate a critiGue o! it. o%%owing !emini#t ana%y#e#&

we !in* that examples of anthropocentrism& %i(e eamp%e# o! gen*er #ymbo%iation& occur in thoseplaces where speaers reveal the assumptions they thin they do not need to defend ! eliefs they expect toshare with their audiences4 ,0ar*ing& 19 archica% *ichotomy that e#tab%i#he# human #uperiority. 0uman# a%one&

he remin*# u#& are aware an* #e%!>con#ciou# being# who can act to !u%!i%% the obIective# they #et!or them#e%ve#. 0uman# a%one are ab%e to in!u#e the wor%* with their creative pre#ence& to

overcome #ituation# that %imit them& an* thu# to *emon#trate a *eci#ive attitu*e towar*# the

wor%*4 ,p. 9;.B reire ,199& pp. ture# becau#e we are ab%e to ri#e above monotonou#& #pecie#>*etermine* bio%ogica% ei#tence.

Change in the #ervice o! human !ree*om i# #een to be our primary agen*a. .umansarethu# cast asactive agents whose very essence is to transform the world / as if somehow acceptance! appreciation! wonder!

and reverence were eyond the pale.B )his discursive frame of reference is characteristic of critical pedagogy')he human0animal opposition upon which it rests is taen for granted ! its cultural and historical specificity

not acnowledged. -n* therein %ie# the prob%em. 1ie other social constructions! this one derives itspersuasiveness from its seeming facticity and from the deep investments individuals and communities have

in setting themselves off from others4 ,$ritman et a%.& 1991& p. 91;. )his ecomes the normal way ofseeing the world ! and lie other discourses of normalcy! it limits possiilities of taing up and con- fronting

ine&uities,#ee $ritman& 1998;. )he primacy of the human enterprise is simply not &uestioned 'B 2reciselyhow an anthropocentric pedagogy might exacerate the environmental crisis has not received much

consideration in the literature of critical pedagogy& e#pecia%%y in North -merica. Although there may epassing reference to planetary destruction! there is seldom mention of the relationship etween education and

the domination of nature ! let alone any sustained exploration of the lins etween the domination of nature

and other social in+ustices' 3oncerns aout the nonhuman are relegated to environmental education ' And

since environmental education ! in turn! remains peripheral to the core curriculum ,-. ough& 199D@

+u##e%%& $e%%& F awcett& 2;& anthropocentrism passes unchallenged.1Bp. 19>192

)heir calls for widespread change fall into the same logic of progress that has resulted in

speciesist violence and the destruction of the environment

Jochi& KueenL# )niver#ity Schoo% o! "aw %ecturer& an* 7r*an& %ingui#t& < ,3ari( an* Noam&

$or*er%an*# Mo%ume D Number & 2


4/23

,n another sense the ethical demand to respond to historical and present environmental destruction runs onto

and in many ways intensifies the &uestion of radical or revolutionary changewhich con!ronte* the #ocia%i#t tra*itionwithin the 19th an* 2th centurie#. -# environmenta% concern# have increa#ing%y #ince the 19D# come into greater prominence& the pre##ing i##ue

!or many within the 21#t century i# that o! #ocia%>environmenta% revo%ution. O9P Social- environmental revolution involves the

creation of new social! political and economic forms of human and environmental organisation which can

overcome the deficiencies and latent oppression of gloal capitalism and safeguard oth human and non-

human dignity 'B 2utting aside the old! false assumptions of a teleological account of history! social-

environmental revolution is dependent upon widespread political action which short-circuits and tears apart

current legal! political and economic regimes' )his action is itself dependent upon a widespread change in

awareness! a revolutionary change in consciousness! across enough of the populace to spar radical social and

political transformation' )hought of in this sense! however ! such a response to environmental destruction is

caught y many of the old prolems which have troub%e* the tra*ition o! revo%utionary #ocia%i#m. Name%y& how might a #igni!icantnumber o! human in*ivi*ua%# come to obtain #uch a ra*ica%%y en%ightene* per#pective or awarene## o! human #ocia% rea%ity ,i.e. a *ia%ectica%&

utopian anti>humani#t Qrevo%utionary con#ciou#ne##eH; #o that they might bring about with minima% vio%ence the overthrow o! the practice# an*

in#titution# o! %ate capita%i#m an* co%onia%>#pecie#i#m? urther& how might an in*ivi*ua% attain #uch a ra*ica% per#pective when their %i!e&

behaviour# an* attitu*e# ,or their #ubIectivity it#e%!; are #o mou%*e* an* #hape* by the in*ivi*ua%H# immer#ion within an* active #e%!>rea%i#ation

through& the networ(#& #y#tem# an* habit# con#titutive o! g%oba% capita%i#m? ,0ar*t F Negri& 21;. hile the demand for social-

environmental revolution grows stronger! oth theoretical and practical answers to these pressing &uestions

remain unanswered'B4oth lieral and social revolutionary models thus seem to run into the same prolems

that surround the notion of progress5 each play out a modern discourse of sacrifice in which some forms of

life and modes of living are set aside in favour of the promise of a future good' 3aught etween social hopes

and political myths! the challenge of responding to environmental destruction confronts! starly! the core of adiscourse of modernity characterised y reflection! responsiility and action. iven the increa#ing pre##ure# upon thehuman habitat& thi# mo*ern *i#cour#e wi%% either *e%iver or it wi%% !ai%. 3here i# %itt%e room !or an ei#tence in between: either the En%ightenment

!u%!i%# it# potentia%ity or it #how# it# han* a# the bearer o! impo##ibi%ity. ! the po##ibi%itie# o! the En%ightenment are to be !u%!i%%e* then thi# canon%y happen i! the o%* i*ea o! the progre## o! the human #pecie#& eemp%i!ie* by 0aw(ingH# co#mic co%oni#ation& i# !un*amenta%%y rethought an*

rep%ace* by a new !orm o! #e%!>comprehen#ion. )his self-comprehension would need to negate and limit the old modern

humanism y a radical anti-humanism' )he aim! however! would e to not +ust accept one side or the other!

ut to re-thin the asis of moral action along the lines of a dialectical! utopian anti-humanism ' ,mportantly!

though! getting past inade&uate conceptions of action ! historical time and the futural promise of progress may

e dependent upon radically re-comprehending the relationship etween humanity and nature in such a way

that the human is no longer viewed as the sole core of the su+ect ! or the eing of highest value' )he human

would thus need to no longer e thought of as a master that stands over the non-human . +ather& the human an* thenon>human nee* to be gra#pe* together& with the !ormer bearing *ignity on%y #o %ong a# it un*er#tan*# it#e%! a# a part o! the %atter.

