QUESTION: from Shukin and Costa reading

In the Nicole Shukin reading there were many researchers (some ethnographers) mentioned and everyone was trying to critique the other person. For example, Agabem, Derrida, Marx, Foucault, Chow, Deleuze and many others. I will discuss more of this reading in class but I wanted to start the discussion with the words 'animal' and 'capita;'. Shukin suggests:

"this book struggles , unfortunately with no guarantee of success, against the abstract and universal appeal of 'animal' and 'capital', both of which fetishistically repel recognition as shifting signifiers whose meaning and matter are historically contingent". (page 14)

Do you agree with this statement looking at the reading as a whole?

Shukin explains that

on one hand, "Animal Capital constitutes a resolutely material engagement with the emergent "question of the animal". On the other hand, "animal capital across Fordist and post Fordist eras, the book seeks to rectify a critical blind spot in Marxist and post-Marxist theory around the nodal role of animals, ideologically and materially, in the reproduction of capital's hegemony" (page 7).

Do you agree with this statement looking at the reading as a whole?

I will discuss more of my viewpoint in class along with trying to figure out the Super Bowl Nissan car example and how that ties into this reading. One of many questions in this book I have is, is 'animal capital' looked at in a political sense or depending on the theorists who is "politically" correct?