Z11@1S

! D C q u C S ! | O n O ! ! h C O | n |
LB|y WDl , LClID|
URVC|S\y O N RRCSO\B ||CSS NRRCBO|S / LORDOR
AD C8IlICI VCISIOD Ol `blOu_DID_ !DC tuH8D, Dy b!CVC akC!, 8QQC8ICU ID
Per'crmance Research b, DO. Z |ZUUU) U~o1, ICQIIDICU WI!D QCIHISSIOD l1OH 8ylOI
I8DCIS L!U., DIIQ. .I8DU.CO.uk. OIIIODS Ol ADIH8l OUy,DDuH8D 8CC,
Dy PQDODSO LID_IS, OII_ID8ly 8QQC8ICU ID D|sccurse ZU, DO. |l8l 1VVo) 1V+~ZU,
ICQIIDICU Dy QCIHISSIOD Ol Y8yDC bI8!C \DIVCISIIy ICSS. `AI 8 b8u_DICIDOuSC, bOHC
DID_S CVCI IC, Dy \D8IlIC LCuH, DIS! 8QQC8ICU ID !DC ^ew \crk T|mes |)uDC 1,
ZUUU) 8S Q8II Ol 8 SCIICS OD I8CC ID AHCIIC8, ICQIIDICU WI!D QCIHISSIOD Ol JDC CW
YOIk IHCs A_CDCy !ntKI_D!S 8DU CIHISSIODS.
VCIy CHOII W8S H8UC !O ODI8ID QCIHISSIOD IO ICQIOUuCC COQyII_DICU H8!CII8l ID !DIS
DOOk. l 8Dy QIOQCI 8CkDOWlCU_HCD! D8S DO! DCCD H8UC, WC CDCOuI8_C COQyII_D!
DOUCIS !O DOIIQ uS.
\OQyII_D! ZUU Dy !DC KC_CD!S Ol !DC \DIVCISIIy Ol ^IDDCSO!8
AII_D!S ICSCIVCU. O Q8I! Ol !DIS QuDIC8!IOD H8y DC ICQIOUuCCU, S!OICU ID 8 IC
IIICV8l SySICH, OI !I8DSHII!CU, ID 8Dy lOIH OI Dy 8Dy HC8DS, CCC!IODIC, HCCD8DIC8,
QDO!OCOQyID_, ICCOIUID_, OI O!DCIWISC, WI!DOuI IDC QIIOI WIII!CD QCIHISSIOD Ol !DC
QuDISDCI.
uDlISDCU Dy !DC \DIVCISIIy Ol ^IDDCSO!8 ICSS
111 DIIU AVCDuC bOu!D, buIIC ZVU
^IDDC8QOlIS,^ bb+U1-ZbZU
D!IQ: .uQICSS.uHD.CUu
LIDI8Iy Ol \OD_ICSS \8!8O_ID_ID-uDIC8!IOD 8I8
ZOOD!OO_ICS !DC QuCSIIOD Ol !DC 8DIH8l /\8Iy YOlC, CUI!OI.
Q. CH.
!DCluUCS DIDIO_I8QDIC8l IClCICDCCS 8DU IDUCX.
!b Uo1-+1Ub- |t\ 8lk. Q8QCI) b Uo1-+1U-+ |. 8k. Q8QCI)
1. ADu8lS |DIlOSOQDy) l.YOlc, \8Iy.
1Ub.Abb Z ZUU
1V .~UCZ1
IID!CU ID !DC \DIICU b!8!CS Ol AHCIIC8 OD 8CIU-HCC Q8QCI
ZUUZU11oUb
DC \DIVCISI!y Ol ^IDDCSO!8 IS 8D CQu8l-OQQOI!uDI!y CUuCaIOI 8DU CHQOyCI.
1z !i 1U UV Uo U U Ub U+ U 1U V o b + Z
|O!|l|5O
OOu\\CU !|5K|glyC0
ll\C OC5\5O\CC!\ ...
lRf00UC0R ~ X
U|y WO|!C
00B0S
lR R0 RB00W 0 W@0RS0RS L0R LBR@UB@0, bRCS, BR0
R0 QU0S0R 0 R0 RRB J
U|y WO|!C
rf0R bXRC0R 0 b0Cf0RCS 0B0 rf0@S, LV0 R0SBUfS,
BR0 b0CfC R00 ~ b
U|Su| K. HC| SC
LBR@UB@0, 0W0f, BR0 R0 1fBRR@ 0 H0fS0S
|u| |!!On
rf0R f0SB 0 N {BR0 BCK @BR) rf0U0S
SCR0BRBSS 0 R0 R@0000 f@BRSR ~ JJ
JuO| !h KOO!
R0 B R0 RRB 0S0R000 JZJ
JCquCS DC||| O
0U@RR@ R0 HURBR ~ J4T
S!CvC B|C|
RRB 00, lRRURBR rBC0 ~ Jb
A|pDOnSO L| ng| S
B BU@R0fR0US0, 0R0 1RR@S N0V0f 0 ~ J
Uh|| | C LCDu!!
0RfDU0fS ~ J
lR00X ~ ZJ
0f00UC00
LB|y WD|
1his collcction scts its sights on what is pcrhaps thc ccntral problcmatic
for contcmporary culturc and thcory, particularly if thcoty is undcrstood
as ccntrally cngagcd in addrcssing a social, tcchnological, and cultural
contcxt that is now in somc incscapablc scnsc posthuman, if not guitc
posthumanist. Many of thc lcading thcorists of thc past thrcc dccadcs
havc dcvotcd considcrablc attcntion to thc gucstion of thc animal undcr
a varicty of hgurcs or thcmcs. [ulia Kristcva in Powcts o] Hottot and
Sttangcts to Outsc/vcs (thc abjcct, cthnicity), [acgucs Ocrrida in a host of
tcxts from O] Sitit to C/as, Thc Post Catd, and cssays such as "Eating
Wcll and "Forcc of Law (thc sacrihcial symbolic cconomics of "carno-
phallogoccntrism) , Gillcs Oclcuzc and Fclix Guattari in A Thousand
P/atcaus, Kaa. Thc Qucstion o] a Minot Litctatutc, and clscwhcrc (bc
coming-animal, thc critiguc of Frcud and of psychoanalysis) , Iacgucs
Lacan and Slavoj
]
izck in any numbcr of tcxts ranging from Lacan's
scminars and
(
ctits to
]
izck's En)oy \out Symtcm! and Loo/ing Awty
(thc 1hing, thc Rcal, monstrosity), Stanlcy Cavcll's Thc C/aim o] Rcason
( "skcptical tcrror of thc othcr) , Gcorgcs ataillc in Thcoty o] Rc/igion
and \isions o] Exccss and Rcnc Girard in \io/cncc and thc Sactcd ( animal
sacrihcc, thc socius and thc sacrcd) , bcll hooks in 8/ac/ Loo/s, Michacl
1aussig in Mimcsis and A/tctig and
[
ticnnc alibar in his collcction with
Immanucl Wallcrstcin, Racc, Nation, and C/ass (thc rclation of animality
| x
x U|y WO|!C
to cxoticism, racism, and impcrialism) , Oonna Haraway in works rang-
ing from Ptimatc \isions through Simians, Cyaorgs, and womcn to thc
rcccnt ModcstwitncssSccondMi//cnniumFcma/cManMcctsOncoMousc
(animality as a hgurc for "situatcd knowlcdgcs and thc cmbodimcnt of
subjcctivity, so crucial to contcmporary fcminist philosophy of scicncc in
Haraway and in othcrs such as Kathcrinc Haylcs and Evclyn Fox Kcllcr).
