Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:43:03.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimenting at the Threshold: Sacrifice, Anthropomorphism, and the Aims of (Critical) Animal Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Kimberly W. Benston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the beings that are, presumably the most difficult to think about are living creatures, because … they are in a certain way most closely akin to us, and … are at the same time separated from our ek-sistent essence by an abyss.

—Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism”

Heir to the divided aristotelian vision of nonhuman creatures as, alternately, mute foils (Politics 9; BK. 1, Sec. 2) and behavioral mirrors (Parts 138–39, bk. 2, sec. 4) of “man,” the properly “political” animal, animal studies has displayed uncertainty about how and where to draw species boundaries. Among the provinces of this field of inquiry, none is more defined by this tension than laboratory biomedical research, where physiological correspondences underwrite animal models of human maladies, while presupposed ontological distinctions justify the consignment of nonhuman animals to treatment considered improper for human subjects. Conventionally, those distinctions have centered on a cluster of intellectual capabilities—reasoning, speaking, intending, remembering—the dearth or deficiency of which abrogates the nonhuman's right to dissent and legitimates the human claim of priority. “Animal studies” in this sense, designating a wide range of investigative operations employing nonhuman animal bodies, posits material resemblance and metaphysical incompatibility between researcher and the object of research.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 124 , Issue 2 , March 2009 , pp. 548 - 555
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Ralph, Acampora. Corporeal Compassion: Animal Ethics and Philosophy of Body. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Giorgio, Agamben. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1998. Print.Google Scholar
Michael, Anft. “Of Mice and Medicine.” Johns Hopkins Magazine Sept. 2008: 31–37. Print.Google Scholar
Animal Welfare Act: Final Rules. 9 CFR. Parts 1 and 2. Federal Register 54.168 (1989): 36112–63. Print.Google Scholar
Aristotle. Parts of Animals. Trans. A. L. Peck. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1937. Print.Google Scholar
Aristotle. The Politics. Trans. H. Rackham. New York: Putnam's, 1932. Print.Google Scholar
Arnold, Arluke. “Sacrificial Symbolism in Animal Experimentation: Object or Pet?” Anthrozoös 2.2 (1998): 97–116. Print.Google Scholar
Bailey, Jarrod, Knight, Andrew, and Balcombe, Jonathan. “The Future of Teratology Research Is in Vitro.” Biogenic Amines 19.2 (2005): 97–145. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckoff, Mark, and Jamieson, Dale, eds. Readings in Animal Cognition. Cambridge: MIT P, 1996. Print.Google Scholar
Claude, Bernard. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Science. 1865. Trans. Henry Copley Green. New York: Dover, 1957. Print.Google Scholar
Bhogal, Nirmala, and Combes, Robert. “The Relevance of Genetically Altered Mouse Models of Human Disease.” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 34.4 (2006): 429–54. Print.Google Scholar
Walter, Burkert. Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. 1972. Trans. Peter Bing. Berkeley: U of California P, 1983. Print.Google Scholar
Matthew, Calarco. Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York: Columbia UP, 2008. Print.Google Scholar
Larry, Carbone. What Animals Want: Expertise and Advocacy in Laboratory Animal Welfare Policy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.Google Scholar
Clark, Andrew G., et al. “Inferring Nonneutral Evolution from Human-Chimp-Mouse Orthologous Gene Trios.” Science 12 Dec. 2003: 1960–63. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greg, Critser. “Of Mice and Men: How a Twenty-Gram Rodent Conquered the World of Science.” Harper's Magazine Dec. 2007: 65–76. Print.Google Scholar
Pietro, Croce. Vivisection or Science? London: Zed, 1999. Print.Google Scholar
Jacques, Derrida. “‘Eating Well’; or, The Calculation of the Subject: An Interview with Jacques Derrida.” Who Comes after the Subject? Ed. Cadava, Eduardo, Connor, Peter, and Nancy, Jean-Luc. Trans. Connor and Avital Ronnell. New York: Routledge, 1991. 96–119. Print.Google Scholar
