I find Sabrina's questioning of the relationship between animal capture and the apparatus to be very productive. Agamben's theorization locates the two states of humanness, the capacity for “boredom” and the “Open, which is the possibility of knowing being as such,” in relation to the suspension of the living being's “disinhibitors” or what he defines in The Open as carriers of significance (16-17).
It would seem then that the “disinhibitor” functions as an apparatus in that it both is the means through which the living being experiences the world and is captivated by it. The distinction between disinhibitors and apparatuses then appears to be along a binary division of nature vs. culture.
I would question then what the limits to the “disinhibitor” is as certain animals such as Crows can pass knowledge among social groups (such as using passing cars on roads to crack nutshells). It is easy to say that the human is capable of producing and being subjected by the abundance of apparatuses, but I feel this is an all too humanizing argument.
In thinking about Avatar I would also question when animals shift from the category of living being and into the category of the apparatus. The domesticated animal or beast of burden in some ways can be seen more as a machine than a being on its own. In this way, through the process of breeding and other manipulations how has mankind itself functioned as an apparatus par excellence upon different species, ecosystems, and even biomes? I will take these questions along with me into my further studies. Thanks everyone for such a great class!
No comments:
Post a Comment