1his list could casily bc cxtcndcd, of coursc, but my point hcrc i s that
all of this work rcmains widcly scattcrcd among disparatc and oftcn
hard-to-locatc discussions cpisodically cmbcddcd in a widc rangc of
tcxts. For cxamplc, )acgucs Ocrrida's invcstigation of thc sacrihcial sym-
bolic cconomics of "carno-phallogoccntrism has always bccn, for him,
an absolutcly ccntral conccrn, but it is scattcrcd ovcr litcrally thousands
of pagcs and morc than a scorc of tcxts. ut hcrc, wc havc acccss to an in-
cisivc, focuscd articulation of how Ocrrida approachcs thc gucstion of
thc animal in his critiguc of [acgucs Lacan, "And Say thc Animal Rc
spondcd' r again, Gillcs Oclcuzc and Fclix Guattari's discussion of
"bccoming-animal rcmains awash in thc ncarly thousand pagcs of A
1ousand P/atcaus and, in a dihcrcnt vcin, thcir studics of KaIka, Spinoza,
and much clsc bcsidcs, so it is cnormously uscful to havc availablc hcrc
thc supplc cxploration and condcnsation of thcir work in cssays by
Alphonso Lingis on thc dynamics of trans-spccics cmbodimcnt and Paul
Patton on Monty Robcrts, thc man bchind thc "horsc whispcrcr phc-
nomcnon that has spawncd a novcl, a big-budgct fcaturc hIm, and othcr
spin-ohs.
What such popular culturc phcnomcna indicatc-guitc rcliably, as it
turns outis that thc prcssing rclcvancc of thc gucstion of thc animal
has bccn gcncratcd in contcmporary culturc morc outsidc thc humani-
tics than within. Indccd, although thc placc of thc animal as thc rc
prcsscd thcr of thc subjcct, idcntity, logos, and thc conccpt rcachcs back
in Wcstcrn culturc at lcast to thc ld 1cstamcnt (and, in a dihcrcnt rcgis-
tcr, to thc Platonic tradition) , what is dihcrcnt about our own momcnt is
that two primary factors havc combincd to cnablc an archacology and
mapping of this problcmatic that was unavailablc for contcmporarics
of Frcud, Sartrc, or Mictzschc, cvcn though thc gucstion of thc animal
in thcir tcxts callcd for a rcading that can only bc complctcdor, morc
strictly spcaking, only bcgutinow.
1hc hrst of thcsc two factors is thc crisis of humanism itsclf ovcr thc
past thrcc dccadcs in critical thcory, brought on, in no small part, hrst by
structuralism and thcn poststructuralism and its intcrrogation of thc hg-
urc of thc human as thc constitutivc (rathcr than tcchnically, matcrially,
|ntrcduct|cn x|
and discursivcly constitutcd) stuff of history and thc social. Hcrc, vcry
schcmatically, onc might citc as dccisivc Claudc Lcvi-Strauss's critiguc of
Sartrc's nco-Hcgclian rcliancc on thc catcgory of consciousncss in thc
facc of what Sartrc callcd thc practico-incrt, and, aftcr that, Ocrrida's
cvcn morc radical insistcncc on di]ctancc as unmastcrablc cxtcriority
in his critiguc of Lcvi-Strauss's own structuralism in "Structurc, Sign,
and Play in thc Oiscoursc of thc Human Scicnccs. In a dihcrcnt thco-
rctical rcgistcr, onc might cgually point toward Louis Althusscr's rclcnt-
lcss dismantling of Marxist humanism and, bcyond that, thc work of
Althusscr's studcnt, Michcl Foucault, who bcgan his asccndancy against
Althusscr's own philosophical idcalism, madc manifcst in thc lattcr's
privilcging of thc cconomic and of Marxist "scicncc ovcr and against
what Foucault would latcr famously anatomizc as thc "discourscs and
"tcchnigucs of modcrnity mappcd in Thc Atchaco/ogy o] Know/cdgc and
Disci/inc and Punish. 1o thcsc scminal rcroutings of contcmporary thco
ry away from thc constitutivc hgurc of thc human in scvcral diffcrcnt
dircctions-or, morc propcrly spcaking, toward an cxposurc of thc hu-
man's own impossibility-onc must also add thc ncw transdisciplinary
thcorctical paradigms that havc pourcd into thc human scicnccs ovcr thc
past fcw dccadcs ( cybcrnctics and systcms thcory, chaos thcory, and thc
likc) , paradigms that havc had littlc usc and littlc nccd for thc hgurc of
thc human as cithcr foundation or cxplanatory principlc. (nc might
notc hcrc too what is pcrhaps thc most subtcrrancan story of all in con
tcmporary thcory. thc stcady inIlucncc of thc "hard on thc "human sci-
cnccs. nc thinks hcrc of Foucault's intcrcst in Canguilhcm and [acob,
Lacan's in cybcrnctics, Lyotard`s in chaos thcory, and so on.)
1hc sccond factor, of coursc, is thc fact toward which I havc alrcady
gcsturcd, howcvcr brichy. thc radically changcd placc of thc animal itsclf
in arcas outsidc thc humanitics. Indccd, thc humanitics arc, in my vicw,
now struggling to catch up with a radical rcvaluation of thc status of
nonhuman animals that has takcn placc in socicty at largc. A vcritablc
cxplosion of work in arcas such as cognitivc cthology and hcld ccology
has callcd into gucstion our ability to usc thc old saws of anthropoccn-
trism (languagc, tool usc, thc inhcritancc of cultural bchaviors, and so
on) to scparatc oursclvcs oncc and for all from animals, as cxpcrimcnts
in languagc and cognition with grcat apcs and marinc mammals, and
hcld studics of cxtrcmcly complcx social and cultural bchaviors in wild
animals such as apcs, wolvcs, and clcphants, havc morc or lcss pcrma-
ncntly crodcd thc tidy divisions bctwccn human and nonhuman. And
this, in turn, has lcd to a broad rcopcning of thc gucstion of thc cthical
x|| U|y WO|!C
status of animals in rclation to thc human-an cvcnt whosc importancc
is namcd but not rcally capturcd by thc tcrm anima/ tights. Indccd, as I
havc tricd to show clscwhcrc, onc of thc ccntral ironics of animal rights
philosophy-an irony that points dircctly to thc prcssing nccd for this
collcction-is that its philosophical hamc rcmains an csscntially human-
ist onc in its most important philosophcrs (utilitarianism in Pctcr Singcr,
nco-Kantianism in 1om Rcgan) , thus chacing thc vcry dihcrcncc of thc
animal othcr that animal rights sought to rcspcct in thc hrst placc. In
this, of coursc, animal rights philosophy is not alonc in its rcadincss to
rcsort to a libcral humanism it would sccm to undcrminc in its attcmpt
to cxtcnd thc sphcrc of cthical and political considcration-a problcmat-
ic that links thc gucstion of thc animal othcr rathcr dircctly to othcr in-
vcstigations in contcmporary cultural studics that focus on gucstions of
idcntity and subjcctivity.
What was promising in thc libcral philosophical tradition for thc pros-
pcct of thinking thc gucstion of thc animal was its cmptying of thc catc-
gory of thc subjcct, its insistcncc that subjcctivity-and with it hccdom-
no longcr dcpcndcd on posscssion of any singlc idcntihablc attributc,
such as mcmbcrship in a ccrtain racc or gcndcr. And hom thcrc it was but
onc short stcp for animal rights philosophy to insist that spccics too
should bc sct asidc, that mcmbcrship in a givcn spccics should havc no
bcaring on thinking thc subjcct of hccdom and rights. ut thc problcm,
of coursc, is that whilc thc catcgory of thc subjcct was ]otma//y cmpty in
thc libcral tradition, it rcmaincd matctia//y full of asymmctrics and in-
cgualitics in thc social sphcrc, so that thcorizing thc subjcct as "nothing in
particular could casily look likc just anothcr sign of thc vcry privilcgc
and mobility cnjoycd by thosc who wcrc guitc locatablc indccd on thc so-
cial laddcrnamcly, at thc top.
