“Animal Studies” and the Humanities TRYING to GIVE an OVERVIEW of the BURGEONING AREA KNOWN AS ANIMAL STUDIES IS, IF YOU’LL PERMIT ME the EXPRESSION, a BIT LIKE

[ PMLA the changing profession

Human, All Too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humanities TRYING TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE BURGEONING AREA KNOWN AS ANIMAL STUDIES IS, IF YOU’LL PERMIT ME THE EXPRESSION, A BIT LIKE

herding cats.1 My recourse to that analogy is meant to suggest that cary wolfe “the animal,” when you think about it, is everywhere (including in the metaphors, similes, proverbs, and narratives we have relied on for centuries—millennia, even). Teach a course or write an article on the subject, and well- intentioned suggestions about interesting material pour in from all quarters. In my feld alone, there’s not just, say, the starring role of bear, deer, and dog at the heart of William Faulkner’s Go Down, Moses and the futility of trying to imagine Er- nest Hemingway without his fraternity of bulls, lions, and fsh or Marianne Moore without her menagerie of pangolins and jellyfsh. Tere’s also King Kong, Babe, Charlotte’s Web, Seabiscuit, Te Silence of the Lambs, Te Horse Whisperer, and Te Fly. Tere’s the art of Damien Hirst, Joseph Beuys, Sue Coe, William Wegman, Bill Viola, Carolee Schneeman, Lynn Randolph, and Patricia Piccinini. And all those bird poems, from Percy Shelley’s skylark and John Keats’s nightingale to Edgar Allan Poe’s raven and Wallace Stevens’s black- bird. As any medievalist or early modern scholar will tell you, the question of the animal assumes, if anything, even more centrality in earlier periods; indeed, recent and emerging scholarship suggests a picture in which the idea of the animal that we have inherited from the Enlightenment and thinkers such as Descartes and Kant is better CARY WOLFE is Bruce and Elizabeth Dunlevie Professor of English at Rice seen as marking a brief period (if the formative one for our prevail- University. His books include Animal ing intellectual, political, and juridical institutions) bookended by a Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of pre- and posthumanism that think the human/ animal distinction Species, and Posthumanist Theory (U of quite otherwise. So there’s also William Hogarth and Hieronymus Chicago P, 2003), the edited collection Bosch, Te Faerie Queene and Beowulf. And, of course, there is the Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal central place of the animal in non- Western literature and culture, (U of Minnesota P, 2003), and the forthcoming volume What Is Posthumanism? written and oral, which would require another essay altogether.2 (U of Minnesota P, 2009). He is founding Beyond literature, art, and culture, the Western philosophical editor of the series Posthumanities at canon and its thinking of the animal/ human diference are being the University of Minnesota Press. reconfgured and reinterpreted not just on the strength of Conti-

of the analytic tradition. And there’s plenty existence in no small part to the emergence of changing of crossover (mainly from the analytic side) the animal rights movement in the 1970s and between philosophy and the legal sphere in to that movement’s foundational philosophi- the burgeoning area of animal rights law, led cal works, Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation

by scholars such as Gary Francione and Ste- and, later, Tom Regan’s Te Case for Animal profession ven M. Wise. (According to the Animal Legal Rights (works that animal studies, signaling Defense Fund, more than eighty law schools its recent critical turn, has sought to revisit in the United States ofer courses in animal and question). law.) Tere’s animal television, and lots of it, To be sure, scattered work on the animal including the food of animal- related factoids, was being carried out in various felds in the portraits, feld studies, vignettes, and exposés humanities and social sciences as far back as that is the Animal Planet channel. And, last the 1980s; one thinks of the historian Harriet but certainly not least, there’s food, with all Ritvo’s important book The Animal Estate its ritualistic, sacrifcial, psychological, ethi- and its investigation of “breeding” in Victo- cal, and ecological dimensions, made plain rian culture across lines of class and species, in immensely popular texts such as Michael James Serpell’s In the Company of Animals, Pollan’s Te Omnivore’s Dilemma.3 Marc Shell’s analysis of the psychic and sym- My litany is meant to suggest some of the bolic economy of the pet, the diverse and challenges involved in writing about animal important work done in and around ecofemi- studies, not the least of which is a daunting nism by Carol Adams, Andrée Collard, and interdisciplinarity that is inseparable from its others, and, in literary studies in the United very genesis (one that makes the interdiscipli- States, texts such as Margot Norris’s Beasts of narity that obtains between, say, literary stud- the Modern Imagination. And the landmark ies and history look like a fairly tidy afair by publication of Donna Haraway’s Primate Vi- comparison). One might think that much of sions opened the 1990s with a remarkable the material I have mentioned so far could be interdisciplinary synthesis that in efect de- safely set aside by scholars focused on literary fned a new, resolutely cultural studies era in and even, more broadly, cultural interpreta- what would come to be called animal studies. tion, but specialization is no more justifable Scattered but similarly important discussions for animal studies at the moment than it was were taking place in the theoretical litera- for feminist scholarship or queer theory in the ture—Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s heady days of their emergence. Animal studies, musings on “becoming- animal” in A Tou- as a branch of cultural studies (I will eventu- sand Plateaus (and also, in a diferent regis- ally want to question their association), would ter, in their book on Kafa), Jacques Derrida’s probably not exist, at least not in its current discussion of Heidegger’s thesis on the animal form, without the work done in feld ecology as “poor in world” in Of Spirit: Heidegger and and cognitive ethology over the past twenty to the Question, Georges Bataille’s Teory of Re- thirty years (Allen and Bekof; Bekof; Grif- ligion, and Julia Kristeva’s work on abjection. fn; Pepperberg; Savage- Rumbaugh, Shanker, But what appears different about the and Taylor)—work brought vividly before emergence of animal studies in our moment the popular imagination by flms such as the is the gradual opening up of a theoretical story of Dian Fossey, Gorillas in the Mist, and and critical space of its own. A sure sign of Jane Goodall’s documentary Te People of the the emergence and consolidation of animal Forest: Te Chimps of Gombe and by television studies is the growing number of conferences, documentaries such as Te Animal Mind, in symposia, publication venues, and special 566 Human, All Too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humanities [ PMLA