Osession with discourse and narratives is anthropocentric'

4ell and 6ussell 7 ,anne an* con#tance& Cana*ian Iourna% o! e*ucation& http://www.c##e>#cee.ca/CE/-rtic%e#/u%%3et/CE28>/CE28>>be%%.p*!;S

-%though we ac(now%e*ge the important contribution o! po#t#tructura%i#m to ana%y#e# o! oppre##ion& privi%ege& an* power in e*ucation&

we be%ieve that e*ucator# mu#t continue to probe it# % imitation# an* imp%ication#. -ccor*ing%y& we con#i*er here how

poststructuralism & a# it i# ta(en up within critica% pe*agogy& tends to reinforce rather than #ubvert *eep#eate*

humanist assumptions aout humans and nature y taing for granted the orders

,a# in irou& 1991; that define nature as the devalued Other. e a#( what meaning# an* voices have

een pre-empted y thevirtua%%y exclusive focus on human# an* human language in a

humancentred epistemological framewor. -t the #ame time& we *i#cu## how relationships

etween language! communication! and meaningful experience are eing

conceptualized out#i*e the !ie%* o! critica% pe*agogy ,in #ome ca#e# !rom a po#t#tructura%i#t per#pective; to ca%% into Gue#tion

the#e very a##umption#. -%though we concentrate primari%y on societal narratives that shape

understandings of human and nature& we a%#o touch on two re%ate* i##ue# o! %anguage: the !orgetting4 o!

nonverba%& #omatic eperience an* the misplaced presumption of human superiority ased on

linguistic capailities. n #o *oing& our intention i# to *ea% con#tructive%y with #ome o! the anthropocentric b%in* #pot# withincritica% pe*agogy genera%%y an* within po#t#tructura%i#t approache# to critica% pe*agogy in particu%ar. e hope to i%%uminate p%ace# where

the#e #tream# o! thought an* practice move in *irection# compatib%e with our own a#piration# a# e*ucator#.


5/23

(scratched from speech! ut discourse arg came up in deate it8s so included% )he post-

human leads to the total triumph of anthropocentrism9this is impacted on the speciesism

deate'

Sanonmatsu :;

Oohn Sanbonmat#u& -##t ro!e##or o! hi%o#ophy an* +e%igion at the orce#ter o%ytechnic

n#titute& 2R& The Postmodern Princep. 26>2DP

3he neo%ogi#m metahumanism intentiona%%y convey# a contra*iction or ten#ion.$yempha#iing metahumani#m& am #ugge#ting thatwe mu#t go

beyon*the anthropocentri#mo! the tra*itiona% %ibera%& humani#t proIect. -n* thi# we can on%y *oby incorporating the nonhu manother into our conception o! the human. 3hi# theme& which *eve%op through an out%ine o! ethica% practice groun*e* in attentivene## toothering, i# the main !ocu# o! thi# chapter. -t the #ametime& by metahumanism am a%#o intentiona%%y c%aiming a certain continuity with the En%ightenment& progre##ive tra*ition an* i*ea% o! a harmoniou# #ocia% or*er roote* in a po#itive account o!our natura% capacitie# an* Gua%itie# a# human being#.

7nto%ogy ha# been in the new# %ate%y.Scienti#t# have begun to arrogate to them#e%ve# go*%i(e power# & creating entire%y nove% (in*#o!#pecie# in the %ab& in#erting rogue 5N- ,ta(en !rom other p%ant# r a ma%#; *irect%y into the ova o! anima%#. New being#>in>the>wor%* are being #ummone* into ei#tence by the cunning o!+ea#on& thrown into a%ien an* a#eptic machine wor%* where they typica%%y arrive chronic%%ya i%% or *i#ab%e*& *i#oriente*& an* utter%y i#o%ate* !rom a%% other being# the univer#e. Sti%% other

#cienti#t# an* entrepreneur# arereengineering our own #pecie#being at the phy#ica%& genetic %eve%& charting the human genetic co*ein or*er to

e!!ect the u%timate re*uction o! the in*ivi*ua% human being >or it# part#>>to the #tatu# o! a

*e#igner commo*ity. -*orno once wrote: n the mi*#t o! #tan*ar*ie*& organie* human unit# the in*ivi*ua% per#i#t# .... $ut he i# in rea%ity no more than: mere !unction o!hi# own uniGuene##& an ehibition piece& %i(e the !e%%ow that once *rew the won*erment an* %aughter o! chi%*renL# Now& we #ee& theuniquenesso! the humanspecies ha# been put on *i#p%ay a# an

ehibition piece ,the genome; an* i# threatene* with etinction.

Aeanwhi%e& in the e#tern aca*emy& cu%tura% #t u*ie# theori#t# an* other aca*emic inte%%ectua%# ho%* con!erence# ce%ebrating our #o>ca1%e* po#t>human time#inging the virtue#

o! cyborg#& pro#thetic#& an* bio>engineering.o#t>humani#m i# mere%y the %ate#t in a #tring o! commo*ityconcept# #pun o !!by aca*emic in*u#tria%i#t# to #hore up the crumb%ing appearance o! u#e va%ue in their wor(. 'et the #igni!icance o! the *i#cour#e& thin(& i# !ar greater than thi#

a%one wou%* #ugge#t. With the arriva% o! po#t>humanism we may !a#t be approaching ero hour o! the critica% tra*itio n.

ith the #ubIecta# #uch now p%ace*sous rature,un*er era#ure;& but thi# time not mere%yby c%ever critic#by #cienti#t#who%itera%%ymanipu%ate the #tu!! our *ream# o! our#e%ve# are ma*e o!& even the po#t#tructura%i#t proIect #e% !>*e#truct#& a# *e#truction i# ren*ere*

irre%evant by thefragmentationo! the onto%og unity o!Dasein. 3hi# may #eem a trivia% point& but critica% theory i# a%rea*y*angerou#%y in co%%u#ion with the

!ina% ob%iteration o! thing# human by capita%

)he Alternative is to re+ect the affirmative8s anthropocentrism'