Michel, Foucault. The History of Sexuality. Trans. Robert Hurley. Vol. 1. London: Penguin, 1981. Print.Google Scholar
Gernhardt, Ann R. The Importance of Being a Mouse. Illus. Robert Fisher. Washington: Foundation for Biomedical Research, 2004. Print.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Alan M. “Use of Animals in Research: A Science-Society Controversy? The American Perspective: Animal Welfare Issues.” Alternatives to Animal Experiments 19.3 (2002): 137–39. Print.Google Scholar
Greek, C. Ray, and Greek, Jean Swingle. Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals. New York: Continuum, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Griffin, Donald R. Animal Thinking. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1984. Print.Google Scholar
Griffin, Donald R. The Question of Animal Awareness: Evolutionary Continuity of Mental Experience. New York: Rockefeller UP, 1976. Print.Google Scholar
Sara, Guyer. Romanticism after Auschwitz. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2007. Print.Google Scholar
Hackam, Daniel G., and Redelmeier, Donald A. “Translation of Research Evidence from Animals to Humans.” Journal of the American Medical Association 296.14 (2006): 1731–32. Print.Google Scholar
Mason, Harris. “Vivisection, the Culture of Science, and Intellectual Uncertainty in The Island of Doctor Moreau.” Gothic Studies 4.2 (2002): 99–115. Print.Google Scholar
Martin, Heidegger. “Letter on Humanism.” Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings. Trans. Frank A. Capuzzi, with J. Glenn Gray and David Krell. Ed. Krell. New York: Harper, 1977. 193–242. Print.Google Scholar
LaFollete, Hugh, and Shanks, Niall. Brute Science. London: Routledge, 1996. Print.Google Scholar
Liao, Ben-Yang, and Zhang, Jianzhi. “Null Mutations in Human and Mouse Orthologs Frequently Result in Different Phenotypes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105.19 (2008): 6987–92. Print.Google Scholar
Phillips, Mary T. “Proper Names and the Social Construction of Biography: The Negative Case of Laboratory Animals.” Qualitative Sociology 17.2 (1994): 119–42. Print.Google Scholar
Pandora, Pound, et al. “Where Is the Evidence That Animal Research Benefits Humans?” British Medical Journal 328.7438 (2004): 514–17. Print.Google Scholar
Roep, B. O., and Atkinson, M. “Animal Models Have Little to Teach Us about Type 1 Diabetes.” Diabetologia 47.10 (2004): 1650–56. Print.Google Scholar
Rogers, Lesley J. Minds of Their Own: Thinking and Awareness in Animals. Boulder: Westview, 1997. Print.Google Scholar
Carrie, Rohman. “Burning Out the Animal: The Failure of Enlightenment Purification in H. G. Wells's The Island of Dr. Moreau.” Figuring Animals. Ed. Pollock, Mary Sanders and Rainwater, Catherine. New York: Palgrave, 2005. 121–34. Print.Google Scholar
Harry, Rozmiarek. “Origins of the IACUC.” The IACUC Handbook. Ed. Silverman, Jerald, Suckow, Mark A., and Murthy, Sreekant. Boca Raton: CRC, 2000. 1–10. Print.Google Scholar
Jim, Schnabel. “Neuroscience: Standard Model.” Nature 7 Aug. 2008: 682–85. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svare, Bruce, and Broida, John. “Genotypic Influences on Infanticide in Mice: Environmental, Situational and Experiential Determinants.” Physiology and Behavior 28.1 (1982): 171–75. Print.Google Scholar
Katy, Taylor, et al. “Estimates for Worldwide Laboratory Animal Use in 2005.” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 36.3 (2008): 327–42. Print.Google Scholar
James, Turner. Reckoning with the Beast: Animals, Pain, and Humanity in the Victorian Mind. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980. Print.Google Scholar
Van Loo, P. L. P., L. F. M. Van Zutphen, and Baumans, V. “Male Management: Coping with Aggression Problems in Male Laboratory Mice.” Laboratory Animals 37.4 (2003): 300–13. Print.Google Scholar
Weber, Elin M., Anna S. Olsson, and Algers, Bo. “High Mortality Rates among Newborn Laboratory Mice—Is It Natural and Which Are the Causes?” Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 49 supplement +1 (2007): S8/1–3. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, H. G. The Island of Dr. Moreau. 1886. New York: Signet, 2005. Print.Google Scholar
Cary, Wolfe. Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Theory. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2003. Print.Google Scholar
Woodrooffe, Amanda J., and Coleman, Robert A. “Human Tissue Research for Drug Discovery.” Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News 27.18 (2007): 60–64. Print.Google Scholar