It is in rcsponsc to what wc might cal! this sclf-scrving abstraction of
thc subjcct of frccdom that much of thc work in what is now known,
for bcttcr or worsc, as cultural studics and idcntity politics arosc to rc
asscrt thc social and matcrial "location (to usc Homi habha's tcrm) or
"standpoint (to usc an oldcr vocabulary sti!l) of thc subjcct. 1hc prob-
lcm with this modc of critiguc is that it of|cn rcinscribcs thc vcry hu-
manism it appcars to unscttlc, so that thc subjcct, whilc ncwly "markcd
by critiguc, is markcd by mcans of a vcry familiar rcpcrtoirc, onc that
constitutcs its own rcprcssion-or what Ocrrida in "Eating Wcll will
charactcrizc as a "sacrihcc-of thc gucstion of thc animal and, morc
broadly still, of thc nonhuman. r, as Lyotard puts it, what such a ma-
ncuvcr "hurrics and "crushcs is cvcrything hc mcans by thc tcrms "hct-
| n!|OOuO!|On x| | |
crogcncity, disscnsus, cvcnt, thing. "thc unharmonizablc. And, in this
light, thc point of thinking with rcncwcd rigor thc gucstion of thc animal
is to disarticulatc thc problcm of a propcrly postmodcrn pluralism hom
thc conccpt of thc human with which progrcssivc political and cthical
agcndas havc traditionally bccn associatcdand to do so, morcovcr, tc-
cisc/y ay ta/ing sctious/y pluralism's call for attcntion to cmbodimcnt, to
thc spccihc matcriality and multiplicity of thc subjcct-not so much
for thc pragmatic rcason of addrcssing morc adcguatcly our imbrication
in thc wcbworks of what Emcrson callcd thc "Mot-Mc (thc cnvironmcnt,
hom thc bactcrial to thc ccosystcmic, our various tcchnical and clcctron-
ic prosthcsis, and so on), but rathcr for thc thcorctical rcason that thc
"human,' wc now know, is not now, and ncvcr was, itsclf.
What I hopc to providc in this volumc is not so much a comprchcnsivc
collcction that somchow cxhaustivcly maps thc gucstion of thc animal
and of spccics dihcrcncc in all its various dimcnsions-an impossiblc
task within any conh ncs-but rathcr a sct of coordinatcs for cxploring
furthcr thc vcry dihcrcnt ways in which that problcm has bccn ap-
proachcd in contcmporary thcory and culturc. Rcadcrs will bc struck-
and plcascd, I hopc-by thc rangc thcy will hnd hcrc, which runs from
thc acadcmic and scholarly cnd of thc spcctrum (|acgucs Ocrrida's con-
tribution, for instancc, or Judith Roof's) to thc cxpcrimcntal philosophi-
cal writing of Alphonso Lingis and thc invcstigativc journalism of
Charlic LcOuh. Somc of thc cssays hcrc-Ocrrida, Roof, Patton-work
"vcrtically, onc might say, taking a particular tcxt, problcm, or thinkcr
and cxcavating it in dctail. 1hc othcr half of thc volumc, roughlyHcisc,
akcr, Lingis, lcOuhis composcd of cssays that work morc "horizon-
tally to survcy a broad hcld of intcractions and practiccs involving not
only animals and how wc trcat thcm and usc thcm in our contcmporary
cultural practiccs, but also our own "animality and how wc rcact and rc-
spond to it, somctimcs violcntly and disturbingly, somctimcs touchingly
and illuminatingly.
1hc anxictics and stratcgics that attcnd thosc gucstions in scicncc, art,
and popular culturc form thc focus of thc contributions hcrc by [udith
Roof, Stcvc akcr, and Lrsula Hcisc, rcspcctivcly. Roof's cssay takcs it for
grantcd-as wcll it should-that no h gurc is morc ccntral to making
thcsc anxictics and stratcgics a pcrmancnt part of our cvcryday intcllcc-
tual lifc than Sigmund Frcud. As is wcll known, Frcud's carccr, hom bc-
ginning to cnd, is conccrncd with cxploring, but also sccuring, thc bordcr-
land bctwccn human and nonhuman animals, and it is scarccly possiblc to
xlv U|y WO|!C
think about what thc animal mcans to us in thc modcrn and postmodcrn
pcriod without working through Frcud's thcorics of drivc and dcsirc and
thc anthropological work on sacrihcc and scxuality of Totcm and Taaoo
and Civi/ication and ts Discontcnts. Roof takcs us to a morc out-of-thc-
way corncr of Frcud's work, howcvcr. his intcnsc, and indccd fctishistic,
intcrcst in thc protist and its twin conccpt, thc gcrm-plasm, as "an in-
strumcntal intcrspccics cxamplc of thc widcr truth of his psychodynamic
formulations, oncs that scrvc as "primal, dcathless rcfcrcncc points for
Frcud's thinking about lifc proccsscs. Roof hnds that such gcsturcs and
thc angst that attcnds thcm in Frcud-our nccd to rcfcrcncc our biological
and animal origins as "proof of our thcorics of human scxuality, only to
thcn throw thc ontological privilcgc of thc human itsclf into gucstion by
that vcry linkagc-arc alivc and wcll in contcmporary convcrsations
about what thc gcnctic codc mcans to our own sclf-undcrstanding. As
shc argucs, bclicf in OMA would sccm to rcguirc as wcll a bclicf in thc
commonality of all lifc, but at thc samc timc "faith in OMA also providcs
thc illusion of a mastcry of all lifc locatcd, via knowlcdgc of OMA, in sci-
cncc and in thc human. 1hat this surrcptitious mastcry rcguircs a fctish
suggcsts both thc immcnsc scopc of this unity and thc strcngth of pro-
human prcjudicc.
As Lrsula Hcisc points out, such prcjudicc has traditionally bccn as-
sociatcd with thc tcchnical and thc tcchnological, ovcr and against thc
natural world. 1hc contcmporary phcnomcnon of cnginccrcd lfc-forms,
howcvcr-of thc sort found in hlms such as 8/adc Runnct, in thc SimLi]c
scrics of computcr gamcs, thc 1amagotchi cybcr-pct crazc, and clscwhcrc-
complicatcs thc gucstion considcrably, in a world in which thc distinc
tion bctwccn naturc and its othcr is alrcady conccptually and practically
crodcd. Hcisc focuscs hcr discussion in light of thc alarming contcmpo-
rary phcnomcnon of animal spccics cxtinction, which, shc argucs, "cru-
cially shapcs thc way in which thc artihcial animal forms arc approachcd
and cvaluatcd. For hcr, thc gucstions raiscd and addrcsscd by such forms
arc "how much naturc wc can do without, to what cxtcnt simulations of
naturc can rcplacc thc `natural, and what rolc animals, both natural and
artihcial, play in our sclf-dchnition as humans. Rathcr than sccing such
cnginccrcd lifc-forms as an cvcr-morc dcprcssing incursion of tcchnology
into a vanishing, pristinc natural world, shc draws our attcntion instcad
to thcir cthical possibilitics, in which "thc advocacy of thc cyborg animal
can bc vicwcd as at lcast in part a call to abandon spccicsist prcjudicc and
to acccpt altcrnativc lifc-forms as bcings with an cxistcncc and rights of
thcir own.
|O!|OOuO!|On xv
A popular and powcrml conccpt in contcmporary cultural thcory-
"hybridity-is ccrtainly afoot hcrc, and it has bccn imagcd, somctimcs
disturbingly, somctimcs comically, in a surprising array of contcmporary
art. Mo onc knows morc about such things than Stcvc akcr, whosc book
Thc Postmodctn Anima/ cxplorcs on a largcr canvas many of thc issucs hc
discusscs hcrc in "Sloughing thc Human. Working out of a thcorctical
oricntation indcbtcd to Ocrrida and to Oclcuzc and Guattari, akcr in-
vcstigatcs how thc hctml rclations bctwccn human and animal play out
in what hc calls thc "taking on of animality in contcmporary art. It will
comc as no surprisc to rcadcrs of Ocrrida-whosc cssay "Ccsch/ccht I I .