journal issues devoted to the topic in North published important titles by Leonard Law- America and abroad. Tere has been a spate of lor, Gary Francione (Animals as Persons), conferences on the topic, beginning roughly Stanley Cavell and cocontributors, and Mat- with Millennial Animals, at the University thew Calarco, among others. Equally striking profession

of Sheffield in 2000, and extending to what is the number of special journal issues over promises to be the largest academic gather- the past few years, including Animal Beings, ing on the topic ever, Minding Animals, to a special issue of Parallax edited by Tom Ty- be held in Australia in 2009. In between have ler; DerridAnimals, for the Oxford Literary changing

been events at York University; Vanderbilt Review, edited by Neil Badmington; recently University; the University of Wisconsin, Mil- published special issues of Configurations the waukee; Harvard University; the University of titled Thinking with Animals and edited by Texas, Austin; and many other institutions; an Richard Nash and Ron Broglio; and not one ongoing panel stream at the last few confer- but two special issues of Mosaic devoted to ences (both national and international) of the the topic (Te Animal). And there is the new Society for Literature, Science, and the Arts; online journal Humanimalia (www .depauw and growing interest at the Association for the .edu/ humanimalia), the robust H-Animal Study of Literature and Environment. Two of corner of the H-Net humanities online fo- the earliest book series were Harriet Ritvo’s rum (www. h-net .org/ ~animal), the Journal Animals, History, Culture, at Johns Hopkins for Critical Animal Studies, published by the University Press, and Animal, edited by Jona- Institute for Critical Animal Studies (www than Burt and handsomely published by Reak- .criticalanimalstudies .org/ JCAS), and Soci- tion Books, which takes the unique approach ety and Animals, published by the Animals of devoting each volume to a single animal (so and Society Institute, which operates under far, entrants include dog, oyster, ant, rat, and the rubric of “human- animal studies” (a label more than a score of others). Other presses whose stakes I will revisit in a moment). And, have an ongoing if not dedicated relation to if this reading list isn’t long enough for you, work in animal studies, such as the University a massive bibliography on animal studies is of Illinois Press (Animal Studies Group; Baker, available online (Kalof et al.). Picturing; Fudge, Renaissance Beasts; Linzey), Across the board, it is certainly true, as the University of Chicago Press (Wolfe, Ani- Erica Fudge (a leading British historian of an- mal Rites; Kuzniar; Grenier), Routledge (Har- imal studies) has noted of her discipline, that away, Primate Visions; Tester; Fuss), the State new work on animals such as Nigel Rothfels’s University of New York Press (Steeves; Scapp moves “away from an earlier form of history and Seitz; Mitchell, Thompson, and Miles), which focused on human ideas about and at- and MIT Press (Tompson; Burghardt; Dia- titudes towards animals in which animals mond, Realistic Spirit; Kac, Signs of Life). were mere blank pages onto which humans Of particular note is the series Posthu- wrote meaning” and instead “traces the many manities, at the University of Minnesota ways in which humans construct and are con- Press (which has published Donna Haraway’s structed by animals in the past” (“History”). When Species Meet and reprinted Michel Ser- But the larger question—and it is perhaps res’s Te Parasite and plans forthcoming titles marked by the use of the cultural studies tem- devoted to the topic by younger scholars such plate, associated with ethically and politically as Nicole Shukin and Tom Tyler). Columbia attuned scholarship, to assimilate animal University Press, under the leadership of studies—is how the internal disciplinarity of Wendy Lochner (senior executive editor for history or literary studies or philosophy is un- religion, philosophy, and animal studies), has settled when the animal is taken seriously not 124. 2 ] Cary Wolfe 567 the just as another topic or object of study among on a massive scale and the Holocaust of World

many but as one with unique demands. Rather War II. (In reality, the scale is not remotely changing than treat the animal as primarily a theme, comparable, since ten billion land animals are trope, metaphor, analogy, representation, or killed each year in the United States alone for sociological datum (in which, say, relations food, the vast majority of them—about eighty