6/23

denigrates interdependence! and we need to find ways to reformulate and reframe our discouse if we are to

produce the sort of ecological consciousness that will e essential for creating a sustainale future


7/23

3ase

Situate* Jnow%e*ge reIect# 5EN33' a# or*ering princip%e# it re%ie# upon a comp%ete%y

con#tructivi#t view o! the wor%* ob#curing A-3E+-" 7+ESS7N that ei#t# beyon*%anguage 0er #ituate* (now%e*ge theory a%#o o!!er# no hope !or emancipation away !rom the

#ocia% #cience mo*e%

Campbe%% R ,3he romi#e o! emini#t +e!%eivitie#: 5eve%oping 5onna 0arawayL# roIect !or

emini#t Science Stu*ie#B Jir#ten Campbe%% 0ypatia 19.1 ,2R; 162>1B0araway argue# that !emini#t mo*e%# o! re!%eivity nee* to con#truct their account# o! #cience!rom the vantage point# o! the #ubIugate*@ there i# goo* rea#on to be%ieve that vi#ion i# better !rom be%ow the bri%%iant #pace p%at!orm# o! the

power!u% ,0art#oc(& 19-mi $ar 7n point# out that without an ade&uate theory of power or sociality!=standpoint= comes to function as an outcome of the singular and unitary structures that =fix= the position of

the individual nower,199& 96;. hi%e .arawayacnowledges the multiple axes of oppression& she does not

ade&uately theorise them except to imply that oppression exists as an effect of concrete

social structure . n*ee*& #he *oe# not o!!er an account o! the #ocia%ity that pro*uce# #ubIect po#ition#& other than in the mo#t genera%

term# o! hite Capita%i#t atriarchy ,1991& 19D;.18@or this reason! the standpoint of the su+ugated in this model of

reflexivity comes to appear as if it is an essentialist account of the su+ect& in which critica% (now%e*ge re!%ect# #ocia%i*entity.B3he %in(ing o! (now%e*ge an* i*entity point# to a thir* ten#ion between con#tructivi#m an* empirici#m in thi# mo*e% o! re!%eive SS.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT13http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT14http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT14http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT15http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT15http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT15http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT13http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT14http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/hypatia/v019/19.1campbell.html#FOOT15


8/23

.araway follows a constructivist epistemology in her in#i#tence that OtPo #ee !rom be%ow i# neither ea#i%y %earne* nor

unprob%ematic becau#e there i# no imme*iate vi#ion !rom the #tan*point# o! the #ubIugate* ,1991& 191& 19;. ,n this model! practices

construct all nowledge& inc%u*ing that o! the #ubIugate*. 0owever& #he a%#o a##ume# that that the #ubIugate* *o po##e## particu%ar(now%e*ge in the #en#e that their eperience# apprehen* a truth o! the wor%*. Critica% (now%e*ge that *erive# !rom an eperience o! *omination i#more truth!u% in it# *e#cription o! that *omination than that which *oe# not. t there!ore permit# SS to provi*e a more accurate an* critica%

account o! #cience. 0owever& this formulation raises the prolem of whether the possiility exists of a nowledge

=outside= social practice#. 3he !emini#t #tan*point e%ement o! 0arawayL# mo*e% o! SS a*mit# to such a possiility& but the

constructivist element of .araway?s model does not. ractice# either con#truct (now%e*ge& in which ca#e there i# no po##ibi%ity o!critica% (now%e*ge ,con#tructivi#m;& or they *o not& in which ca#e there i# a po##ibi%ity o! critica% (now%e*ge ,!emini#m;.B)hese tensions

within .araway?s reconstructive pro+ect can e seen as symptomatic of the prolem of =ontological

gerrymandering ,oo%gar 199& 9


9/23

obIecti!y. . . . n#tea*& it ta(e# into account the e!!ect#& the inter!erence# generate* by the other ,1999& 1#emiotic practice# pro*uce networ(# o! human an* non>human actant# ,1992& 29


10/23

0arawayH# conception o! the cyborg i# a counterpro*uctive trope !or un*er#tan*ing oppre##ion

it on%y rein!orce# harm!u% #tan*point epi#temo%ogie# in#tea* o! Situate* Jnow%e*ge that the

a!!irmative #ee(#

$art#ch 1 ,Con!iguration# 9.1 ,21;12D>16R O-cce## artic%e in 5PB itne##ing the

o#tmo*ern eremia*: ,Ai#;)n*er#tan*ing 5onna 0arawayL# Aetho* o! nGuiryB ngri* $art#ch)niver#ity o! South %ori*aB Caro%yn 5ia%ma )niver#ity o! South %ori*aB "aura Se%%#

"oui#iana State )niver#ity;

3he heuri#tic va%ue o! #cienti!ic ana%ogie#& rhetorician Jenneth $ur(e te%%# u#& i# Guite %i(e the #urpri#e o! metaphor. 3he *i!!erence #eem# to bethat the #cienti!ic ana%ogy i# more patient%y pur#ue*& being emp%oye* to in!orm an entire wor( or movement& where the poet u#e# hi# metaphor !or

a g%imp#e on%y. 81@or .araway! the metaphor ecomes more than a poet?s glimpse it is a patiently pursued

heuristic that informs her oeuvre. Betaphor& a# an inventiona% #trategy& is ey to the crucial distinction she maes

etween& !or in#tance& the 7ncoAou#e a# a scientific technical o+ect of nowledgethat i# actua%%y a #pecu%ar con#truct& and the

7ncoAou#e a# a material-semiotic actantwith whom #he can engage in a coa%ition re%at ion#hip to pro*uce (now%e*ge.B3he metaphor#that 0araway pur#ue# #hare #evera% !eature#>>mo#t notab%y& a hybri* nature that in#tantiate# her ironic vi#ion& an* a OEn* age 19P pro*uctive

capacity to encourage new way# o! thin(ing about the wor%*. -%% o! her metaphor# are %imina% creature#& gargoy%e# ma*e o! con!u#e* categorie#.