Hcidcggcr's Hand i s thc scminal tcxt hcrc-that hands, associatcd dc-
hnitivcly in Hcidcggcr with thc humanity of Man and his capacity for
thought, havc bccn a crucial symbolic ncxus of thc tramc across thc
human-animal dividc in artwork from [oscph cuys to contcmporary
vidco artist Edwina Ashton. Whcthcr thc hand can changc hands, wc
might say-what it mcans for thc hand to bc handcd ovcr from human
to animal-raiscs complcx gucstions, as Ocrrida's rcading of Hcidcggcr
suggcsts, of cthical rcsponsibility, of what it mcans to givc and t

kc, and
with whom or what such a rclation may obtain. 1his rclation bctwccn
sclf and othcr, likc and samc, may bc rcwrittcn in rcprcscntational tcrms
as a gucstion of mimcsis, which has ohcn bccn rcgardcd in contcmporary
philosophy, as in Oclcuzc and Guattari, with suspicion, as thc cncmy
rathcr than agcnt of a rclationship of accoming bctwccn humanity and
animality (about which morc in a momcnt) . What akcr hnds, howcvcr,
is that mimcsis of thc animal in contcmporary artas in thc wcll-known
work of William Wcgman-tcnds to bc "both outlandish and prcpostcr-
ously transparcnt,' making "no claims to thc `naturc' of thc imitatcd ani-
mal, and acting out instcad "playful cxchangcs bctwccn thc human and
thc animal, or bctwccn onc animal and anothcr, which may alludc to
bordcrs and distinctions but which arc not impcdcd by thcm.
Hcrc, it is crucial to pay attcntion to thc distinction bctwccn thc visu-
al and tcxtual rcprcscntation to which akcr draws our attcntion, and to
ask oursclvcs what modcs of thinking thc animal othcr arc possiblc in
what Ocrrida has callcd thc "spatial arts that may too rcadily bc forc-
closcd in thc domain of languagc. 1his is so, as I arguc in my own contri-
bution, bccausc in thc philosophical tradition gucstions of thc rclation-
ship bctwccn humans, animals, and thc problcm of cthics havc turncd
dccisivcly on thc problcm of cognition and, cvcn morc spccihcally in thc
modcrn and postmodcrn pcriod, on thc capacity for languagc. It would
bc ovcrly simplc, but not wrong, to say that thc basic formula hcrc has
xv| U|y WO|!C
bccn. no languagc, no subjcctivity. 1his cguation has in turn traditionally
laid to rcst, morc or lcss, thc gucstion of our cthical obligation to crcaturcs
who, bccausc thcy lack languagc, lack thc ability to "rcspond (to usc thc
tcrm Ocrrida will scrutinizc in [acgucs Lacan's writings on thc animal) in
that two-way cxchangc (so thc story gocs) that is crucial to thc cthical
rclationshipabout which morc in a momcnt. In thc abscncc of lan-
guagc, wc arc told, animals rcmain lockcd within a univcrsc of morc or
lcss automatcd "rcactions (to usc thc Cartcsian formulation), a sct of prc-
programmcd and instinctivc routincs and subroutincs, so that thcy arc
rcally morc likc machincs than pcoplc, morc likc objccts than subjccts.
1hat is not to say that thcrc arc not somc cxtrcmcly sophisticatcd
forms of this position. Indccd, a good portion of my cssay is conccrncd
with just how sophisticatcd and compclling thosc argumcnts can bc, bc-
ginning with thc lincagc of ordinary languagc phiosophy that runs hom
Ludwig Wittgcnstcin (pcrhaps thc ccntral hgurc in what Richard Rorty
has famously callcd thc "linguistic turn in twcnticthccntury philoso-
phy) through thc Harvard philosophcr Stanlcy Cavcll to poct, cssayist,
and animal traincr Vicki Hcarnc. Hcrc, as I try to show, thc issuc is not so
much an unsophisticatcd thcory of languagc that is uscd to scparatc
human and animal, indccd, Hcarnc's work on how wc communicatc
with animals and inhabit a sharcd world with thcm by building a com-
mon vocabulary in thc training rclationship is as supplc and complcx as
any work I know of on this problcm. Instcad-and this is amplihcd in
Paul Patton's scarching discussion of thc training rclationshipit is thc
disconncction bctwccn what such work sccms to tcach us about thc com-
plcxity of animal phcnomcnology and subjcctivity, and thc cthical impli-
cations opcncd by that ncw knowlcdgc, that appcar, strangcly cnough, to
bc scvcrcly attcnuatcd at bcst.
Wc hnd thc samc sort of lacuna in a vcry dihcrcnt typc of philosophcr,
thc latc Frcnch poststructuralist philosophcr [can-Franois Lyotard, who
is most wcll known, surcly, for his study Thc Postmodctn Condition.
Lyotard was always intcnscly intcrcstcd in gucstions of justicc, cthics, and
law, and hc attcmptcd in many placcs to articulatc thcsc conccrns in
tcrms of a rcsolutcly posthumanist thcory of languagc and discoursc (as
is dcvclopcd with rcmarkablc rigor, for cxamplc, in Thc Dictcnd), which
sought to cxplain thc powcr of discoursc not to obcy thc human but to
constitutc it. It is all thc morc rcmarkablc, thcn, that Lyotard's conccpt of
cthics stops at thc watcr's cdgc of spccics dihcrcncc. 1his is lcss surpris-
ing, howcvcr, whcn wc rcmcmbcr that thcsc gucstions arc mcdiatcd dcci-
sivcly by Lyotard's rclation to Kant. For Lyotard, thc gcnius of thc Kantian
| n!|OOuO!|On xv| |
notion of cthics is that it attcmpts to thcorizc thc ncccssity of thc cthical
rclation without spcciing its contcnts-without supplying, to put it
crudcly, a formula for what constitutcs cthical conduct in all cascs. 1hc
problcm, howcvcr, is that thc sua)cct of thc cthical rclationship prcsumcd
in Kant-thc "addrcsscc of thc call to cthics, to usc thc tcchnical tcrm
Lyotard focuscs on-continucs to bc a guitc idcntihably and constitu-
tivcly human onc. thc "community of rcasonablc bcings that cxcludcs
animals.