of class, or race, or gender get played out and percent—under the deplorable conditions of profession negotiated through the symbolic currency of factory farming [Center for Food Safety].) animality and species diference), scholars in We might have thought that we, as students animal studies, whatever their home disci- of literature and culture, could safely leave to plines, now appear to be challenged not only the side the massive amount we have learned by the discourses and conceptual schemata from fields such as cognitive ethology over that have shaped our understanding of and the past twenty or thirty years about animals relations to animals but also by the specifc- and their remarkable capacities, but doesn’t ity of nonhuman animals, their nongeneric our assessment of the meaning and stakes of nature (which is why, as Derrida puts it, it a novel or a flm change, animal studies asks, is “asinine” to talk about “the Animal” in afer (at least some of) the animals treated in the singular [Animal 31]). And that irreduc- it undergo an ontological shift from things ibility of the question of the animal is linked to, in some sense, persons—a shif recently complexly to the problem of animals’ ethical registered with seismic force in the decision standing as direct or indirect subjects of jus- by the Spanish parliament in June 2008 to ex- tice4—a problem that invites a critical and not tend fundamental human rights to great apes, just descriptive practice of disciplinarity to protecting them from painful experimenta- assess how this newly robust entity called the tion and other forms of exploitation. Indeed, animal is plumbed, repressed, or braided with as Étienne Balibar, Giorgio Agamben, Marjo- other forms of identity, other discourses (race, rie Spiegel, and others have pointed out, vio- gender, class, sexual diference), in works of lence against human others (and particularly literature and culture. racially marked others) has ofen operated by In other words, as the philosopher Cora means of a double movement that animalizes Diamond puts it, the diference between hu- them for the purposes of domination, oppres- man and nonhuman animals “may indeed sion, or even genocide—a maneuver that is ef- start out as a biological diference, but it be- fective because we take for granted the prior comes something for human thought through assumption that violence against the animal being taken up and made something of—by is ethically permissible. generations of human beings, in their prac- As I have argued elsewhere, this suggests tices, their art, their literature, their religion” two important things about animal studies: (Realistic Spirit 351). Te problem for students first, that it studies both a material entity of literature and culture is how to avoid the (nonhuman beings) and a discourse of spe- thoroughgoing ethnocentrism that such a re- cies diference that need not be limited to its alization invites, how to articulate what a criti- application to nonhumans alone and, second, cal view of such “makings” might look like—a that taking animal studies seriously thus has question that becomes all the more pressing nothing to do, strictly speaking, with whether in the light of the persistent comparison (by or not you like animals. Given what we have Diamond, by Derrida, by J. M. Coetzee in Te learned in recent decades about many non- Lives of Animals, and by Charles Patterson in human animals—the richness of their mental an entire book called Eternal Treblinka) of and emotional lives, the complexity of their our systematic abuse and killing of animals forms of communication and interaction— 568 Human, All Too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humanities [ PMLA

many scholars now think that we are forced liberalism (politically) are extended—indeed, to make the same kind of shif in the ethics of extended in a rather classic sort of way. reading and interpretation that attended tak- In piggybacking on the cultural studies ing sexual diference seriously in the 1990s template (if you’ll allow the phrase in this profession

(in the form of queer theory) or race and context), animal studies too readily takes on gender seriously in the 1970s and 1980s. In itself some of the problems that have made such a genealogy, animal studies is only the cultural studies a matter of diminishing re- latest permutation of a socially and ethically turns for many scholars. Ellen Rooney, for changing

responsive cultural studies working to stay example, has observed that cultural studies is abreast of new social movements (in this case, “perhaps even more intractably caught than the the social movement often called “animal literary criticism in the dilemma of defning rights”), which is itself an academic expres- its own proper form”; it is “a welter of com- sion of a larger democratic impulse toward peting (and even incompatible) methods, and greater inclusiveness of every gender, or race, a (quasi-)disciplinary form increasingly dif- or sexual orientation, or—now—species. fcult to defend, intellectually or politically” Such a genealogy, appealing as it is, ought (21). Even more pointedly, Tilottama Rajan to give us pause, however, for at least a cou- has argued that this “dereferentialization” ple of reasons that have to do with the overly and “inclusive vagueness” has allowed much rapid adoption of the cultural studies template of cultural studies to be appropriated for the for animal studies. Te rubrics animal studies ideological work of the neoliberal order, in and human- animal studies are both problem- which capitalist globalization gets repackaged atic, I think, in the light of the fundamental as pluralism and attention to diference (69). challenge that animal studies poses to the As “a sof- sell for, and a personalization of, the disciplinarity of the humanities and cultural social sciences” (74), she writes, the efect if studies. In my view, the questions that occupy not the aim of cultural studies in the human- animal studies can be addressed adequately ities “is to simulate the preservation of civil only if we confront them on two levels: not society afer the permutation of the classical just the level of content, thematics, and the public sphere” into an essentially market and object of knowledge (the animal studied by consumerist logic of “representation” (69–70). animal studies) but also the level of theoreti- For my purposes here, the problem, in other cal and methodological approach (how animal words, is not just the disciplinary incoherence studies studies the animal). To put it bluntly, or vagueness of current modes of cultural just because we study nonhuman animals studies; the problem is that that incoherence does not mean that we are not continuing to or vagueness serves to maintain a certain his- be humanist—and therefore, by defnition, an- torically, ideologically, and intellectually spe- thropocentric. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of cifc form of subjectivity while masking it as humanism—and more specifcally of the kind pluralism—including (in this case) pluralism of humanism called liberalism—is precisely its extended to nonhuman animals. In this light, penchant for the sort of “pluralism” that ex- animal studies, if taken seriously, would not tends the sphere of consideration (intellectual so much extend or refne a certain mode of or ethical) to previously marginalized groups cultural studies as bring it to an end.5 without in the least destabilizing or throwing Tis is so because animal studies, if it is into question the schema of the human who to be something other than a mere themat- undertakes such pluralization. And in that ics, fundamentally challenges the schema of event pluralism becomes incorporation, and the knowing subject and its anthropocentric the projects of humanism (intellectually) and underpinnings sustained and reproduced in 124. 2 ] Cary Wolfe 569 the the current disciplinary protocols of cultural coalesces around questions of agency and the

