Response, "The Open: Man and Animal"

Agamben presents theories from many disciplines—theology, biology, taxonomy—which have attempted to delineate various forms of life: human, animal, vegetal, and even what we consider non-living or inanimate beings. In so doing, he reveals how arbitrary the practice can be.

What I find of particular interest in many of the examples is the authors seem to begin with a conclusion (ie. humans are superior to animals) and then work backwards to determine why. This makes me wonder why these distinctions are so important, or have been to so many throughout history? Where would be without them, and what do they allow us to justify or ignore?

In Misogyny: The World's Oldest Prejudice, Jack Holland writes "In the dominant version of the Fall of Man myth common to both Greek and Judaeo-Christian myths, man came before woman, created autonomously by the gods or God. Man therefore was seen not only as having a special relationship to the Divinity, but also as being somehow separate from the rest of nature itself. He was a separate creation, set apart from nature, with a unique relationship to his creator. The creation of woman ended that relationship, and introduced into man's world all the features associated with nature. Man was suddenly subjected to the same needs and limitations as any beast, including copulation, the pangs of birth, the struggle for existence, the experience of aging and of pain, the deliberation of various illnesses and finally the ignominy of death." He references this myth as a mark of many dualisms with vast implications: "between soul and body, man and God, man and woman, the world of the spirit and the world of the senses," as well as man and nature.

Clearly the act of distinction and categorization is far from neutral. Following the story above, throughout much of Christian history woman has been associated with the 'inferior,' nature, flesh, (which lead to death), and man with the 'superior' realms of logic and spirit (leading to eternal life). This conflation of nature with the negative is evident in many of the writings Agamben references, and its further conflation with female nature led to the degradation of both.

In the vein of categorization, the readings this week have reminded me of Caster Semenya, and the battle which science has set out to "settle" over the "question" of her "gender." (Excuse the quotations, but they are merited.) The inability to define the gender of any given individual seems to incite fear, anxiety, and disgust. Again, why is this distinction so important to us, our functioning, and our understanding of ourselves and the world?

On a different note, this week's discussion also brought to mind the question of plant's rights.

And if you haven't listened to 'The Opposite of Tarzan," I highly recommend it. It's a sort of inverse of L'Enfant Sauvage, and massively intriguing.

- posted by Maureen