1his Kantian blockagc is brought into cvcn sharpcr focus in thc work
of onc of thc most uniguc and incrcasingly inhucntial hgurcs in contcm-
porary thought, Emmanucl Lcvinas, whosc thcorization of thc cthical
rclation Lyotard rcfcrcnccs in dctail. Lcvinas is rcgardcd by many as pcr-
haps thc most important cthical philosophcr of thc postmodcrn mo-
mcnt, and what is so original and challcnging about his notion of cthics,
as Zygmunt auman has charactcrizcd it, is that it is not bascd on a modcl
of "fair cxchangc and rcciprocity of bcnchts ( as in [ohn Rawls's inllu-
cntial social-contract modcl, which is important to both Cavcll and
Hcarnc), but rathcr on what Lcvinas has callcd a "total rcsponsibility to
thc thcr "without waiting for rcciprocity. 1hc opcning this potcntially
providcs for bringing thc gucstion of thc animal othcr into thc cthi-
cal cguation would sccm clcar cnough, but thc problcm is that it is im-
mcdiatcly forccloscd, oncc again, by an csscntially Kantian problcmatic.
by thc fact that thc subjcct of cthics, hcrc as in Lyotard, is by dchnition
humanonly thc human, to usc Lcvinas's hgurc, has a facc. 1hc good
ncws, and thc bad ncws, thcn, of Lcvinas's cthics is-to usc a wcll-known
charactcrization-that it is a "humanismc dc ' Autrc hommc, a human-
ism of thc thcr D0H.
Mo onc has madc this limitation in Lcvinas clcarcr than [acgucs
Ocrrida, in tcxts such as "Eating Wcll and "At this vcry momcnt in this
work hcrc I am. Indccd, for triangulating thc rclations of cthics, lan
guagc, and thc gucstion of thc animal, fcw comparisons could bc morc il-
luminating. Ocrrida's work in this arca has rcachcd a ncw and sustaincd
pitch of intcnsity ovcr thc past scvcral ycars in what amounts to a book's
worth of matcrial on thc gucstion of thc animal in Ocscartcs, Kant,
Hcidcggcr, Lcvinas, and Lacan, hrst dclivcrcd ovcr cight hours as a scrics
of lccturcs in pp; at a confcrcncc in Francc dcvotcd to his work titlcd
"!animal autobiographiguc-a portion of which, on Lacan, wc arc for
tunatc cnough to havc appcar in print hcrc for thc hrst timc.
What Ocrrida's body of work on thc animal makcs clcar is that at this
juncturc in thc discussionthc juncturc markcd by Lyotard's and Lcvinas's
xv| | | U|y WO|!C
guitc distinct failurcs-thc convcrsation can movc in a fcw dihcrcnt di-
rcctions. nc can takc thc traditional cguation of subjcctivity and lan-
guagc at its word and thcn gucstion thc claim that only thc human pos-
scsscs languagc (which many contcmporary languagc studics with
animals sccm to do morc and morc convincingly;, which in turn rcopcns
thc cntirc problcm of cthical obligation, but in morc or lcss traditional
tcrms. r, rathcr than cxtcnding thc ability of "languaging outward, bc-
yond thc human sphcrc, onc can instcad movc in thc oppositc dircction
and crodc that notion of languagc from thc insidc out to show that if
animals ncvcr guitc posscsscd it, ncithcr do wc, with thc rcsult that lan-
guagc, rathcr than simpliing thc gucstion of cthics by sccuring thc
boundary bctwccn thc human and thc rcst of crcation, instcad now rc-
opcns it-pcrmancntly, as it wcrc-by cmbcdding us in a world to which
thc human is sua)cct. 1his, of coursc, is Ocrrida's stratcgy, as hc puts it in
thcsc pagcs, "wcrc wc cvcn to supposc-somcthing I am not rcady to
conccdc-that thc `animal' wcrc incapablc of covcring its tracks, by what
right could onc conccdc that powcr to thc human, to thc `subjcct of thc
signihcr' (cmphasis addcd) .
A third dircction is suggcstcd by substituting Michcl Foucault's tcrm
discoutsc for thc morc limitcd tcrm /anguagc. namcly, to gucstion at its
root thc assumption that thc problcm of languagc (and bcyond that, cog-
nition) is fundamcntal to gucstions of cthics at a//. n this vicw-and
it is onc sharcd to varying dcgrccs by Foucault, Oclcuzc and Guattari,
and othcr lcss tcxtually oricntcd strands of poststructuralist thcory-
languagc is but a spccihc modality or tcchnology of a largcr sct of dy-
namics and rclations that havc to do with taking a polymorphous, hct-
crogcncous world of rclations and (by mcans of powcr, tcchnigucs,
disciplincs, diagrams, modcls, and thc likc) making thcm managcablc
and putting thcm to usc. vcr and against somc popular misundcrstand-
ings of Foucault's thcorization of powcr's omniprcscncc, howcvcr, this
docs not mcan that powcr and cthics arc oppositcs. Indccd, as Paul
Patton-himsclf a dcdicatcd horscman of many ycars as wcll as transla-
tor of Oclcuzc's Di]ctcncc and Rcctition and scholar of poststructuralist
philosophyargucs hcrc, thc training of horscs, whcthcr in thc tradi-
tional "cowboy mcthods of domination or thc gcntlcr ways of "horsc
whispcrcr Monty Robcrts, is indccd an cxcrcisc of powcr, a form of what
Foucault calls "govcrnmcnt. ut this is "by no mcans incompatiblc with
cthical rclations and obligations toward othcr bcings of whatcvcr
spccics, Patton argucs, bc thcy human or animal. Indccd, part of what is
valuablc about thc work of Hcarnc, Robcrts, and othcrsand about thc
|n!|OOuO!|On x|x
cxpcricncc of actually training an animal-is that it hclps to makc clcar
thc tcquitcmcnts and oa/igations of thosc hicrarchical rclations of powcr
wc do cntcr into (with animals, with childrcn, with cach othcr) and
draws our attcntion to how thosc rcguircmcnts arc always spccihc to thc
bcings involvcd, in thc light of which, hc argucs, thc prcsumption of a
onc-sizc-hts-all notion of "cguality in all contcxts is "not only mislcad-
ing but dangcrous. Morcovcr, thc training rclationship draws our attcn-
tion to thc fact that thc modcs of communication involvcd in building
and sustaining rclations with cach othcr, out of which thc cthical rcla-
tionship grows, nccd not bc vcrbal or linguistic at all, but instcad involvc
a myriad of othcr forms of conncction.
[ust how myriadand how cthically chargcd-thosc forms can bc is
thc subjcct of Alphonso Lingis's rcmarkablc cssay "Animal ody, Inhuman
Facc, which scts out hom thc coordinatcs mappcd in poststructuralist
philosophy by Oclcuzc and Guattari. Hcrc, thc cthical thrust is toward
opcning thc human to thc hctcrogcncity and multiplicity within which it
has always bccn cmbcddcd. As rian Massumi, translator of A Thousand
P/atcaus, has put it, thc dcsirc of idcntity and unity, of transccndcncc, "is
always to takc a aoth/and and makc it an cithct/ot, to rcducc thc complcxi
ty of pragmatic cthical choicc to thc black or whitc of Good or ad. In
Oclcuzc and Guattari, howcvcr, thc fundamcntal cthical rclationship
sccms to bc onc that rccognizcs and gcncratcs dihcrcnt modcs of bccom-
ing (rathcr than bcing) and constantly works to dcstabilizc idcntity and
unity. Such a vicw would sccm to call for a vcry dihcrcnt tacticc of phi-
losophy as a form of writing-onc that is lcss about making argumcnts
and articulating propositions to bc mct with a ycs or a no, and morc
about gcncrating conncctions and prolifcrating lincs of inguiry in what
Oclcuzc and Guattari havc callcd a "rhizomatic nctwork of thinking
(against thc "arborcal practicc of traditional philosophy).