-# $ur(e remin*# u# in hi# *i#cu##ion o! the gargoy%e# o! the Ai**%e -ge#& #uch hybri*# are in#tance# o! p%anne* incongruitie# in which putting

a manL# hea* on a bir*L# bo*y vio%ate# one or*er o! c%a##i!ication in or*er to #tre## another one.823he c%a##ica% taonomie# o! -ri#tot%e an*

"innaeu#& !or in#tance& are !oun*ationa% to how both #cience an* %anguage wor( by c%u#tering variou# categorie# into typographie#& re%ation#hip#&c%a*ogram#& or tree #tructure#. rom the taonomie# o! poetry to rhetoric to bio%ogy& tree a!ter tree o! !ami%ie# an* re%ative# organie# an* ep%ain#

environment# an*& in !act& our very %ive#. 0arawayL# metaphor#& which come !rom the rea%m o! the gargoy%e& intentiona%%y con!u#e taonomie#.

ui*e* perhap# by what $ur(e might ca%% a princip%e o! innappropriatene##& a #ty%i#tic mercurea%ity& or a metho*ica% mi#naming& her hybri*

creature# !orce %in(age# that rethin( the impo#e* an* acceptab%e tree #tructure# o! e#tern cu%ture. 8Brobab%y the be#t>(nown o! her hybri*

!igure#& the cyborg eemp%i!ie# 0arawayL# ironic !emini#t vi#ion. )he cyorg is the mule in her pantheon of metaphors5 it

performs the crucial and sustantial laor of carrying her arguments through her entire wor. ,t focuses on

ey elements in her prophetic visions: the nece##ity !or connection an* community acro## *i!!erence without tran#cen*ence& or

without !o%*ing *i!!erence into a re*uctive #imi%arity>>a #tate o! grace achievab%e through coa%ition. )he cyorg performs the function

of radical nominalism5 it names the condition of women?s lives within the logic of late capitalism in which the

ey oundaries etweenhuman an* anima%& human and machine& an* phy#ica% an* nonphy#ica% have imploded.8RB"i(emu%e#& however& the cyborg i# a generic cro##bree* that cannot repro*uce. n other wor*#& it i# a #teri%e an* nonpro*uctive !igure. $orn in 19contro%>communication>inte%%igence;& to e#cape. n other wor*#& it i# an over*etermine* #ubIect.8D,t is disciplined y its

entanglement in a preexisting narrative we of power . 3hi# i# evi*ent& !or in#tance& in the way that #evera% cyborg#cho%ar# overempha#ie the popu%ar&3erminator/3erminator 2 image o! the cyborg over the po%itica% metaphor that 0araway attempt# to attributeto it. 8*etermine* term that retain# both #imi%arity an* *i!!erence. 6Ao#t cyborg #cho%ar#hip !ai%# to a**re## thi#

crucia% po%itica% e%ement o! the metaphor an* #tre##e# in#tea* the cyborgL# appearance in popu%ar cu%ture or in the theoretica% writing# o! high

po#tmo*erni#m.61Scholarly treatments of some high-tech invention rendered in terms of the cyorg metaphor

are commonplace& #uch a# -n*rea S%aneL# *e%ight!u% treatment o! womenL# re%ation#hip to computer# in popu%ar !i%m.62-ca*emic wor( thattreat# a po%itica% coa%ition in cyborg term#& however& bare%y ei#t#. -# a re#u%t& !emini#t# #uch a# 3ere#a Ebert can ea#i%y accu#e 0araway o!

overempha#iing the rea%m o! the !igurative to the ec%u#ion o! womenL# materia% con*ition#.6B3hir*& *e#pite it# *e#ire to be otherwi#e& the

cyorg is a relative figure. 3he aggregate o! it# component unit# i# maintaine* by comparative>>that i#& re%ative>>circum#tance#. -# a!igure with mu%tip%e component#& it# #trength %ie# in it# potentia% abi%ity to !oregroun* mu%tip%e categorie# o! i*entity an* to *econ#truct the

univer#a% white woman& or the univer#a% human #ubIect& by pointing to mu%tip%e i*entitie# an* attempting to ero*e the boun*arie# between them.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT51http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT52http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT52http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT52http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT53http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT54http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT54http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT55http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT55http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT56http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT56http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT56http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT57http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT57http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT57http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT58http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT59http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT59http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT59http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT60http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT61http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT61http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT61http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT62http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT62http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT63http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT63http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT63http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT51http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT52http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT53http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT54http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT55http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT56http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT57http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT58http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT59http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT60http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT61http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT62http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT63


11/23

t# hybri* nature i%%u#trate# the impu%#e to unite *i#parate part# into coa%ition#. )he cyorg adds together its component parts--it

is nature AD< machine AD< human. hile it might indeed see to expose identity categories as no longer

distinct& #eparate& or i#o%ate*& in actua%ity it remains only an aggregate figure & or #imp%y an a**itive !igure. E%iabeth

Spelman refers to this additive characteristic astoot#ie ro%% or pop-ead metaphysics& where each part =is

separale from every other part! and the significance of each part is unaffected y the other parts.6ROEn* age1R2PB-%though 0araway attempt# to repre#ent the cyborg a# more than #imp%y the #um o! it# part#& it i# too ea#i%y re*ucib%e becau#e it *oe# not

!eature #imu%taneity>>a point 0araway her#e%! recognie#. 68n other wor*#& #imu%taneity !oregroun*# a mutua%%y an* active%y in!orming proce##that i# in motion a%ong mu%tip%e ae# o! power. Simu%taneity reGuire# mu%tip%e #ite#& active ten#ion& an* the recognition o! the po##ibi%ity o!

inhabiting more than one %ocation at a time. 3hi# recognition a!!or*# the cro##>contamination& b%en*ing& an* mutation o! mu%tip%e #ite#. )he

cyorg& however& simply names a +uncture& a #ite o! articu%ation& and then taes up residence in that moment. 7ncename*& it trave%# nowhere. t !ai%# to a**re## !u%%y how i*entity categorie# mutua%%y in!orm an* are *epen*ent upon each other. n other wor*#& it

*oe# not a**re## the *ynamic ten#ion between categorie#.BNot on%y i# .araway?s cyorgover*etermine* by it# techno#cienti!ic

antece*ent#& but it fails the ethical charge of relationality that distinguishes situated nowledges from standpoint

theory. +ey Chow point# out in o#tmo*ern -utomaton# that the cyborg an* it# %iberatory potentia% ei#t in a po#tmo*ern wor%*& the

po#tin*u#tria% wor%* o! Si%icon Ma%%ey& who#e !oun*ation# are not on%y emancipatory but a%#o Eurocentric an* patriarcha%. $$,t is

ultimately a figure relative to the @irst orld conditions of technoscience and its attendant privileges and

unwitting complicity with eliding the =cultural trauma and devastation= rendered on )hird orld cultures&

first y the imperialism of estern modernity! and second y postmodernity?s displacement of modernity. 6DB