studies (not to mention literary studies). (In- social.” McHugh is no doubt right to agree changing deed, as Susan McHugh notes in her overview with Fudge that the distinction between “sub- of literary scholarship on animals, “a system- jectivity” and “agency” is a useful one in this atic approach to reading animals in literature connection, enabling us to understand (on the

necessarily involves coming to terms with a model of actor network theory, for example) profession discipline that in many ways appears orga- how animals and our interactions with them nized by the studied avoidance of just such have historically shaped our world quite apart questioning.”) For Rooney and Rajan—many from questions of the intentionality or under- others could be added to the list—the problem standing of the animals concerned (one might with cultural studies, at least in its hegemonic say the same about humans, of course). But modes of practice in North America, is that such an explanation has little to tell us about despite its apparent oppositional, materialist, the ethical diferences that attend our inter- and multicultural commitments, it ends up actions with inanimate and sentient agents. reproducing an ideologically familiar mode Te literary and philosophical end of animal of subjectivity based, philosophically and po- studies has been interested in precisely those litically, on the canons of liberal humanism differences, for a range of obvious reasons, (whose most familiar expression would be the including the mobilization in literary texts of extension of the juridical subject of “rights” identifcation and sympathetic imagination from the human to the animal sphere).6 Te regarding animals and how they experience full force of animal studies, then, resides in its the world, the intensity of our emotional at- power to remind us that it is not enough to re- tachments to them, and, in philosophy, the read and reinterpret—from a safe ontological critical assessment of just those sorts of phe- distance, as it were—the relation of metaphor nomenological, ethical, and ontological ques- and species diference, the cross- pollination tions and why they matter. of speciesist, sexist, and racist discursive But my point here is also diferent from structures in literature, and so on. Tat un- the essentially Gramscian notion of criti- dertaking is no doubt praiseworthy and long cal consciousness that underpins even very overdue, but as long as it leaves unquestioned diverse approaches in cultural studies, a no- the humanist schema of the knowing subject tion voiced, for example, in the assertion that who undertakes such a reading, then it sus- disciplinary practice “becomes a productive tains the very humanism and anthropocen- rather than a reproductive environment” trism that animal studies sets out to question. when, “in the spirit of critical refection . . . And this is why, if taken seriously, animal the intersubjectivity of meaning can be ex- studies ought not to be viewed as simply posed, and educational institutions, the class- the latest favor of the month of what James room, the discipline, and the university can be Chandler calls the “subdisciplinary field,” seen to construct and condition knowledge,” one of “a whole array of academic felds and so that “literary study, as the study of textu- practices” that since the 1970s “have come to ality . . . reveals the epistemological struc- be called studies: gender studies, race studies, tures that organize how we know, how our and cultural studies, of course, but also flm knowledge gets transmitted and accepted” studies, media studies, jazz studies . . .”—the (Peck 51)—with the animal studies rider just list is virtually endless (358).7 noted: that animals, on the cultural studies My point here is rather different from model, are now recognized to be partners (as Mc Hugh’s observation that animal studies agents) in that enterprise. Such a picture of is “an interdisciplinary feld of inquiry that critical consciousness—commonsensical and 570 Human, All Too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humanities [ PMLA

attractive as it may be—actually closes of the question of the animal in terms of the capac- human from the animal of animal studies ity for thought or language “determines so and thus reinstates the human/ animal divide many others concerning power or capability in a less visible but more fundamental way, [pouvoirs], and attributes [avoirs]: being able, profession while ostensibly gesturing beyond it. And it having the power to give, to die, to bury one’s is the tacitly assumed schema of subjectiv- dead, to dress, to work, to invent a technique” ity underwriting such a disciplinary prac- (27). What makes Bentham’s reframing of the tice (the picture of the human as constituted, problem so powerful is that now “[t]he ques- changing for example, by critical introspection and tion is disturbed by a certain passivity. It bears witness, manifesting already, as question, the the self- refection that is, afer all, a hallmark of humanism) and not just the range of its in- response that testifes to suferance, a passion, terests (however putatively progressive, mul- a not- being- able.” “What of the vulnerability ticultural, or anti anthropo centric) that must felt on the basis of this inability?” he contin- be fully examined. It is a question, as Derrida ues; “what is this non- power at the heart of has put it, of the nature of the “auto-” of the power? . . . What right should be accorded it? human as the “autobiographical animal,” of To what extent does it concern us?” It con- “what calls itself man,” the concept of the hu- cerns us very directly, in fact, for “mortality man that “man” “recounts to himself” to then resides there, as the most radical means of enable his recognition of the nonhuman other thinking the fnitude that we share with ani- in a gesture of “benevolence” wholly charac- mals, the mortality that belongs to the very fnitude of life, to the experience of compas- teristic of liberal humanism (Animal 29–30). sion” (28). Instead of recognizing the moral I invoke Derrida here in part because his standing of animals because of the agency or late essay “Te Animal Tat Terefore I Am capabilities they share with us (which has been (More to Follow)” (and the recently published the dominant strategy, most obviously in the book that shares its title) is arguably the sin- animal rights philosophy of Singer or Regan), gle most important event in the brief history Derrida fundamentally questions the struc- of animal studies. In that essay, the force of ture of the “auto-” (as autonomy, as agency, Jeremy Bentham’s famous question about the as authority over one’s autobiography) of hu- standing of animals—the question is not, can manist subjectivity by riveting our attention they talk? or can they reason? but can they on the embodied fnitude that we share with sufer?—is that nonhuman animals, a fnitude that it has been the business of humanism largely to disavow. the word can [pouvoir] changes sense and sign (And in this Derrida has been joined by other here once one asks “can they sufer?” Te word wavers henceforth. As soon as such a question important philosophers, such as Agamben, is posed what counts is not only the idea of a Cavell, and Diamond, to name just three.) transitivity or activity (being able to speak, to But equally important for the matter at reason, and so on); the important thing is rather hand (and this point is often overlooked in what impels it towards self- contradiction, some- Derrida’s later work on “the question of the thing we will later relate back to autobiography. animal”) is that there are two kinds of fni- (Animal 27–28; emphasis mine) tude here under which the “man” of the “humanities” labors; and the frst type (physical For Derrida, putting the question in this way vulnerability, embodiment, and eventually “changes everything” because “from Aris- mortality) is paradoxically made unavailable totle to Descartes, from Descartes, especially, to us, inappropriable by us, by the very thing to Heidegger, Levinas and Lacan,” posing the that makes it available and appropriable—a 124. 2 ] Cary Wolfe 571 the second type of “not being able,” which is the Tis is not to say that most of the work done

