Akash Belsare Dissertation Prospectus English and African American Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Akash Belsare Dissertation Prospectus English and African American Studies Humanimal Narratives: Genre and Animality in Contemporary Ethnic Literatures Argumentative Overview This project asks why authors of color engage with animals in contemporary literature—despite (or due to) a deep history in which nonhuman animals and raced bodies have been primitivized, animalized, or otherwise marginalized alongside each other—and what results from this engagement. What types, or genres, of narratives do ethnic writers utilize when taking up animal spaces, themes, and subjects? How do these authors, given their own individual positionalities, navigate what appears to be an utterly damaging association? How do such texts challenge primarily western epistemological assumptions regarding the relationship between the human animal and the nonhuman animal? Finally, what are the implications—not just for our understanding of race, but also gender, sexuality, and nation—that emerge as a result of works that ultimately destabilize the very conditions for human-animal distinction? Before proceeding, I would like to explain the function of the term “humanimal” as the titular guiding force for this study. For Kalpana Seshadri, the term “humAnimal” perfectly encapsulates the human condition of the feral, or “ferality.” Here, the feral child produces a “hole,” or gap, in our epistemological understanding of taxonomic classification, and the “humAnimal” functions as the “cross-stitching” necessary to “open and close the weave of power that separates and unseparates human and animal” (22). Similarly, Dipika Nath has argued that the “feral person throws into disorder the taxonomic status of the human as animale rationale because it shows up the arbitrary and nonessential nature of the ontological and ethical hierarchy between nonhuman and human animals” (253). While my use of the term certainly recalls the instability of taxonomies, this study seeks to expand its purview from the feral child to all sorts of “in-between” figures in fiction (the slave, the immigrant, the talking animal, among others). As such, the “humanimal” is meant to pry open the “hole” between human and animal orders, thereby revealing how each category is wholly compromised in the context of the Western idea of (human) being. The historical correlation between oppressive discourses of race and animality in the west is well-documented in the fields of black studies, ethnic studies, critical race studies, postcolonial studies, and animal studies. Claire Jean Kim, in Dangerous Crossings: Race, Species, and Nature in a Multicultural Age, traces the philosophical separation of human animals and nonhuman animals from Plato and the ancient Greeks to the Christian Great Chain of Being to the biological determinism of the nineteenth century. Kim describes how these taxonomies of power did not merely divide whites against nonwhites but used animalization to subjugate people of color. Here, race “lumps and splits” nonwhite groups according to how close to nature they are perceived (24). Blackness, Chineseness, and Indianness represented different levels of animality depending on the situated context. Of course, this oppressive association occurs analogously in the reverse, with the appearance of animals often suggesting an allegorical reading of race. Thomas LaMarre refers to such “speciesism” as a “displacement of race and racism onto relations between humans and animals” that is also used to indicate “discrimination against nonhuman animals” (76). The back-and-forth association of race with animality and vice versa facilitates the co-constitution of both groups: “The less-than humanity of one type of being reverberates across time and space with the less-than-humanity of the other” (Kim 18). Humanimal narratives, I argue, intensify and exploit this reverberation—often to the point of categorical splintering—while remaining cognizant of an intractable history that continues to subjugate raced beings and nonhuman animals alongside each other. It should be no surprise, then, that scholarship on race seldom engages with theories of animality, despite efforts in critical animal studies to abolish the rigidity of a human-animal dualism or binary. For instance, Alexander Weheliye’s Habeas Viscus: Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human uses “race” to refer to “all ‘-isms’ versus only one specific form of subjection such as sexism” (23). However, while the abject is situated as a relational figure—the “not-quite-human”—that includes “black subjects, along with indigenous populations, the colonized, the insane, the poor [and] the disabled,” the animal remains wholly “nonhuman,” a biological category devoid of political charge. For Weheliye, the utilitarian purposing of black liberation in the field of animal studies is an underhanded “sleight” by critics “attempting to achieve animal rights” at the expense of black subjects by relegating the “thought of nonwhite subjects to the ground of ethnographic specificity” (10-11). Animal liberation is perceived as a cooptation that risks the already limited status of nonwhite peoples. However, the language of “linkage”—the causal connection between violence toward animals and violence towards minority peoples—is equally of concern to animal studies scholars. As Margo DeMello has noted, critics are often wary of either reducing human loss and pain or treating animals as absent referents when confronted by comparisons of animal suffering and human exploitation (269). As such, this study does not offer a comparative model for reading humanimal narratives; instead, it is my aim to consider the relationality and entanglement of human-animal encounters in contemporary ethnic fiction. Writers of color might also be accused of capitulating to the demands of a neoliberal literary market when taking up animal themes. Indeed, there is a danger in reading too much into every animal figure that appears in such cultural works. I remember taking an undergraduate seminar on multiethnic American fiction in which a spiraling class discussion on Jhumpa Lahiri’s “Interpreter of Maladies” was put to an end when the professor proclaimed, “sometimes a monkey is just a monkey.” Still, this study asks if the conditions of Western Man and Humanism—through a meeting of race and animal criticism—may be better articulated, resisted, and fundamentally undone in those works of ethnic literature that address animality. In making such a claim, I hope to show that representations of the animal can embody, to some extent, epistemologies of relationality beyond the scope of Western taxonomies. In this sense, I am building on Steve Baker’s argument in Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation, which explores the “representational strategies…that might have a chance to modify human perceptions of the nonhuman animal and to increase awareness of living animals’ circumstances” (xvii). He goes on to note that the purpose is not to simply identify what animals already signify, but to exact a “benevolent manipulation” and find “what animals might yet be made to signify” (xxxvi, italics in original). I argue that humanimal narratives produce a signification that paradigmatically encapsulates alternative, non-Western epistemologies. These works demonstrate the impossibility of isolating animality without simultaneously disturbing dominant conceptions of the human. The literary texts examined are thus denaturalized and treated as theories—in accordance with calls from Barbara Christian, Donald C. Goellnicht, and Kandice Chuh—in which unexpected intimacies between the not-quite-human and the nonhuman animal offer new, more expansive, opportunities for freedom “in the ethereal shadows of Man’s world” (Weheliye 138). Scholars of postcolonial studies have perhaps gone farthest in recognizing not only the imposition of racialized animality as part of a transnational colonial legacy that concretized an absolute differentiation between the human and the animal, but also the ways in which racialized, colonial, or subaltern writers can strategically invalidate Western discourses on race and species. In “Postcolonial Critique in a Multispecies World,” Neel Ahuja refers to animal masking as an ironic appropriation of an animal guise that unveils a historical logic of animalization inherent in processes of racial subjection (558). Yet, he remains wary of literary critics who “reduce nonhuman characters to symbols” and thereby “foreclose transspecies relations underlying representation” (559). In “The Postcolonial Animal” Philip Armstrong is similarly concerned about reducing the agency of subaltern subjects. He argues that a collaboration between postcolonial and animal studies allows for “respect for local differences, suspicion of theories and values that claim absolute authority, and commitment to ongoing dialogue with formerly repressed cultural knowledge” (416-17). Ultimately, he suggests, this intersection encourages critics to “listen to the voices of all kinds of ‘other’ without either ventriloquizing them or assigning to them accents so foreign that they never can be understood” (417). Building on these arguments, this study argues that the entanglement of animality and race in contemporary ethnic literature has produced a level of epistemological experimentation that does not boil down to humanist symbolism or representation. Instead, writers of color often engage with animality to reject distinctions between the material and the semiotic in