And that is cxactly what wc hnd on display in Lingis's cssay, which cx-
plorcs how thc multiplicity of thc animal world is unlcashcd in our own
scxuality, our own bodics. In scx, hc writcs, "ur scnsc of oursclvcs, our
sclf-rcspcct shapcd in mlhlling a mnction in thc machinic and social cn-
vironmcnt, our dignity maintaincd in multiplc conhontations, collabo-
rations, and dcmands, dissolvc, thc cgo loscs its focus as ccntcr of cvalua-
tions, dccisions, and initiativcs. ur impulscs, our passions, arc rcturncd
to animal irrcsponsibility. As Massumi puts it-in a passagc of major
rcsonancc for Lingis's contribution-"odics that fall prcy to transccn-
dcncc arc rcduccd to what sccms to pcrsist across thcir altcrations. 1hcir
vcry corporcality is strippcd hom thcm, in favor of a supposcd substratc
x U|y WO|!C
soul, subjcctivity, pcrsonality, idcntity-which in fact is no foundation at
a ,but an cnd chcct, thc infolding of a forcibly rcgularizcd outsidc (z).
1hc primary hgurc for that rcgularization in Lingis is, of coursc, thc facc,
whosc "arbitration opcratcs by binary oppositions, dichotomics, bipolari-
tics. Mo. Ycs. 1hc facc-or what Oclcuzc and Guattari call "faciality-
can covcr thc wholc body, indccd thc wholc world, it is a grid, a diagram,
a binary machinc, and is in its vcry naturc dcspotic, it takcs thc human
animal and makcs it Man, it takcs thc lovcr and makcs hcr Citizcn, it
takcs thc animal and makcs it "bcstial. And in this undcrstanding, lan-
guagc, thc Signihcr, is a tcchnology that can just as rcadily stiIlc cthical
rclations as cnsurc thcm.
1his insistcncc on thc dihcrcncc bctwccn thc ontological and thc lin-
guistic or tcxtual raiscs in turn a gucstion that animatcs this collcction
as a wholc. thc rclationship bctwccn what I havc clscwhcrc callcd thc
discoutsc of animality-thc usc of that constclation of signihcrs to
structurc how wc addrcss othcrs of whatcvct sort ( not just nonhuman
animals)-and thc living and brcathing crcaturcs who fall outsidc thc
taxonomy of Homo sapicns.' 1hcrc arc two distinct points hcrc. As for
thc hrst, onc might wcll obscrvc that it is crucial to pay critical attcntion
to thc discoursc of animality guitc irrcspcctivc of thc issuc of how non-
human animals arc trcatcd. 1his is so, as a numbcr of scholars havc ob-
scrvcd, bccausc thc discoursc of animality has historically scrvcd as a
crucial stratcgy in thc opprcssion of humans by othcr humans-a stratcgy
whosc lcgitimacy and forcc dcpcnd, howcvcr, on thc prior taking for
grantcd of thc traditional ontological distinction, and conscgucnt cthical
dividc, bctwccn human and nonhuman animals. As
[
ticnnc alibar has
obscrvcd, for cxamplc, "cvcry thcorctical racism draws upon anthtoo
/ogica/ univctsa/s," undcrncath which wc hnd "thc pcrsistcnt prcscncc of
thc samc `gucstion'. that of thc di]ctcncc actwccn humanity and anima/i-
ty" that is at work in "thc systcmatic `bcstialization' of individuals and
racializcd human groups. 1hc sccond point I wish to makc hcrc is not
so much a corollary to alibars obscrvation as it is a countcrvailing ad-
dcndum. that cvcn though thc discoutsc of animality and spccics dihcr-
cncc may thcorctically bc applicd to an othcr of whatcvcr typc, thc consc-
gucnccs of that discoursc, in institutiona/ tcrms, fall ovcrwhclmingly on
nonhuman animals, in our takcn-for-grantcd practiccs of using and cx-
ploiting thcm.
It is on thc sitc of thosc conscgucnccs-for animals and for humans-
that Charlic LcOuh's rivcting piccc for thc Ncw \ot/ Timcs, "At a Slaughtcr-
|O!|OOuC!|On x|
housc, Somc 1hings Mcvcr Oic, may bc locatcd. Sct in a Smithhcld loods
pork packing plant in rural Morth Carolina, LcOul!'s articlcwhich was
publishcd as thc sixth installmcnt in a scrics titlcd "1ow Racc Is Livcd in
Amcrcashows how thc rclations of hicrarchy, domination, and cx-
ploitation bctwccn humans and animals arc uncanni!y and systcmatically
rcproduccd in rclations of class, racc, and cthnicity among humans thcm-
sclvcs. "1hcy trcat you likc an animal in thc plant, onc workcr com-
plains of thc brutalizing, backbrcaking work, and a wcll-worn saying
about thc slaughtcrhousc is "1hcy don't kill pigs hcrc, thcy kill pcoplc.
1crc, racial hicrarchy takcs thc placc of spccics hicrarchy, with whitcs at
thc top, in managcrial or mcchanical positions, Amcrican Indians bclow
that (mostly of thc Lumbcc tribc, who arc historically a signihcant popu-
lation in this part of castcrn Morth Carolina), and thcn thc dirty, bloody
jobs of thc k lloor and disasscmbly linc rcscrvcd mostly for blacks and
Mcxicans. "1hc placc rccks of swcat and scarcd animal, stcam and blood,
LcOuh writcs, and in this infcrno of animal tcrror and human strugglc,
thc closcr onc has to bc to thc killing and thc blood, thc morc onc's own
workday bccomcs a sitc of violcncc, which is visitcd upon thc animals
thcmsclvcs, as LcOuh graphically dcscribcs it, with chilling cmcicncy and
automation.
Rclations bctwccn thc raccs-both in thc plant and outarc almost
totally scgrcgatcd, uniformly suspicious, and ohcn hostilc, as blacks and
Mcxicans, particularly, scc cach othcr as thc compctition that kccps wagcs
and working conditions from cvcr improving. Long-standing racial tcn-
sion bctwccn whitcs and blacks rcplays itsclf hcrc in a dihcrcnt kcy, as an
oldcr black workcr warns, "1hcrc's a day coming soon whcn thc Mcxicans
arc going to catch hcll hom thc blacks, thc way thc blacks caught it hom
thc whitcs. nly now, compctition bctwccn blacks and Mcxicans takcs
placc within a global cconomy in which thc Mcxican workcrs cannot
"push back bccausc many of thcm arc illcgal immigrants, working thc
"picnic linc on thc factory lloor for cight or ninc dollars an hour to pay
oh thc "coyotcs who smugglcd thcm into thc country. And undcrncath it
all, of coursc, at thc bottom of thc laddcr of cxploitation and abusc, arc
thc animals thcmsclvcs-p million of thcm slaughtcrcd cvcry ycar by
Smithhcld loods alonc to fccd Amcrica's sccmingly bottomlcss hungcr
for mcat. 1crc, wc h nd a graphic illustration of thc matcrial conscgucnccs
of thc culturc of "carno-phallogoccntrism, and wc comc away with a
graphic scnsc of just how hyphcnatcd, how conjoincd, thosc consc-
gucnccs arc for human and nonhuman animals alikc.
x|l U|y Wo|fe
Notes
! . Dcrrida's coinagc oI thc tcrm carnc-ha||cgccentrism takcs placc in thc in-
tcrvicw ```Eating Wcll' or thc Ca|culation oI thc Subjcct," in whc Ccmes a]ier the
Su|]ect, cd. Eduardo Cadava, Pctcr Connor, and Jcan-Luc Nancy ( Ncw York.
Routlcdgc, i,,i).
Z.Scc my "|d rdcrs Ior Ncw. Eco|ogy, Anima| Rights, and thc Povcrty oI
Humanism,' diacritics z.z (summcr i,,) . zi-|o.