finitude we experience in our subjection to thus far in animal studies is not in the cultural changing the radically ahuman technicity and mecha- studies mode (it is); nor is it to say that there nicity of language (understood in the broad- is not valuable work to be done in the cultural est sense as a semiotic system through which studies vein in animal studies. It is simply to

creatures “respond” to each other). Tis fact point out that one would think animal studies profession has profound consequences for what we too would be more invested than any other kind hastily think of as “our” concepts, “our” read- of “studies” in fundamentally rethinking the ings, “our” histories, which are in an impor- question of what knowledge is, how it is lim- tant sense not ours at all. Derrida’s work on ited by the overdeterminations and partialities the animal enables us to address the problem of our “species- being” (to use Marx’s famous of ethnocentrism raised earlier in Diamond’s phrase [77]); in excavating and examining our observation about what we have made of our assumptions about who the knowing subject relations to animals, but without leaving us can be; and in embodying that confrontation impaled on the other horn of the dilemma— in its own disciplinary practices and protocols either Gramscian critical consciousness or (so that, for example, the place of literature is the search for ethical universals, endemic to radically reframed in a larger universe of com- rights philosophy, that is calculated to meet munication, response, and exchange, which such ethnocentrism. now includes manifold other species). Derrida’s point is that, yes, it is true that Equally important for animal studies is what we think of as personhood, knowledge, that this second type of fnitude, Derrida ar- and so on are inseparable from who “we” are, gues, is shared by humans and nonhumans from our discourses and disciplines, but at the moment they begin to interact and com- the same time “we” are not “we”; we are not municate—to “respond,” as he puts it—by the “auto-” of the “autobiography” that hu- means of any semiotic system, even the most manism gives to itself. Rather, “we” are always rudimentary. As Derrida puts it in a famous radically other, already in- or ahuman in our passage from the interview “Eating Well”: very being—not just in the evolutionary, bio- [I]f one defnes language in such a way that it logical, and zoological fact of our physical is reserved for what we call man, what is there vulnerability and mortality, which we share, to say? But if one reinscribes language in a net- as animals, with animals, but also in our sub- work of possibilities that do not merely encom- jection to and constitution in the materiality pass it but mark it irreducibly from the inside, and technicity of a language that is always on everything changes. I am thinking in particular the scene before we are, as a radically ahuman of the mark in general, of the trace, of iterability, precondition for our subjectivity, for what of diférance. Tese possibilities or necessities, makes us human. And this means, as Derrida without which there would be no language, are puts it, that “what calls itself man,” what “we” themselves not only human. . . . And what I am call “we,” always covers over a more radical proposing here should allow us to take into ac- count scientifc knowledge about the complex- not being able that makes our conceptual life ity of “animal languages,” genetic coding, all possible (Animal 30). It is precisely here, in forms of marking within which so- called hu- this second aspect of radical fnitude, that we man language, as original as it might be, does can locate the diference between the schema not allow us to “cut” once and for all where we of the knowing subject relied on by human- would in general like to cut. (116–17) ism (or Gramscian cultural studies) and the rethinking of that schema forced on us, I am Here, as I have argued in detail elsewhere, arguing, by an animal studies taken seriously. animal studies intersects with the larger 572 Human, All Too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humanities [ PMLA

problematic of posthumanism, not in the dard charge leveled against the animal rights sense of some fantasy of transcending human philosophy of Singer and Regan: that it tac- embodiment (as Katherine Hayles rightly itly extends a model of human subjectivity to worries in How We Became Posthuman) but animals, who possess our kind of personhood profession

rather in the sense of returning us precisely in diminished form).8 Tis is not to repudi- to the thickness and fnitude of human em- ate humanism but merely to articulate how bodiment and to human evolution as itself a many of its admirable ambitions and values specifc form of animality, one that is unique (kindness and charity toward the weak, the changing

and diferent from other forms but no more innocent, and the oppressed, for example) are diferent, perhaps, than an orangutan is from