So& the cyborg #u!!er# !rom it# heavy techno#cience in!%ection& which cau#e# it to #et t%e *own too Guic(%y in untenab%e way#. )he sterility of

a fixed position and the inaility to reinvent itself and create new categories constrain its usefulness to

theorizing and imagining lieratory possiilities. n #hort& it is too emedded within the system! it lacs thesimultaneous aspect of relationality! and it is too comparativist a position to allow categories to move freely'
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT64http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT64http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT65http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT66http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT67http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT64http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT65http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT66http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/configurations/v009/9.1bartsch.html#FOOT67


12/23

4ac on the K

Their attempt to bind the language of law with the language of war

masks the species war at the foundation of the law of war. Theirframing of what war is allows for all forms of suering to continue

Kochi 9

species war: law, violence, and animals, 353-359

In everyday speech,in the words of the media, politicians, protestors, soldiers and dissidents, thelanguage of war is linked to and intimately ound up with the language oflaw! "hat a war might e said to e legal or illegal, #ust or un#ust, or that an act might e calledwar rather than terroror crime, displays aspects of reference, connection, and constitution in whichthe social meaning of the concepts we use to talk aout and understand war and law are organised in particular

ways!"he manner in which speci$c terms%i!e! war, terror, murder, slaughter, and genocide& arede$nedand their meanings ordered has powerful and loody conse'uences forthose who feel the force and runt of these words in the realm of humanaction !In this paper I argue that the #uridical language of war contains a hidden foundation ( species war! "hatis, at the foundation of the Law of war resides a species war carried out yhumans against non-human animals!At rst glance such a claim may sound likeit has little to do with law and war. In contemporary public debates the laws ofwar are typically understood as referring to the rules set out by the con!entionsand customs that dene the legality of a state"s right to go to war underinternational law! )owever, such a perspective is only a narrow and limited view of what constitutes the Lawof war and of the relationship etween law and war more generally! )ere the *aw of the *aw of war needs to e

understood as involving something more than the limited sense of positive law!"he *aw of war denotesa roader category that includes di+ering historical sensesof positive law as wellas various ethical conceptions of #ustice, right and rights!"his distinction is clearer inerman than it is in nglish wherey the term Recht denotes a roader ethical and #uristic category than that ofGesetz which refers more closely to positive or lack letter laws!. "o focus upon the roader category of the *aw of

war is to put speci$c %positive law& formulations of the laws of war into a historical, conceptual conte/t!"he *awof war contains at its heart arguments aout and mechanisms fordetermining what constitutes legitimate violence!"he 'uestion of what constituteslegitimate violence lies at the centre of the relationship etween war and law, and, the speci$c historical laws ofwar are merely di+erent #uridical ways of setting-out %positing& a particular answer to this 'uestion! In this respectthe *aw of war %and thus its particular laws of war& involves a practice of normative thinking and rule makingconcerned with determining answers to such 'uestions as: what types of coercion, violence and killing may eincluded within the de$nition of war, who may legitimately use coercion, violence and killing, and for whatreasons, under what circumstances and to what e/tent may particular actors use coercion, violence and killingunderstood as war0 1hen we consider the relationship etween war and law in this roader sense then it is notunreasonale to entertain the suggestion that at the foundation of the *aw of war resides species war! 2t present,the *aw of war is dominated y two cultural-conceptual formulations or discourses! "he 1estphalian system ofinterstate relations and the system of international human rights law are held to e modern foundations of the *awof war! In the 1est, most peoples conceptions of what constitutes war and of what constitutes a legitimate actof war are shaped y these two historical traditions! "hat is to say, these traditions have ordered how weunderstand the legitimate use of violence!4 "hese discourses, however, have een heavily criticied! 6y uildingupon a particular line of criticism I develop my argument for the foundational signi$cance of species war! "wocriti'ues of sovereignty and humanitarian law are of particular interest: 7ichel 8oucaults notion of race war andarl chmitts notion of friend and enemy! 8oucault in Society Must Be Defended set out a particular criti'ue ofthe 1estphalian #uridical conception of state sovereignty and state power!3 1ithin the 1estphalian #uridical


13/23

conception, it is commonly argued that sovereign power and legitimacy are grounded upon the aility of an

institution to ring an end to internal civil war and create a sphere of domestic peace! 2gainst this 8oucaultclaimed that war is never rought to an end within the domestic sphere,rather, it continues and develops in the form of race war!onnected to his accountof io-power, 8oucault suggests a historical discourse of constant and perpetual race war that underlies legal andpolitical institutions within modernity!; In The Concept of the olitical, arl chmitt o+ered a criti'ue of the lieralconception of the state grounded upon the notion of the social contract and criticied legal and politicalconceptions of the state in which legitimacy %and the legitimacy of war& was seen to e grounded upon the notion

of humanity!5 8or chmitt the #uridical notion of the state%and international human rightslaw& presupposes and continually re-instates through violence the distinctionand relation etween friend and enemy!chmitt claimed that the political emerges from thethreatening and warlike struggle etween friends and enemies and that all political and legal institutions, and thedecisions made therein, are uilt upon and are guided y this distinction!< In relation to the issue of war=law thesetwo insights can e taken further! I think 8oucaults notion of race war can e developed y putting at its heart the

di+ering historical and genealogical relationships etween human and non-human animals! "hus, eyondrace war what should e considered as a primary category within legal andpolitical theory is that of species war!8urther, the fundamental politicaldistinction is not as chmitt would have it, that of friends and enemies, utrather, the violent con>ict etween human and non-human animals ! ?ace

war is an e/tension of an earlier form of war, species war!"he friend-enemy distinctionis an e/tension of a more primary distinction etween human and non-human animals! In this respect, what can eseen to lay at the foundation of the *aw of war is not the 1estphalian notion of civil peace, or the notion of human