)
. S|avoj Zizck, in his cr|iIquc oI l|bcral dcmocracy, articulatcs this |inkagc
cvcn morc pointcd|y (though not cntirc|y unproblcmatically). n Lccking Aw
An |ntrcducticn tc ]acques Lacan thrcugh Pcu|ar Cu|ture (Cambridgc. MT
Prcss, i,,i), Zizck writcs, "Thc subjcct oI dcmocracy is thus a purc singu|arity,
cmpticd oI al| contcnt, hccd Irom al| substantial tics,' but "thc prob|cm with this
subjcct docs not |ic whcrc ncoconscrvatism sccs it." lt is not that "this abstraction
propcr to dcmocracy disso|vcs all concrctc substantial tics," but rathcr that " it
can never dissc|ve them. Thc subjcct oI dcmocracy is thus "smcarcd with a ccr-
tain `pathologica|' stain" ( to usc Kant's tcrm) i|-y) . n Tarrying with the
Negative Kant, Hege' and the Critique c] |dec|cgy ( Durham, N.C.. Dukc Univcr-
sity Prcss, i,,)) , Zizck claboratcs thc |inkagc bctwccn thc "abstract" subjcct oI
|ibcra|ism and thc unIortunatc tcrm c|itica| ccrrectness cvcn morc spccihcally by
arguing that in "thc uncnding chort to uncarth traccs oI scxism and racism in
oncsclI,' in Iact, "thc PC typc is not rcady to rcnouncc what rcally mattcrs. `'m
prcparcd to sacrincc cvcrything |ut thatbut what: Thc vcry gcsturc oI sc|I-
sacrincc." Thus, "n thc vcry act oI cmptying thc whitc-ma|c-hctcroscxua| posi-
tion oI al| positivc contcnt, thc PC attitudc rctains it a univcrsal Iorm oI sub-
jcctivity" zi)-i).
+. Zygmunt auman, Pcstmcdern Ethics ( xIord. asil lackwcll, i,,)),
zzo, y.
5. rian Massumi, A |ser`s Cuide tc Caita|ism and Schizchrenia. Deviaticns
]cm De|euze and Cuattari (Cambridgc. MT Prcss, i,,z), iiz. Subscqucnt rcIcr-
cnccs arc givcn in thc tcxt.
6. n "Iacia|ity" in Dclcuzc and Cuattari, scc Massumi's vcry hclpm| co|la-
tion m ib|d., i,z-,) n. ,|.
7. Scc my Iorthcoming Anima| Rites American Cu|ture, the Disccurse c]
Secies, and Pcsthumanism (Chicago. Univcrsity oI Chicago Prcss) and my "Faux
Post-Humanism, or, Animal Rights, Ncocolonialism, and Michacl Crichton's
Ccngc, Ari:cna Quarter|y yy.z (summcr i,,,) . u,-y).
. Eticnnc alibar, "Racism and NatIonalism," in Eticnnc alibar and m-
manuc| Wal|crstcin, Race, Naticn, C|ass Am|igucus |dentities, trans. oI a|ibar
by Chris Turncr (London. Vcrso, i,,i), y.
| n!|OOuC!|OO xx|||

. Thc dc|cIcrious pracIiccs oI IacIory Iarming oI hogs in NorIh Caro|ina

havc bccn thc subjccI oI intcnsc journa|isIic scruIiny. Scc, Ior cxamp|c, David
Cccc|ski and Mary Lcc Kcrr's arIic|c "Hog Wild" in Scuthcrn Lcsurc (Iall i,,z),
and thc hvc-part scrics on Ihc subjccI pub|ishcd i n thc Ra|cigh Ncws and O|-
scrcr, Fcbruary i,-z, i,,y, rcprinIcd March i,, i,,y. A powcrIu| and disIurbing
portrait oI s|aughtcrhouscs and Ihcir chccIs on humans as wcl| as anima|s is pro-
vidcd by arIisI Suc Coc in hcr book Dcad Mcat ( Ncw York. Four Wa|ls EighI
Windows Prcss, i,,y) , which contains an cxccllcnI inIroducIion on Ihc busincss
and cu|Iurc oI mcaI caIing by A|cxandcr Cockburn.
00 B RB 00Bl BS000B0
JBCQUS L||l CB
JidH8ldICUUdViUY8
Woud an cIhics bc sumccnI, as Lcvinas mainIains, Io rcmind Ihc subjccI
oI iIs bcing-subjccI, iIs bcing-gucsI, hosI or hosIagc, IhaI is Io say iIs
bcing-subjccIcd-Io-Ihc-oIhcr, Io Ihc Whoy CIhcr or Io cvcry singc oIhcr:
I don'I Ihink so. II Iakcs morc Ihan IhaI Io brcak wiIh Ihc CarIcsian
IradiIion oI Ihc anima-machinc IhaI cxisIs wiIhouI anguagc and wiIh-
ouI Ihc abiiIy Io rcspond. ' II Iakcs morc Ihan IhaI, cvcn wiIhin a ogic or
an cIhics oI Ihc unconscious which, wiIhouI rcnouncing Ihc conccpI oI
Ihc subjccI, somchow caims Io "subvcrI IhaI subjccI.
y cvoking Ihis Lacanian IiIc, "Ihc subvcrsion oI Ihc subjccI, wc
IhcrcIorc movc hom onc cIhica disavowa Io anoIhcr. I havc choscn, in
Ihis conIcxI, Io Iracc IhaI movcmcnI by IoIowing Ihc paIhs IhaI havc jusI
bccn opcncd, Ihosc oI Ihc oIhcr, oI wiIncssing, and oI Ihc "signihcrs
wiIhouI signihcds IhaI Lcvinas associaIcs wiIh Ihc "simian.` In Lacan's
p6o IcxI, "1hc Subvcrsion oI Ihc SubjccI and Ihc OiaccIic oI Ocsirc in
Ihc Frcudian \nconscious,` a ccrIain passagc namcs "Ihc anima` or "an
anima, in Ihc singuar and wiIhouI any IurIhcr dcIais. II pcrhaps marks
whaI is aI onc and Ihc samc Iimc a sIcp bcyond and a sIcp Ihis sidc oI
Frcud wiIh rcspccI Io Ihc rcaIions among Ihc human, Ihc unconscious,
and Ihc animot. 1his rcmarkabc passagc aI hrsI givcs Ihc imprcssion,
and raiscs hopc, IhaI Ihings arc going Io changc, noIaby conccrning Ihc
conccpI oI communicaIion or inIormaIion IhaI is assigncd Io whaI onc
l21
l22 JCquCS DC||| d
cas Ihc anima, Ihc anima in gcncra. II is IhoughI IhaI "Ihc anima` is
capabc ony oI a codcd mcssagc or oI a mcaning IhaI is narrowy indica-
Iivc, sIricIy consIraincd, onc IhaI is hxcd in iIs prograIion. Lacan
bcgins by Iakng Io Iask Ihc paIiIudc oI Ihc "modcrn Ihcory oI commu-
nicaIion.` II is Iruc IhaI aI IhaI poinI hc is Iaking abouI Ihc human sub-
jccI and noI Ihc animaI, buI hc wriIcs Ihc IoIowing, which sccms Io an-
nouncc, or aow onc Io hopc Ior, a mrIhcr noIc.