the undermined by the conceptual frameworks a starfsh. Te implications of this fact for the used to make good on them. It is a matter, frst half of the term animal studies are brac- then, of locating the animal of animal studies ing indeed, because if we pay serious atten- and its challenge to humanist modes of read- tion to the diversity of animal forms and of ing, interpretation, and critical thought not ways of being in the world, then we are forced just “out there,” among the birds and beasts, to conclude, as Matthew Calarco puts it, that but “in here” as well, at the heart of this thing “the human/ animal distinction is, strictly we call human. speaking, nonsensical. How could a simple (or even highly refined) binary distinction approach doing justice to the complex ethical and ontological matters at stake here?” (143). On the strength of that weakness, that break- NOTES down, we are returned to a new sense of the 1. My title refers to Nietzsche, of course, and, more lo- materiality and particularity not just of the cally, to the important collection Human, All Too Human, animal and its multitude of forms but also of in particular its introduction and frst section, entitled “Animal” (Fuss). For reasons that will become clear, the that animal called the human. term animal studies should be taken throughout as fully As for the second half of the rubric ani- marked by “scare” quotation marks; similarly, animal mal studies, I want to emphasize that one can should be understood as shorthand for nonhuman animal, engage in a humanist or a posthumanist prac- again for reasons that will become clear in due course. tice of a discipline. Tat point is papered over 2. Works on the animal have appeared in all the ar- eas just listed: literary modernism (Norris; Rohman), by the generic moniker studies, which ob- American literature (Allen; Mason), British Romanti- scures how the double fnitude just discussed cism (Kenyon- Jones), metaphor and poetics (Malamud), uniquely determines animal studies. Just flm and mass culture (Burt; Lippit; Wolfe, Animal Rites because a historian or literary critic devotes and What; Shukin; Clarke), art and display (Lippit; Baker, Picturing and Postmodern Animal; Kac, Signs and Tele- attention to the topic or theme of nonhuman pres ence; Tompson; Wolfe, What; Rothfels), early mod- animals doesn’t mean that a familiar form of ern and medieval culture and theology (Salisbury; Fudge, humanism isn’t being maintained through Brutal Reasoning, Perceiving, and Renaissance Beasts; Tes- internal disciplinary practices that rely on a ter; Daston and Mitman; Shannon; Boehrer; Agamben; Linzey). Tis list is representative but not exhaustive. specifc schema of the knowing subject and 3. In Continental philosophy, representative dis- of the kind of knowledge he or she can have. cussions include Lawlor; Calarco; Steeves; Acampora; So even though your external disciplinarity Wolfe, Animal Rites and “Thinking”; in analytic phi- is posthumanist in taking seriously the exis- losophy, Mack; DeGrazia; Rachels; Regan; Singer; Cava- tence and ethical stakes of nonhuman beings lieri; Steiner; Cavell et al.; Nussbaum; in law, Francione, Animals as Person and Animals, Property; Wise; on food, (in that sense, it questions anthropocentrism), Pollan; Marcus; Scapp and Seitz. your internal disciplinarity may remain hu- 4. For a range of views on this question, see Cavell et manist to the core. (Indeed, such is the stan- al.; Francione, Animals, Property; Wise. 124. 2 ] Cary Wolfe 573 the 5. I say “a certain mode” here because, as has been duly ———. Te Postmodern Animal. London: Reaktion, 2001.

noted by many scholars, it is difcult to make the same Print. changing generalizations about the various kinds of cultural studies Balibar, Étienne. “Racism and Nationalism.” Race, Nation, that have gained widespread currency in the United States, Class: Ambiguous Identities. By Balibar and Immanuel Australia, and the United Kingdom (to name just three). Wallerstein. London: Verso, 1991. 37–67. Print. 6. Tis is not to say that using existing legal and juridi- Bataille, Georges. Teory of Religion. Trans. Robert Hur-

ley. Cambridge: Zone, 1992. Print.