rights! @either race war nor the friend-enemy distinction resides at the ottom of the *aw of war! ?ather, whatsits at the foundation of the *aw of war is a discourse of species war thatover time has ecome so naturalised within 1estern legal and politicaltheory that we have almost forgotten aout it! 2lthough species war remains largely hiddenecause it is not seen as war or even violence at all it continues to a+ect the ways in which #uridical mechanismsorder the legitimacy of violence! 1hile species war may not e a 1estern monopoly, in this account I will onlye/amine a 1estern variant! "his variant, however, is one that may well have een imposed upon the rest of theworld through coloniation and gloaliation! In what will follow I o+er a sketch of species war and show how the#uridical mechanisms for determining what constitutes legitimate violence fall ack upon the hidden foundation ofspecies war! I try to do this y showing that the various modern #uridical mechanisms for determining what countsas legitimate violence are dependent upon a practice of #udging the value of forms of life! I argue that

contemporary claims aout the legitimacy of war are ased upon #udgements aout di+erential life-value and thatthese #udgements are an e/tension of an original practice in which the legitimacy of killing is grounded upon thevaluation of the human aove the non-human! 8urther, y giving an overview of the ways in which ourunderstanding of the legitimacy of war has changed, I attempt to show how the notion of species war has eencontinually e/cluded from the *aw of war and of how contemporary historical movements might open a space for itspossile re-inclusion! In this sense, the argument I develop here aout species war o+ers a particular way of

re>ecting upon the nature of law more generally! In a 1estern #uridical tradition, two functions of laware often thought to e: the estalishment of order%in the conte/t of the preservation oflife, or survival&A and , the realiation of #ustice%a thick conception of the good&! ?e>ecting uponthese in light of the notion of species war helps us to consider that at the heart of oth of thesefunctions of law resides a practice of making #udgements aout the life-valueof particular o#ects! "hese o#ects are, amongst other things: human individuals, groups of humans,non-human animals, plants, transcendent entities and ideas %the state, community, etc!&! 8or the law, thepractice of making #udgements aout the relative lifevalue of o#ects isintimately ound-up with the making of decisions aout what o#ects can ekilled!1ithin our 1estern conception of the law it is diBcult to separate the moment of #udgement over life-value from the decision over what constitutes legitimate violence! pecies war sits within thislurred middle-ground etween #udgement and decision( it points to a moment at theheart of the law where distinctions of value and acts of violence operate as fundamental to the founding or positingof law! "he primary violence of species war then takes place not as something after the estalishment of a regimeof law %i!e!, after the estalishment of the city, the state, or international law&! ?ather, the violence of species waroccurs at the eginning of law, at its moment of foundation, as a generator, as a motor!CIn D!7! oetees The Lives


14/23

of !nimals E the protagonist liaeth ostello draws a comparison etween the everyday slaughter of non-humananimals and the genocide of the Dews of urope during the twentieth century! In addressing you on the su#ect ofanimals, she continues, I will pay you the honour of skipping a recital of the horrors of their lives and deaths!"hough I have no reason to elieve that you have at the forefront of your minds what is eing done to animals atthis moment in production facilities %I hesitate to call them farms any longer&, in aattoirs, in trawlers, inlaoratories, all over the world, I will take it that you concede me the rhetorical power to evoke these horrors andring them home to you with ade'uate force, and leave it at that, reminding you only that the horrors I here omitare nevertheless at the center of this lecture!9 2 little while later she states: *et me say it openly: we are

surrounded y an enterprise of degradation, cruelty, and killing which rivals anything that the "hird ?eich wascapale of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-regenerating, ringing raits, rats,poultry, livestock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killing them! 2nd to split hairs, to claim that thereis no comparison, that "relinka was so to speak a metaphysical enterprise dedicated to nothing ut death andannihilation while the meat industry is ultimately devoted to life %once its victims are dead, after all, it does not urnthem to ash or ury them ut on the contrary cuts them up and refrigerates and packs them so that they can econsumed in the comfort of our own homes& is as little consolation to those victims as it would have een ( pardonthe tastelessness of the following ( to ask the dead of "relinka to e/cuse their killers ecause their ody fat wasneeded to make soap and their hair to stu+ mattresses with!.F imilar comparisons have een made efore!..

Get, when most of us think aout the term war very seldom do we otherto think aout non-human animals! "he term war commonly evokes images of states, armies,grand weapons, attle lines, tactical stand-o+s, and maye even sometimes guerrilla or partisan violence! urelythe keeping of cattle ehind ared wire fences and utchering them inaattoirs does not count as war0urely not0 1hy not0 1hat can e seen to e at

stakewithin liaeth ostellos act of posing the modern pro#ect of highly eBcientreeding and factory slaughtering of non-human animals eside the)olocaust is a concern with the way in which we order or arrangeconceptually and socially the legitimacy of violence and killing! In a 1esternphilosophical tradition stretching at least from 2ugustine and 2'uinas, through to Hescartes and ant, the orderingof the relationship etween violence and legitimacy is such that, predominantly, non-human animals are consideredto e without souls, without reason and without a value that is typically ascried to humans! 8or e/ample, for2ugustine, animals, together with plants, are e/empted from the religious in#unction "hou shalt not kill! 1henconsidering the 'uestion of what forms of killing and violence are legitimate, 2ugustine placed the killing of non-human animals well inside the framework of religious and moral legitimacy!.4

#e$ecting humanism is the only way to a!oid the replication of

!iolenceochi, JueenKs Lniversity chool of *aw lecturer, and Mrdan, linguist, FE%"arik and @oam, 6orderlands Nolume C @umer 3, 4FFE, O2n 2rgument forthe loal uicide of )umanity,O&

In another sense the ethical demand to respond to historical and presenten!ironmental destruction runs onto and in many ways intensies the %uestion ofradical or re!olutionary change which confronted the socialist tradition within the .9th and 4Fthcenturies! 2s environmental concerns have increasingly since the .9CFs come into greater prominence, the

pressing issue for many within the 4.st century is that of social-environmental revolution! P9Q &ocial'en!ironmental re!olution in!ol!es the creation of new social( political andeconomic forms of human and en!ironmental organisation which can o!ercome

the deciencies and latent oppression of global capitalism and safeguard bothhuman and non'human dignity .R )utting aside the old( false assumptions of ateleological account of history( social'en!ironmental re!olution is dependent uponwidespread political action which short'circuits and tears apart current legal(political and economic regimes. This action is itself dependent upon a widespreadchange in awareness( a re!olutionary change in consciousness( across enough ofthe populace to spark radical social and political transformation. Thought of inthis sense( howe!er ( such a response to en!ironmental destruction is caught bymany of the old problemswhich have trouled the tradition of revolutionary socialism! @amely, howmight a signi$cant numer of human individuals come to otain such a radically enlightened perspective or

