Anthro K Race

8/15/2019 Anthro K Race

1/29

Anthropocentrism


2/29

Anthro vs Race


3/29

1NC

There is no neutral stance towards anthropocentrism –Humanism is a performative factory that constantly produces

an empty human sovereignty. The armative reiesanthropocentric e!ceptionalism "y locating the particularantagonism of slavery. Rather# the foundational politicalcon$ict has always "een "etween the human and the animal%olf&'eyer 20() Matthew, Asst Prof of Anthropology at the UC, Santa Cruz “The Open: Man and An!al"#http:$$re%onstru%ton"eser&er"org$'(e&ews$re&TheOpen"ht!

)*+ th no !enton of hs pror wor- on the ssues of so&eregnty or theprodu%ton of hu!anty, Aga!.en !a-es a foray nto %o!pl%atng su%h !atters .ye/a!nng the theorzaton of the an!al and ts relaton to the hu!an n the wor-of 1o3&e 4and 5egel6 and 5edegger7 what Aga!.en atte!pts to do s to %ollapsethe 8gures of the an!al and !an 4and, despte the se/st o&ertones of !an, 9ll

a.de .y hs usage6 nto one another, !plyng that the state of animality is aperformative# *ust as humanity is# and that there is strength to "e drawnfrom the indeterminate passage "etween these states" 5s o.e%t oforentaton throughout the essay s the +anthropological machine#+ that+optical machine constructed in a series of mirrors n wh%h !an, loo-ng ath!self, sees hs own !age always already defor!ed n the features of an apefacilitating hs recognition of h!self in a non&,hu-man in order to "ehuman 42;


4/29

moderns# are the "ar"arians# slaves and foreigners of earlier empires#

not animals per se " 9n .oth %ases, the !a%hne depends on esta.lshng a zone

of nderen%e 4@=6 wheren the gure of the human and the animal areindistinguisha"le and reliant upon their discursive production. 3t is in this+one of indi6erence+ that neither animal nor human life is found# "ut

rather only +"are life+ 4@B6" And, !ay.e strangely, the %losest one !ght %o!e to-nowng ths zone of nderen%e s n .oredo!" )@+ A su.stantal a!ount ofAga!.ens essay s ded%ated to readng 5edeggers thn-ng on the su.e%t of thean!al, found n o%%asonal footnotes throughout the latters wor-, and%on%entrated n Par!endes" hat Aga!.en 8nds n .oredo!


5/29

machine to idle, and for the posthu!an to "ecome a&human# for in this a&humanity is an nfan%y, a not&yet# a +one of indi6erence+ within whichthere is no need for animal rights# nor human rights# "ut rather only theright to "are life" )J+ As wth hs earler wor-, the !pl%atons of The Open areprofound: %ith any of the "inaries that are used to determine the realm ofthe human 4So%ety and >ature .eng only a representat&e e/a!ple6, it is in the

dou"le&articulation that the overdetermination of the terms as such isdestructive. This lends itself not to hy"rid thought# of lin0ing >ature


6/29

s an nsu%ent response to ther freNuently a.e%t legal and %ultural %ondton" hle %reatng a nonew s%ourse That the hu!an$su.hu!an .nary%ontnues to nha.t so !u%h of western e/peren%e rases the Nueston of the %ontnung rele&an%e of anthropo%entr% %on%epts 4su%h as “hu!an rghts#and “hu!an dgnty#6 for ee%t&e theores of ust%e, pol%y and so%al !o&e!ents" 9nstead of 8ghtng dehu!anzaton wth hu!anzaton, a .etterstrategy !ay .e to !n!ze the hu!an$nonhu!an .oundary altogether" s%ourses of antthers to esta"lish the moral worth of human "eings# willalways "e vulnera"le to the su"human gure it creates. Ths 8gure s easly deployed n nter<hu!an &olent %onH%t !pl%atng ra%e, gender and %ultural denttes as we ha&e seen n the %onte/t of !ltary and pol%e %a!ps, %onte!porary sla&eryand sla&ery


7/29

and t!e agan: the real! of nonhu!an s not solely o%%uped .y an!als" 5stor%alConte/t:

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWPatrar%hy, slavery and the so%al !atr/ of spe%ess! emerged n tande! to oneanother from the same region that fathered agriculture in the 'iddle ast durng the Chal%olth% Age" 5umer, now !odern 9raN, was the rst %&lzaton to

engage in core agricultural practices such as organzed rrgaton andspecialied la"or with slaves and animals . They rased %attle, sheep and pgs,used o/ for draught ther .east of .urden and eNuds for transport 4Say%e ??6" The0nowledge to store food as standing reserve meant migration was nolonger necessary to survive" The population density "red social hierarchiessupported at its "ase "y slaves 41ra!er D=6" 9n Su!er, there were only twoso%al stratas to .elong to: lu the free !an and arad the sla&e 41ra!er D=6"Technologies such as "randing irons# chains and cages that weredeveloped to dominate animals paved way for the domination overhumans too" The “human rule over the lower creatures provided the mentalanalogue in which many political and social arrangements are "ased#4Patterson 2B06" Caged and castrated# slaves were treated no di6erent from

chattel. Thousands of years later# the tools developed in the 'iddle ast for do!est%aton were used "y the uropeans during coloniation to shac0leslaves" “hen the Quropean settlers arr&ed n Tas!ana n *==2, the ndgenouspeople see! not to ha&e not%ed the!'y *B@0 ther nu!.ers had .een redu%edfro! around 8&e hundred to se&enty


8/29

5u!anty deonetheless, wth these %apa%tes %o!e respons.lty and our proposal of glo.alsu%de s dre%ted at .rngng nto full &ew the ssue of hu!an !oral respons.lty"%hen ta0ing a wider view of history# one which focuses on the relationshipof humans towards other species# it "ecomes clear that the human


9/29

heritage &&and the propagation of itself as a thing of value&&has occurredon the "ac0 of seemingly endless acts of violence # destruction# 0illing andgenocide" hle ths %annot .e &er8ed, perhaps human history and progress"egins with the genocide of the Neanderthals and never loses a stepthereafter" 9t only ta-es a short gl!pse at the lst of all the suerngs %aused .yhu!anty for one to .egn to Nueston whether ths spe%es deser&es to %ontnue

nto the future" The lst of hu!an

The alternative is an identication with species&"eing@disrupting the ethical e!ceptionalism of humanism.Hudson ;((G aura, Irad student n Cultural Studes at UC


10/29

thought" Mar/ argues that we !ust %o!e to re%ognze the sensual realty of natureand the supersesson of the a.stra%t thought


11/29


12/29

;NC K%

Counter&interpretation2 the a6 must defend "oth the plan andits *ustications here are our reasons to prefer

a. neg ground – we should "e a"le to test all parts of the a6– on a topic as huge as this itDs 0ey to neg generics"ecause there are so many possi"le a6 mechanisms

". fairness – they chose the 1AC and got innite prep time toresearch it – they should "e prepared to defend it –thereDs no o6ense for them – they still get to weigh theiradvantages as long as they can *ustify them

c. education – impact turn2 prefer critical education teaches

us to "e "etter# more informed thin0ers rather than *ustpolicy won0s who donDt 0now a"out anything unless itDsunder the purview of the 75KB

d. predicta"ility – we are predicta"le# it should "ee!pected for the armative team to have to defend theirrepresentations

e. depth – we can have an in depth de"ate a"outdi6erent policy alternatives li0e the 0riti0

The role of the "allot is to vote for the team that "est endorsesan ethic of e?uality

a. !tend our Fochi and >rdan D(G evidence that notchallenging the human:nonhuman "inary only leads toendless cycles of violence including genocide


13/29

". The *udge should ma0e no ethical compromises only avote negative for the alternative allows for a true changeto e?uality

c. ven if the alternative canDt solve it we should still try

to engage in an ethical form of politics this round should"e a starting point

thical principles of rights should "e considered rst – otherinterpretations are assigned no moral value if con$icting withthe principles of rights "ecause viewing the de"ate from aethical perspective is the only way to guarantee freedomKreeman 4) A&alon Professor n the 5u!antes at the Un&ersty ofPennsyl&ana, Ph"" 5ar&ard Un&ersty, E"" Un&ersty of >orth Carolna 4Sa!uel,“Utltarans!, eontology, and the Prorty of (ght,# Phlosophy and Pu.l% Aars,Kol" 2@, >o" D, Autu!n, pp" @*@


14/29

and e!pectations they cannot "e appealed to in political conte!ts to *ustify limiting others freedom# or even the coercive redistri"ution ofincome and wealth 4%f" TE, pp" @@*ow return to1y!l%-as argu!ent" 1y!l%-a says .oth (awls and utltarans agree on the pre!se of g&ng eNual %onsderatonto e&eryones nterests, and that .e%ause utltarans aord eNual %onsderaton, they !ust re%ognze, rather thandeny, that nd&duals are dstn%t persons wth ther own rghtful %la!s" That s, n (awlss %lass8%aton, a postonthat ar!s the prorty of the rght o&er the good 4CC, p" 2;6" Sn%e (awls treats the rght as a spellngegotaton,www"lan%s"a%"u-$fss$polt%s$e&ents$a.er$eth%sZ20andZ20negotatonZ20Z20.ulley"do%6Cru%ally an openness to ust%e %annot .e an a pror good thng" 9ndeed, l-e the future, one %an say t %an only .e