cal means to protect animals is not to be applauded in the profession absence of other viable options. It is simply to observe, Bekof, Marc. Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, as Calarco (among many others) has noted, that “the dif- and Heart. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. Print. fculty concerns the tacit anthropocentric constraints at Boehrer, Bruce. Shakespeare among the Animals. London: work in political and legal institutions and how animal Palgrave, 2002. Print. rights discourse ends up acceding to and reproducing the Burghardt, Gordon M. Te Genesis of Animal Play. Cam- constraints that found and sustain these institutions” (8). bridge: MIT P, 2005. Print. 7. I discuss the question and theory of disciplinarity Burt, Jonathan. Animals in Film. London: Reaktion, in this light in much more detail in “‘Animal Studies,’ 2003. Print. Disciplinarity, and the (Post)Humanities,” in What Is Calarco, Matthew. Zoographies: Te Question of the Ani- Posthumanism? mal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York: Columbia 8. Many critics have articulated this charge. See in UP, 2008. Print. particular ch. 1 of my Animal Rites (21–43); Calarco Cavalieri, Paola. Te Animal Question: Why Nonhuman 6–10; Diamond, “Difculty.” For a detailed exposition of Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford UP, how these internal disciplinary diferences in approaches 2001. Print. to the animal play out on the terrain of contemporary Cavell, Stanley, et al. Philosophy and Animal Life. New philosophy, see my “Exposures.” York: Columbia UP, 2008. Print. Center for Food Safety. What’s Wrong with Factory Farm- ing? Center for Food Safety, n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2009. Chandler, James. “Critical Disciplinarity.” Critical In- WORKS CITED quiry 30.2 (2004): 355–60. Print. Acampora, Ralph R. Corporal Compassion: Animal Ethics Clarke, Bruce. Posthuman Metamorphosis: Narrative and and Philosophy of Body. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh Systems. New York: Fordham UP, 2008. Print. P, 2006. Print. Coetzee, J. M. Te Lives of Animals. Ed. and introd. Amy Adams, Carol J. Te Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist- Gutman. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1999. Print. Vegetarian Critical Teory. New York: Continuum, Collard, Andrée, with Joyce Contrucci. Rape of the 1989. Print. Wild: Man’s Violence against Animals and the Earth. Agamben, Giorgio. Te Open: Man and Animal. Trans. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1989. Print. Kevin Attell. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2004. Print. Daston, Lorraine, and Gregg Mitman, eds. Tinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism. Allen, Colin, and Marc Bekof. Species of Mind: Te Phi- New York: Columbia UP, 2006. Print. losophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology. Cambridge: MIT P, 1999. Print. DeGrazia, David. Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print. Allen, Mary. Animals in American Literature. Urbana: Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. Kafa: Toward a Mi- U of Illinois P, 1983. Print. nor Literature. Trans. Dana Polan. Minneapolis: U of Animal Legal Defense Fund. “Where Should You Go to Minnesota P, 1986. Print. Law School?” Animal Legal Defense Fund: Winning ———. A Tousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophre- the Case against Cruelty. Animal Legal Defense Fund, nia. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Min- n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2009. nesota P, 1987. Print. Te Animal—Part 1. Spec. issue of Mosaic 39.4 (2006): Derrida, Jacques. Te Animal Tat Terefore I Am. Ed. 1–213. Print. Marie- Louise Mallet. Trans. David Wills. New York: Te Animal—Part 2. Spec. issue of Mosaic 40.1 (2007): Fordham UP, 2008. Print. 1–213. Print. ——— . “ ‘ E a t i n g W e l l ’ ; o r , Te Calculation of the Subject: An Animal Studies Group. Killing Animals. Urbana: U of Il- Interview with Jacques Derrida.” Who Comes afer the linois P, 2006. Print. Subject? Ed. Eduardo Cadava, Peter Connor, and Jean- Badmington, Neil, ed. DerridAnimals. Spec. issue of Ox- Luc Nancy. New York: Routledge, 1991. 96–119. Print. ford Literary Review 29.1 (2007): v–vii, 1–125. Print. ——— . Of Spirit: Heidegger and the Question. Trans. Geof Baker, Steve. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Bennington and Rachel Bowlby. Chicago: U of Chi- Representation. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 2001. Print. cago P, 1991. Print. 574 Human, All Too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humanities [ PMLA

Diamond, Cora. “Te Difculty of Reality and the Dif- Lawlor, Leonard. Tis Is Not Sufcient: An Essay on Ani- fculty of Philosophy.” Cavell et al. 43–89. mality and Human Nature in Derrida. New York: Co- ——— . Te Realistic Spirit: Wittgenstein, Philosophy, and lumbia UP, 2007. Print. the Mind. Cambridge: MIT P, 1991. Print. Linzey, Andrew. Animal Teology. Urbana: U of Illinois Francione, Gary. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Aboli- P, 1995. Print. profession

tion of Animal Exploitation. New York: Columbia UP, Lippit, Akira. Electric Animal: Toward a Rhetoric of Wild- 2008. Print. life. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2000. Print. ——— . Animals, Property, and the Law. Philadelphia: Mack, Arien, ed. Humans and Other Animals. Columbus: Temple UP, 1995. Print. Ohio State UP, 1999. Print.

changing Fudge, Erica. Brutal Reasoning: Animals, Rationality, and Malamud, Randy. Poetic Animals and Animal Souls. New Humanity in Early Modern Tought. Ithaca: Cornell York: Palgrave, 2003. Print. UP, 2006. Print.