2NC


15/23

awareness of human social reality %i!e! a dialectical, utopian anti-humanist Srevolutionary consciousnesse& so thatthey might ring aout with minimal violence the overthrow of the practices and institutions of late capitalism andcolonial-speciesism0 8urther, how might an individual attain such a radical perspective when their life, ehavioursand attitudes %or their su#ectivity itself& are so moulded and shaped y the individuals immersion within andactive self-realisation through, the networks, systems and haits constitutive of gloal capitalism0 %)ardt T @egri,

4FF.&! *hile the demand for social'en!ironmental re!olution grows stronger( boththeoretical and practical answers to these pressing %uestions remain

unanswered.R

+oth liberal and social re!olutionary models thus seem to run intothe same problems that surround the notion of progress, each play out a moderndiscourse of sacrice in which some forms of life and modes of li!ing are set asidein fa!our of the promise of a future good. -aught between social hopes andpolitical myths( the challenge of responding to en!ironmental destructionconfronts( starkly( the core of a discourse of modernity characterised byreection( responsibility and action! iven the increasing pressures upon the human haitat, thismodern discourse will either deliver or it will fail! "here is little room for an e/istence in etween: either thenlightenment ful$ls its potentiality or it shows its hand as the earer of impossiility! If the possiilities of thenlightenment are to e ful$lled then this can only happen if the old idea of the progress of the human species,e/empli$ed y )awkings cosmic colonisation, is fundamentally rethought and replaced y a new form of self-

comprehension! This self'comprehension would need to negate and limit the oldmodern humanism by a radical anti'humanism. The aim( howe!er( would be to not

$ust accept one side or the other( but to re'think the basis of moral action along

the lines of a dialectical( utopian anti'humanism . Importantly( though( gettingpast inade%uate conceptions of action( historical time and the futural promise ofprogress may be dependent upon radically re'comprehending the relationshipbetween humanity and nature in such a way that the human is no longer !iewedas the sole core of the sub$ect ( or the being of highest !alue. The human wouldthus need to no longer be thought of as a master that stands o!er the non'human!?ather, the human and the non-human need to e grasped together, with the former earing dignity only so long asit understands itself as a part of the latter!


16/23

Alt Solves

-hanging the way we concei!e our relationship to nature is critical

to re!ealing the social construction of bodies within discourses ofoppression

6ell, Gork Lniversity department of education, and ?ussell, *akeheadLniversity associate professor, 4k %2nne ! and onstance *!, department ofeducation, Gork Lniversity, anada, and anadian Dournal of nvironmentalducation, 6eyond )uman, 6eyond 1ords: 2nthropocentrism, riticalUedagogy, and the Uoststructuralist "urn, 2@2HI2@ DML?@2* M8HL2"IM@ 45, 3 %4FFF&:.EE(4F3, http:==www!csse-scee!ca=D=2rticles=8ull"e/t=D45-3=D45-3-ell!pdf, p! .9E-99&

o far, however, such %ueries in critical pedagogy ha!e been limited by their neglect ofthe ecological conte/ts of which students are a part and of relationshipse/tending beyond the human sphere."he gravity of this oversight is rought sharply into focus ywriters interested in environmental thought, particularly in the cultural and historical dimensions of the

environmental crisis! 8or e/ample, @elson %.993& contends that our ina' bility to acknowledge ourhuman embeddedness in nature results in our failure to understand what sustainsus . *e become inattenti!e to our !ery real dependence on others and to the waysour actions aect them.0ducators, therefore, would do well to draw on the literatureof en!iron' mental thought in order to come to grips with the misguided sense ofindependence( premised on freedom from nature( that informs such no' tions asempowerment!R8urther, calls for educational practices situated in the life-worlds of students go hand inhand with criti'ues of disemodied approaches to education! In oth cases, critical pedagogy challenges the lieralnotion of education whose sole aim is the development of the individual, rational mind %irou/, .99., p! 4;A7cenna, .99., p! .4.A hapiro, .99;&! "heorists draw attention to the importance of nonveral discourse %e!g!,

*ewis T imon, .9E


17/23

political dimensions of the problems being considered%2! ough, .99CA )uckle, .999A*ousley, .999&! Teaching about ecological processes and en!ironmental ha5ards in asupposedly ob$ecti!e and rational manner is understood to belie the fact thatknowledge is socially constructed and therefore partial %2! ough, .99CA ?oertson, .99;A?oottom, .99.A tevenson, .993&!

4asing rights on sentience applies rights towards nonhumans

+est 6"he @ew 2olitionism: apitalism, lavery and 2nimal *ierationDust as nineteenth century aolitionists sought to awaken people to the greatest moral issue of the day, so the newaolitionists of the 4.st century endeavor to enlighten people aout the enormity and importance of animal

su+ering and oppression! 2s lack slavery earlier raised fundamental 'uestions aoutthe meaning of 2merican democracy and modern values, so currentdiscussion regarding animal slavery provokes critical e/amination into ahuman psyche damaged y violence, arrogance, and alienation, and theurgent need for a new ethics and sensiility rooted in respect for all life !R2nimal lieration is not an alien concept to modern cultureA rather it uildson the most progressive ethical and political values 1esterners have devised

in the last two hundred years (those of e'uality, democracy, and rights ( as itcarries them to their logical conclusion! 1hereas ethicists such as 2rthur aplan argue that rights arecheapened when e/tended to animals, it is far more accurate to see thismove as the redemption of rights from an aritrary and pre#udicial limitationof their true meaning!R"he ne/t great step in moral evolution is to aolishthe last acceptale form of slavery that su#ugates the vast ma#ority ofspecies on this planet to the violent whim of one! 7oral advance today involves sendinghuman supremacy to the same refuse in that society earlier discarded much male supremacy and white

supremacy! 2nimal lieration re'uires that people transcend the complacentoundaries of humanism in order to make a 'ualitative leap in ethicalconsideration, therey moving the moral ar from reason and language to

sentience and su#ectivity !R 2nimal lieration is the culmination of a vasthistorical learning process wherey human eings gradually realie thatarguments #ustifying hierarchy, ine'uality, and discrimination of any kind arearitrary, aseless, and fallacious! 7oral progress occurs in the process of demystifying anddeconstructing all myths V from ancient patriarchy and the divine right of kings to ocial Harwinism and speciesism

V that attempt to legitimate the domination of one group over another ! 7oral progress advancesthrough the dynamic of replacing hierarchical visions with egalitarian visionsand developing a roader a nd more inclusive ethical community ! )aving recogniedthe illogical and un#usti$ale rationales used to oppress lacks, women, and other disadvantaged groups, society iseginning to grasp that speciesism is another unsustantiated form of oppression and discrimination!