“ant%pated n the for! of an a.solute danger"# As n%al%ula.le and un-nowa.le, an un%ondtonal openness to thefutureto%o!e of ust%e rs-s the %o!ng of what he %alls the “worst"# The !ost o.&ous 8gures of ths “worst,# or,

“per&erse %al%ulaton,# are atro%tes su%h as geno%de, >azs!, /enopho.a, so%alledVethn% %leansng" These we %an and !ust oppose or pre&ent" 'ut why hy only theseerrda states that what we %an oppose s only those “e&ents that we thn- o.stru%t thefuture or .rng death,# those that %lose the future to the %o!ng of the other" e %anoppose ths futurepresent 4a future that wll .e present6 %o!ng then on the .ass of the futureto%o!e 4a future

wth no e/pe%taton of presen%e6" Or to put t n ter!s of the other, we can oppose those otherswho prevent our openness to other others" Su%h was the deology of >atonalSo%als! n ts desre to entrely negate the Eews" e ha&e a duty to guard aganstthe %o!ng of su%h a theory or dea" hy 'e%ause su%h an other %loses us to the other7 a future that%loses the future"5owe&er, f, as errda says there s no ult!ate way of udgng .etween our respons.lty for others, as “Q&eryother 4one6 s e&ery 4.t6 other,# whose %al%ulaton %an we say s per&erse, or the Vworst hy are we respons.le

to &%t!s rather than the perpetrators of atro%tes f .oth are eNually Vother ho !a-es ths de%son and how

%an t .e ust8ed e&nas suggests that our “.eng ntheworld# our .engasweare, sonly conceiva"le in relation to# and "ecause of# the other" Thus the deathof the other calls our very "eing into ?uestion" thics in this senseprecedes ontology as our responsi"ility to the other precedes our own"eing" e !ay say then that our %o!!t!ent s to those that a%%ept the other asother, that allow the other to .e" There s a danger though that ths .e%o!es foundatonal, treated as agroundng prn%ple outsde tradtonal !odernst eth%s on wh%h we %an .uld a new Vtheory of eth%s" Ths s notthe &alue of errdean and e&nasan thn-ng howe&er" hat !a-es ther derent ways of thn-ng the othernterestng s not that they are a.solutely rght or Vtrue, .ut rather that they ta-e tradtonal eth%al thn-ng to tsl!t" hether or not a Eewsh tradton s pr&leged o&er Iree-, they re!an wthn the .ounds of estern!etaphys%s" errdas “respons.lty Fto the OtherG wthout l!ts,# does not es%ape ths, esta.lshng tself

unpro.le!at%ally as a Vground outsde tradtonal thn-ng" (ather, hs thn-ng of the eth%al shows that we %an

thn- these thngs derently, whle stll a%%eptng the e/gen%y to pre&ent theVworst" There %an .e no ult!ate foundaton for what we thn- s the worst" And su%h a foundaton %annot %o!efro! outsde estern !etaphys%s" !t thn-ng s not an !!o&a.le .ass for udge!ent of the worst, and ths swhy t s so dangerous and trou.lng" The non.ass of udge!ent s rather the desre to stay as open as poss.le,whle re%ognsng that a udge!ent ne%essarly %loses" The goal s for our %losure to ha&e the %hara%ter of anopenng 4%losng the futurepresent to allow the futureto%o!e6, .ut t ne&ertheless re!ans a %losure" And e&ery%losure s pro.le!at%"


15/29

There is an impact framing 8A that warrants a neg "allot

1& the armative only calculates the human "ody countand not the animal "ody count furthering the oppressionof the non&human animal


16/29

;NC Ein0

Kirst – Their use of the inhuman as an analytic re&inscri"es

Humanism – their authors assume an ontological "rea0"etween the inhuman 9lac0 "ody and the Human

,LA'/E5-

5ituating the inhuman %3TH3N the /ART3C7EAR gure of the9lac0 9ody attempts to give the su"human category coherence– that maintains the very "inary that is the originary split ofanthropocentrism – ThatDs 8ec0ha