the Marcus, Erik. Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money. ——— . “ Te History of Animals.” H-Animal. H-Net, 25 May Boston: Brio, 2005. Print. 2006. Web. 20 Mar. 2009. Marx, Karl. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of ———. Perceiving Animals: Humans and Beasts in Early 1844.” Te Marx- Engels Reader. Ed. Robert C. Tucker. Modern En glish Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1978. 66–125. Print. 2000. Mason, Jennifer. Civilized Creatures: Urban Animals, ———, ed. Renaissance Beasts: Of Animals, Humans, and Sentimental Culture, and American Literature, 1850– Other Wonderful Creatures. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2005. Print. 2004. Print. McHugh, Susan. “One or Several Literary Animal Studies?” Fuss, Diana, ed. Human, All Too Human. New York: H-Animal. H-Net, 17 July 2006. Web. 20 Mar. 2009. Rout ledge, 1996. Print. Mitchell, Robert W., Nicholas S. Tompson, and H. Lyn Grenier, Roger. Te Difculty of Being a Dog. Trans. Alice Miles. Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals. Kaplan. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002. Print. Albany: State U of New York P, 1997. Print. Griffin, Donald. Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Nash, Richard, and Ron Broglio, eds. Tinking with Ani- Consciousness. Rev. ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, mals. Spec. issues of Configurations 14.1–2 (2006): 2001. Print. 1–192. Print. Haraway, Donna J. The Companion Species Manifesto: Norris, Margot. Beasts of the Modern Imagination: Dar- Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago: win, Nietzsche, Kafka, Ernst, and Lawrence. Balti- Prickly Paradigm, 2003. Print. more: Johns Hopkins UP, 1985. Print. ——— . Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the Nussbaum, Martha C. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Na- World of Modern Science. New York: Routledge, 1990. tionality, Species Membership. Cambridge: Harvard Print. UP, 2006. Print. ———. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Patterson, Charles. Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Ani- P, 2007. Print. mals and the Holocaust. New York: Lantern, 2002. Print. Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Became Posthuman. Chi- Peck, Jefrey M. “Advanced Literary Study as Cultural cago: U of Chicago P, 1999. Print. Study: A Redefnition of the Discipline.” Profession Kac, Eduardo, ed. Signs of Life: Bio Art and Beyond. Cam- (1985): 49–54. Print. bridge: MIT P, 2007. Print. Pepperberg, Irene. Te Alex Studies: Cognitive and Com- ——— . Telepresence and Bio Art: Networking Humans, municative Abilities of Grey Parrots. Cambridge: Har- Rabbits, and Robots. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, vard UP, 2002. Print. 2005. Print. Pollan, Michael. Te Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural His- Kalof, Linda, et al., comps. “Animal Studies Bibliogra- tory of Four Meals. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print. phy.” Ecological and Cultural Change Studies Group. Rachels, James. Created from Animals: Te Moral Implica- Ecological and Cultural Change Studies Group, n.d. tions of Darwinism. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print. Web. 19 Mar. 2009. Rajan, Tilottama. “In the Wake of Cultural Studies: Glo- Kenyon- Jones, Christine. Kindred Brutes: Animals in balization, Teory, and the University.” Diacritics 31.3 Romantic- Period Writing. Burlington: Ashgate, 2001. (2001): 67–88. Print. Print. Regan, Tom. Te Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: U of Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. California P, 1983. Print. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia UP, Ritvo, Harriet. Te Animal Estate: Te En glish and Other 1982. Print. Creatures in the Victorian Age. Cambridge: Harvard Kuzniar, Alice A. Melancholia’s Dog: Refections on Our UP, 1989. Print. Animal Kinship. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. Rohman, Carrie L. Stalking the Subject: Modernism and Print. the Animal. New York: Columbia UP, 2008. Print. 124. 2 ] Cary Wolfe 575 the Rooney, Ellen. “Form and Contentment.” MLQ 61.1 Steeves, H. Peter, ed. Animal Others: On Ethics, Ontol-

(2000): 17–40. Print. ogy, and Animal Life. Albany: State U of New York P, changing Rothfels, Nigel, ed. Representing Animals. Bloomington: 1999. Print. Indiana UP, 2002. Print. Steiner, Gary. Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: Te Salisbury, Joyce E. Te Beast Within: Animals in the Mid- Moral Status of Animals in the History of Western Phi- dle Ages. London: Routledge, 1994. Print. losophy. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2005. Print.

Tester, Keith. Animals and Society: Te Humanity of Ani- Savage- Rumbaugh, Sue, Stuart G. Shanker, and Talbot J. profession Taylor. Apes, Language, and the Human Mind. New mal Rights. London: Routledge, 1991. Print. York: Oxford UP, 2001. Print. Tompson, Nato, ed. Becoming Animal: Contemporary Scapp, Ron, and Brian Seitz, eds. Eating Culture. Albany: Art in the Animal Kingdom. Cambridge: MIT P, State U of New York P, 1998. Print. 2005. Print. Serpell, James. In the Company of Animals: A Study of Tyler, Tom, ed. Animal Beings. Spec. issue of Parallax 12.1 Human- Animal Relationships. Rev. ed. Cambridge: (2006): 1–128. Print. Cambridge UP, 1996. Print. ———. Ciferae: 101 Wild Animals: A Bestiary for Today in Serres, Michel. The Parasite. Trans. Lawrence Schehr. Five Fingers. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, forth- Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. Print. coming 2009. Print. Shannon, Laurie. “Poor, Bare, Forked: Animal Sover- Wise, Steven M. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights eignty, Human Negative Exceptionalism, and the for Animals. Cambridge: Perseus, 2000. Print. Natural History of King Lear.” Shakespeare Quarterly Wolfe, Cary. Animal Rites: American Culture, the Dis- (2009): forthcoming. Print. course of Species, and Posthumanist Teory. Chicago: Shell, Marc. “Te Family Pet.” Representations 15 (1986): U of Chicago P, 2003. Print. 121–53. Print. ———. “Exposures.” Cavell et al. 1–41. Shukin, Nicole. Animal Capital: Rendering Life in Biopoliti- ———. “Tinking Other- wise: Cognitive Science, Decon- cal Times. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2009. Print. struction and the (Non)Speaking (Non)Human Ani- Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon, 1975. mal Subject.” Animal Subjects: An Ethical Reader in Print. a Posthuman World. Ed. Jodey Castricano. Waterloo: Spiegel, Marjorie. Te Dreaded Comparison: Human and Wilfred Laurier UP, 2008. 125–43. Print. Animal Slavery. Expanded ed. New York: Mirror, ——— . What Is Posthumanism? Minneapolis: U of Min- 1997. Print. nesota P, forthcoming 2009. Print.