18/23

2ermThe permutation de!ol!es into self'ser!ing rationali5ations7ethicalcompromises are unacceptable.

*upisella T *ogsdon 9C%7ark, masters degree in philosophy of science at university of 7aryland andresearcher working at the oddard pace 8light enter, and Dohn, Hirector,pace Uolicy Institute "he eorge 1ashington Lniversity, 1ashington, HM1 @H 2 M7M@"?I ")I0http:==citeseer/!ist!psu!edu=viewdoc=summary0doiW.F!.!.!45!C5F4&

teve illett has suggested a hybrid !iew combining homocentrism as applied toterrestrial acti!ity combined with biocentrism towards worlds with indigenouslife!34 Invoking such a patchwork of theories to help deal with di+erent domains and circumstances could econsidered acceptale and perhaps even desirale especially when dealing with something as varied and comple/

as ethics! Indeed, it has a certain common sense appeal! )owever, instead of digging deeply intowhat is certainly a legitimate epistemological issue(let us consider the words of D! 6airdallicott: +ut there is both a rational philosophical demand and a humanpsychological need for a self'consistent and all'embracing moral theory. *e areneither good philosophers nor whole persons if for one purpose we adoptutilitarianism( another deontology( a third animal liberation( a fourth the landethic( and so on. &uch ethical eclecticism is not only rationally intolerable( it ismorally suspect as it in!ites the suspicion of ad hoc rationali5ations for merelye/pedient or self'ser!ing actions .33

The permutation is worse7The combination of aesthetics and ethicsstill reies the ethical dierential7ethical concerns always take aback seat to material concerns in the policy resolution.

8oremus, 1inter k! P)olly, Urofessor of *aw, Lniversity of alifornia at

Havis, D!H!, Lniversity of alifornia at 6erkeley, Uh!H!, ornell Lniversity, "he?hetoric and ?eality of @ature Urotection: "oward a @ew Hiscourse, 5C 1ashT *ee *! ?ev! .., le/isQ! D*)

omining aesthetic and ethical arguments with the material discourse doesnot automatically solve this prolem! 6ecause material ene$ts are morereadily 'uanti$ed, they are likely to outweigh nonmaterial ene$ts in thecost-ene$t comparisons encouraged y the material focus! "he predictaleresult is that material ene$ts will e ma/imied at the cost of nonmaterialones! "he national parks provide a concrete e/ample! Uark proponents $rstargued that national parks were important for their esthetic 'ualities, whichcould e/press and strengthen the national character! 6ut in order to uildpolitical support they added that parks would ene$t local and nationaleconomie s! 2s a result, park managers felt compelled to promote heavyvisitation in order to realie the economic ene$ts they had promised, at thee/pense of maintaining the parksK distinctive esthetic and character-uildingvalues! n44E 1ith this history as ackground, environmentalists should ewary of emphasiing the material discourse in politi-cal deates! "hey are
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.25.7502http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.25.7502


19/23

likely to $nd that the political ene$ts of that strategy, although real, areoutweighed y its ten-dency to skew policies in ways that systematicallyunderestimate, or even deny, the nonmaterial values of nature!


20/23

:- ; 0thics Impact

All species have intrinsic value

&hepard tilitarianism might e salvagedfor use in the environmental deate ifit is stripped ofits iastowardsthe satisfaction of humanneedsand preferences! 6entham, it should e rememered, considered the pains andpleasures of the animal kingdom to e of important, a utilitarian calculation!

2ccording to this kind of position, the needs and desires

of the wildlife in a given area would have to e considered prior to any development or destruction for the purpose of human

etterment >nfortunately, the prolemswith this kind of road utilitarianism appearinsurmountable! )ow does the satisfaction of animal needs comparein utilitywiththesatisfaction of human needs0an we ring plantlifeinto the calculation01hat aoutnonlivingentities, such as rock formations%e!g!, the rand anyon& or entire ecological areas0Hoes a marsh have aninterest in not eing drained and turned into a golf course, a need or desire to continue a natural e/istence0 It is clear that diBcult--

if not impossile--prolems arisewhenweegin to consider utility fornonhumanand


21/23

nonsentient entities! 2second alternative, highly tentative, is a movement away from aOwant-orientedperspectiveO in ethical theory!?ather than evaluat ingthe moral worth of anaction y the conse%uenceswhich satisfy needs and desires in the humyn %or even nonhumyn&world, we can look at the intrinsic 'ualities of the actio n, and determine whatkind of !alues this action manifests! "he 'uestion which the deate over environmental preservationraises is not OHoes preservation of this particular natural o#ect lead to a etter world0O ut rather OKHo we want a worldin which

the preservation of natural o#ects is considered an important !alue0O"he 'uestion is not whetherthepreservation of a certainentityincreasesthe amount of satisfaction and pleasure in the world,ut rather, whetherthesepleasures, satisfactions, and needs ought to e pursued! "he'uestion, in short, is aout what k ind of moral uni!erseought to be created!

Mnlywhenthe preservationofnatural o#ects is seento e an intrinsically good policy of action, rather than ameans to some kind of satisfaction, will a policyof environmental protection ee/plained and#usti$ed!"he development of an ethical theor ywhich can accomplish this task will e a diBcultundertaking, ut it is the only choiceopen to preservationists!


22/23


23/23

critical theorist Fayatri Spiva! that the tendency to erase the cultural Other is not a general prolem! ut a

European prolem'3he cyborg an* other #cience !iction mytho%ogie# may in*ee* be u#e!u% to cu%tura% 7ther# in the techno%ogica% #y#tem&butY#pea(ing to e#terner#Y(nowing our#e%ve#& caution i# in*icate*.

wake forest lopez mccabe neg kentucky round1

Documents