5econd – Their /ART3AE H35T>RM mas0s speciesist violence

Their arguments a"out the impossi"ility of ethical su"*ectiveaction in a structurally un*ust society applies to TH' more – if we win Anthropocentrism goes "eyond Race %ar# then the a6is only mystication – ThatDs %>EK&'MR and HM8T

5ilence on the Anthropological 'achine is 3T5EK humanistviolence – false neutrality is precisely what ena"les humanprimacy to go unchallenged9ell and Russell ;((( FAnne C" and Constan%e ", “'eyond 5u!an, .eyond

ords: Anthropo%entrs!, Crt%al Pedagogy, and the Poststru%turalst Turn#,Canadan Eournal of Qdu%aton, Kol" 2J, >o" @ pp" *BB


17/29

criti?ue of it . Lollowng fe!nst analyses, we 8nd that e!amples of anthropocentrism, l-e

e/a!ples of gender sy!.olzaton, occur +in those places where spea0ers reveal the

assumptions they thin0 they do not need to defend , .elefs they e/pe%t to share wth therauden%es 45ardng, *?B;, p" **26" Ta-e, for e/a!ple, Lreres 4*??06 state!ents a.out the deren%es .etween Man andan!als" To set up hs ds%usson of pra/s and the !portan%e of na!ng the world, he outlnes what he assu!es to .e shared,%o!!onsens%al .elefs a.out hu!ans and other an!als" 5e de8nes the .oundares of hu!an !e!.ershp a%%ordng to a sharp,

her< ar%h%al d%hoto!y that esta.lshes hu!an superorty" 5u!ans alone, he re!nds us, are aware and self


18/29

;NC 3mpact

The F Turns and >utweighs Case –

1 –'agnitude – 9oth the su"&structural AN8 visi"le violence ofgenocidal anthropocentrism outweighs ?ualitatively and?uantitatively – The num"er of animals slaughtered on thealtar of humanism each year is eight times the worldDs


19/29

;NC Alt

Humanism operates on a use it or lose it "asis

!tend %olf&'eyer and Hudson.

Their appeal to the specicity or the uni?ueness of theirpolitics 35 the lin0@it reinstates a sovereign e!ceptionalismthat retains the right to humanity@your "allot should refusetheir "lac0mail.

Poting negative recognies that humanity is an a"stractionseparate from coherent e!istence – it is an act ofDISidentication# not the valoriation of a particular identity

This refusal ena"les a new understanding of humanity and

e!istence "y removing the illusion that


20/29

to provide counter&histories to what 9&an 9ll%h %alled “modern certainties#=or the


21/29

;NC 5olves Case

3dentication with species&"eing challenges the structures thatproduced the slave "ody "etter. The alternative reveals the

slaughterhouse "uried "y the armatives partial history&ThatDs Heydt and Fochi Q >rdan

3f we win that you should prioritie the human:animal divide# itproves their method only reproduces humanism – their appealto the uni?ueness of their politics 35 the lin0

5u"*ectivity2 The continual capture of the human necessitatesan endless war against nonhuman alterity. Anthropocentrismcreates a necropolitical relation that e!plains the a"*ectness of the slave "ody.

Hudson ;(11 aura, Ph n Cultural Studes at UC


22/29

A; /erm

The perm magnies the lin0s – the production of hy"rid "eingsassumes the category of the human is still worth saving – the

attempt to constantly negotiate the terms of the human andanimal leaves the division unchallenged and only relocates thethreshold of e!clusion3n contrast# the alternative a"andons the claims to humansovereignty@thatDs %olf&'eyer.

Third – The permutation performs a move of dialecticalsynthesis that assimilates the undecida"ility of animalityAgam"en ;(() Iorgo, The Open, p B* The ln- that Pauls te/t on the apo-arado-a tes -tseos esta.lshed .etween nature

and rede!pton, .etween %reature and redee!ed hu!anty, s here shattered"3deas @which# li0e stars#


23/29

welder who pro%la!ed the !astery of %hldren .y adults to .e the sense ofedu%aton 9s not edu


24/29

animal studies can "e addressed ade?uately only if we confront them ontwo levels2 not *ust the level of content# thematics# and the o"*ect of0nowledge Ithe animal studied "y animal studiesJ "ut also the level oftheoretical and methodological approach Ihow animal studies studies theanimalJ" To put t .luntly, *ust "ecause we study nonhuman animals does notmean that we are not continuing to "e humanist @and therefore, .y

de8nton, anthropocentric" 9ndeed, one of the hallmar0s of humanism@andmore specically of the 0ind of humanism called li"eral ism@is precisely itspenchant for the sort of


