While most approaches to animal ethics emphasize the equality of non-human and human animals, this paper recognizes the animal not as an equal, but as an absolute other. In order “to sketch” the argument for such a new approach, the essay relies on Jean-François Lyotard’s notion of the “differend” and makes explicit use of his analysis of the phrase-affect. The “differend” is typically used for understanding the oppression of individuals or groups who have lost the ability to defend themselves. With the phrase-affect Lyotard opposes the animal phônè (the signaling of the body) to human logos. He emphasizes that against our emphasis of logos, we have to recognize that meaning does not only reside in human language. To deny meaning to phônè constitutes a “differend” — a situation in which an individual or group (in this case the non-human animal) is systematically denied rights and cannot phrase the injustice experienced. Through the phrase-affect this essay, thus, applies Lyotard’s analysis of the victim of a “differend” to the non-human animal. Although he never developed such an analysis, Lyotard does mention that the animal constitutes the “paradigm of a victim.” More broadly he argues that we need to cultivate sensitivity for otherness and for the “differend.” The essay argues that a human rights approach can be made precisely through such a strategy, in which we do not emphasize equality, but the absolute otherness as a basis for respect and ethics. The result of this approach is that we recognize the right of the animal to exist as an autonomous being.
[book]
Lyotard, Jean-François
/ 1988
/ The Differend: Phrases in Dispute
/ U of Minnesota P
[journal]
Lyotard, Jean-François
/ 2001
/ The Phrase-Affect (From a Supplement to the Differend)
/ Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology
32(3)
: 234~241
[book]
Regan, Tom
/ 2004
/ The Case for Animal Rights
/ U of California P
[book]
Singer, Peter
/ 2009
/ Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement
/ HarperCollins
[book]
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
/ 2001
/ Philosophical Investigations
/ Blackwell
[book]
Wood, David
/ 2005
/ The Step Back Ethics and Politics after Deconstruction
/ State U of New York P
@article{ART002045341}, author={Gerard KUPERUS }, title={Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics}, journal={탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities}, issn={2092-6081}, year={2015}, volume={8}, number={3}, pages={149-168}, doi={10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149}
TY - JOUR AU - Gerard KUPERUS TI - Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics JO - 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities PY - 2015 VL - 8 IS - 3 PB - Ewha Institute for the Humanities: EIH SP - 149 EP - 168 SN - 2092-6081 AB - While most approaches to animal ethics emphasize the equality of non-human and human animals, this paper recognizes the animal not as an equal, but as an absolute other. In order “to sketch” the argument for such a new approach, the essay relies on Jean-François Lyotard’s notion of the “differend” and makes explicit use of his analysis of the phrase-affect. The “differend” is typically used for understanding the oppression of individuals or groups who have lost the ability to defend themselves. With the phrase-affect Lyotard opposes the animal phônè (the signaling of the body) to human logos. He emphasizes that against our emphasis of logos, we have to recognize that meaning does not only reside in human language. To deny meaning to phônè constitutes a “differend” — a situation in which an individual or group (in this case the non-human animal) is systematically denied rights and cannot phrase the injustice experienced. Through the phrase-affect this essay, thus, applies Lyotard’s analysis of the victim of a “differend” to the non-human animal. Although he never developed such an analysis, Lyotard does mention that the animal constitutes the “paradigm of a victim.” More broadly he argues that we need to cultivate sensitivity for otherness and for the “differend.” The essay argues that a human rights approach can be made precisely through such a strategy, in which we do not emphasize equality, but the absolute otherness as a basis for respect and ethics. The result of this approach is that we recognize the right of the animal to exist as an autonomous being. KW - Lyotard;animal ethics;phrase-affect;alterity;differend DO - 10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149 ER -
Gerard KUPERUS . (2015). Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics. 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities, 8(3), 149-168.
Gerard KUPERUS . 2015, "Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics", 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities, vol.8, no.3 pp.149-168. Available from: doi:10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149
Gerard KUPERUS "Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics" 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities 8.3 pp.149-168 (2015) : 149.
Gerard KUPERUS . Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics. 2015; 8(3), 149-168. Available from: doi:10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149
Gerard KUPERUS . "Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics" 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities 8, no.3 (2015) : 149-168.doi: 10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149
Gerard KUPERUS . Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics. 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities, 8(3), 149-168. doi: 10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149
Gerard KUPERUS . Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics. 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities. 2015; 8(3) 149-168. doi: 10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149
Gerard KUPERUS . Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics. 2015; 8(3), 149-168. Available from: doi:10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149
Gerard KUPERUS . "Heterogeneity and Injustice: A Sketch for a Lyotardian Approach to Animal Ethics" 탈경계인문학Trans-Humanities 8, no.3 (2015) : 149-168.doi: 10.22901/trans.2015.8.3.149