(no subject)
the following footnote appears in this particular incarnation of my paper. i think it's probaby a bad idea, but i totally don't know how else to say it.
In spite of such assessments as Derrida’s reading of Lacan in “And Say the Animal Responded?” i remain unconvinced that animals are not responsive, and formulations that deny animals both language and consciousness are predicated on an androcentric understanding of animals, of responsiveness, and of language. (Imagine claiming that people of a different race only react rather than respond because you don’t understand their gestures and cultural codes; imagine claiming that a foreign language doesn’t qualify as a language because you don’t understand its subtleties. To claim the same thing about another species for the same reasons does not strike me as significantly different. )
In spite of such assessments as Derrida’s reading of Lacan in “And Say the Animal Responded?” i remain unconvinced that animals are not responsive, and formulations that deny animals both language and consciousness are predicated on an androcentric understanding of animals, of responsiveness, and of language. (Imagine claiming that people of a different race only react rather than respond because you don’t understand their gestures and cultural codes; imagine claiming that a foreign language doesn’t qualify as a language because you don’t understand its subtleties. To claim the same thing about another species for the same reasons does not strike me as significantly different. )