25/29

fa!lar e/presson would .e the e/tenson of the urd%al su.e%t of “rghts# fro!the hu!an to the an!al sphere6"; The full force of animal studies# then#resides in its power to remind us that it is not enough to reread andreinterpret@from a safe ontological distance# as it were@the relation ofmetaphor and species di6erence# the cross&pollination of speciesist#se!ist# and racist discursive structures n lterature, and so on" That

underta-ng s no dou.t praseworthy and long o&erdue, .ut as long as it leavesun?uestioned the humanist schema of the 0nowing su"*ect whounderta0es such a reading# then it sustains the very humanism andanthropocentrism that animal studies sets out to ?uestion" And ths s why,f ta-en serously, animal studies ought not to "e viewed as simply the latest$avor of the month of what Ea!es Chandler %alls the


26/29

fully e!amined" 9t s a Nueston, as errda has put t, of the nature of the “auto


27/29

A; Alt : Accessi"le

Suestions of accessi"ility are a divide&and&con?uer strategythat o"scures the way anthropocentric practices lie at the

heart of interloc0ing systems of oppression@theyDre onlyconcerned a"out accessi"ility for humans9ailey 20( Cathryn Professor and Char of Phlosophy at Mnnesota State Un&erstyot only s ths analyss aspe%esst o.e%ton to the %o!parson .ut t also !ples that one who ta-es an!als serously s pso fa%to de!onstratng a falure to ta-e hu!antyserously7 .y Ieorges parallel a%%ount, a fe!nst who ta-es an!als serously s falng to ta-e wo!en serously" th respe%t to eth%al &egetarans!, 9

thn- it is clear that such a divide&and&con?uer strategy only wor0s if oneaccepts the racist # se!ist# classist terms of the discussion . /art of what isre?uired to understand some of the resistance to vegetarianism is to

appreciate the logic that undergirds it" e should not, of %ourse, auto!at%ally ds!ss those who resst&egetarans! as nsenst&e dupes" To that end, t helps to appre%ate that whether one s a !eat eater or a &egetaran would not %arry su%h &s%eral!oral and e!otonal !pa%t f t were not e/peren%ed as deeply entwned wth the produ%ton and reprodu%ton of dentty" That our denttes are so

%onsttuted s not a neutral or naltera.le fa%t, howe&er" The perpetuation of the patriarchy depends, n part,on the fact that we understand our racial# gendered# and se!ual selves ascontingent upon eating practices n the ways des%r.ed a.o&e" >nly then canvegetarianism "e used as a wedge to divide people along racial# se!ual# orclass lines" A conte!t&sensitive fe!nst vegetarianism with a deep criti?ueof the 0notted relationship "etween racism# se!ism# and anthropocentrismo6ers great promise" Certanly, no &a.le fe!nst &egetarans! %an pro%eed wthout atte!ptng to understand and ds!antle su%h


28/29

%onne%tons" As 9 ha&e argued, ths s so not only .e%ause of the %o!ple/ ways that the phlosoph%al deas ha&e .een twsted and .ound together, .utalso for pra%t%al reasons" As t stands now, !any people stll do not wsh to .e asso%ated wth the an!al welfare and &egetaran !o&e!ents" 9f whteestern fe!nst &egetarans, e&en well !eanng ones, o&erloo- or tr&alze the hstor%al and %on%eptual tes .etween ra%s! and anthropo%entrs! .yfalng to appre%ate the %onne%tons .etween eatng pra%t%es and ra%al dentty, fe!nst eth%al &egetarans! wll .e stalled at the %lass and %olor lnes"

5owe&er, we should not concede that ethical vegetarianism is an intrinsicallyracist # classist# or colonialist endeavor "ecause doing so e6ectively allowsthe continued mas0ing of the ways in which racism# classism# andimperialism have created foodways privileging the glo"al elite. 3t alsoserves to divide and isolate the most oppressed# limiting human animalswith respect to their ethical agency and access to ?uality food and leavingnonhuman animals where# for most of us# they have "een all along@on ourplates.


29/29

A; 8ogs treated U 5laves

This is a rhetorical tool that denies history@dogs were "eatenand used as tools to hunt runaways@our evidence is a primary

source9lassingame 1G)V4Eohn, wrter for Somerset County Gazette, Septe!.er J, *BD;, “The 5orrors ofSla&ery and Qnglands uty to Lree the 'onds!an: An Address el&ered n Taunton,Qngland, on Septe!.er *, *BD;#, The Lreder%- ouglass Papers: Seres One

Documents

Anthro K Race