Thc thcr as prcvious sitc oI thc purc subjcct oI thc signihcr ho|ds thc
mastcr position, cvcn bcIorc coming into cxstcncc, to usc Hcgc|'s tcrm
against him, as abso|utc Mastcr. For what is omittcd in thc p|atitudc oI
modcrn inIormation thcory is thc Iact that onc can spcak oI a codc on|y iI
it is alrcady thc codc oI thc thcr, and that is somcthing quitc dihcrcnt
hom what is in qucstion in thc mcssagc, sincc it is hom this codc that thc
subjcct is constitutcd, which mcans that it is Irom thc thcr that thc sub-
jcct rcccivcs cvcn thc mcssagc that hc cmits.`
Foowing a digrcssion, wc wi comc back Io Ihis pagc oI "1hc Sub-
vcrsion oI Ihc SubjccI and Ihc OiaccIic oI Ocsirc in Ihc Frcudian \n-
conscious.` II oscs (and I cmphasizc Ihc word oscs bccausc iI puIs Ior-
ward in Ihc Iorm oI a Ihcsis, or prcsupposcs wiIhouI providing any
prooI) Ihc idca oI an anima characIcrizcd by an incapaciIy Io tctcnd to
tctcnd (]cindtc dc ]cindtc) or Io ctasc its ttaccs, an incapaciIy IhaI makcs
iI unabc Io bc a "subjccI, IhaI is Io say, "subjccI oI Ihc signihcr.`
1hc digrcssion I sha now makc wi aIow us Io idcnIi in caricr
IcxIs by Lacan paccs whcrc, iI sccms Io mc, Ihcy announcc at thc samc
timc a IhcorcIica muIaIion and a sIagnanI conhrmaIion oI inhcriIcd
Ihinking, iIs prcsupposiIions and iIs dogma.
WhaI sIi hcd ouI hopc Ior a dccisivc dispIaccmcnI oI Ihc IradiIiona
probcmaIic was, Ior cxampc, Ihc Iaking inIo accounI oI a spccuar mnc-
Iion in Ihc scxuaizaIion oI Ihc anima IhaI can bc idcnIihcd, hom p]6
on, in "Ihc mirror sIagc.` Such an idca was quiIc rarc aI Ihc Iimc. And IhaI
was Ihc casc cvcn iI-Ihis amounIs Io a massivc imiIaIion-Ihc passagc
Ihrough Ihc mirror according Io Lacan Iorcvcr immobiizcd Ihc anima
wiIhin Ihc snarc oI Ihc imaginary, dcpriving iI oI any acccss Io Ihc sym-
boic, IhaI is Io say Io Ihc aw and Io whaIcvcr is hcd Io bc propcr Io Ihc
human. 1hc anima wi ncvcr bc, as man is, "prcy Io anguagc.` LaIcr, in
"1hc OirccIion oI Ihc 1rcaImcnI,` wc rcad. "II musI bc posiIcd IhaI, pro-
duccd as iI is by any anima aI Ihc mcrcy oI anguagc jcn toic au |an-
gagc], man's dcsirc is Ihc dcsirc oI Ihc CIhcr , Ectits, z6() . ( 1his hgurc oI
Ihc prcy sympIomaIicay and rccurrcnIy characIcrizcs Ihc "a1ima| ob-
AOO Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOOCO? 12o
scssion in Lacan aI Ihc vcry momcnI whcn hc inssIs so sIrongy on dis-
sociaIing Ihc anIhropoIogica Irom Ihc zooIogicaI, man is an anima buI
a spcaking onc, and hc is css a bcasI oI prcy Ihan a bcasI IhaI is prcy Io
anguagc. ) 1hcrc is no dcsirc, and Ihus no unconscious, cxccpI Ior Ihc
human, iI in no way cxisIs Ior Ihc anima, uncss IhaI bc as an chccI oI Ihc
human unconscious, as iI Ihc domcsIic or Iamcd anima IransaIcd wiIh-
in iIscII Ihc unconscious oI man by somc conIagious IransIcr or muIc in-
IcriorizaIion (Ihc Icrms oI which woud, morcovcr, sIiI nccd Io bc Iakcn
inIo accounI). Bcing carcIuI Io disIinguish Ihc unconscious drivc Irom
whaI imiIs Ihc animaI, namcIy, insIincI or whaI is "gcncIic,` in "FosiIion
dc IinconscicnI` Lacan hods IhaI Ihc anima coud noI iIscI havc an un-
conscious, an unconscious oI iIs own, iI such a Ihing couId bc said and iI
Ihc ogic oI Ihc cxprcssion did noI sound ridicuous. BuI, Io bcgin wiIh, iI
pcrhaps sccms ridicuous Io Lacan himscI, bccausc hc wriIcs IhaI "in Ihc
propacdcuIic cxpcricncc onc can iusIraIc Ihc chccI oI cnunciaIion, or aI
casI somc chccI oI Ianguagc, and oI human anguagc, by asking Ihc chiId
iI hc can imaginc Ihc unconscious in Ihc anima.`
Lach word oI Ihis scnIcncc dcscrvcs criIica cxaminaIion. IIs Ihcsis is
ccar: Ihc anima has nciIhcr unconscious nor Ianguagc, nor Ihc oIhcr,
cxccpI as an chccI oI Ihc human ordcr, IhaI is, by conIagion, appropria-
Iion, domcsIicaIion.
o doubI Ihc acccpIaIion oI scxuaizing spccuIariIy in Ihc anima is a
rcmarkabc advancc cvcn iI iI capIurcs Ihc animot in Ihc mirror, and cvcn
iI iI kccps Ihc hcn pigcon or migraIing ocusI in capIiviIy wiIhin Ihc
imaginary. RcIcrring Io Ihc chccIs oI a GcsIaII provcn by a "bioIogicaI cx-
pcrimcnIaIion` IhaI is uIIcry rcmIcd by Ihc anguagc oI "psychic causaIi-
Iy, Lacan ncvcrIhccss crcdiIs IhaI Ihcory wiIh rccognizing IhaI "Ihc maIu-
raIion oI Ihc gonad in Ihc hcn pigcon` rcics on Ihc "sighI oI a IcIIow
crcaIurc,' IhaI is Io say anoIhcr pigcon oI ciIhcr scx. And IhaI is Iruc cvcn
Io Ihc cxIcnI IhaI a simpc mirror rcIccIion wi sumcc. II is aso sum-
cicnI Ior a migraIing IocusI Io pcrccivc a simiar visuaI imagc in ordcr Io
cvovc hom a soiIary Io a grcgarious sIaIc. Lacan sIaIcs, in a way IhaI is
Ior mc signihcanI, IhaI Ihis is a movc Irom Ihc "soIiIary Io Ihc grcgarious
Iorm,` and noI Io Ihc socia Iorm, as iI Ihc dihcrcncc bcIwccn gtcgatious
and socia/ wcrc Ihc diIIcrcncc bcIwccn anima and human. 1his moIiI,
and Ihc words gtcgatious and cvcn gtcgatiousncss, rcappcar IorccIuy in
Ihc conIcxI oI animaiIy somc Icn ycars aIcr, in "Propos sur Ia causaiIc
psychiquc` ( p(6) . Morcovcr, Ihis is a IcxI aI Ihc cnd oI which Lacan dc-
carcs !cscarIcs Io bc unsurpassabc. 1hc anaIysis oI Ihc spccuar chccI in
Ihc pigcon is dcvcopcd mrIhcr in IhaI IcxI buI iI sIu works in Ihc samc
124 JCquCS DC|||d
drccIon. accordng Io rcscarch by Harrsson () Ihc ovuaIon oI Ihc
hcn pgcon s produccd by Ihc smpIc sight oI a Iorm cvokng anoIhcr
mcmbcr oI Ihc spcccs, oI a vsua rcIccIon n shorI, cvcn n Ihc abscncc
oI an acIua mac. II s ndccd a maIIcr oI a spccuar gazc, by mcans oI an
magc and a vsua magc, raIhcr Ihan dcnIhcaIon by mcans oI odor or
sound. Lvcn I Ihc maIng gamc s physcay prccmpIcd by a shccI oI
gass, and cvcn I Ihc coupc conssIs oI Iwo IcmaIcs, ovuaIon sII Iakcs
pIacc. I happcns aI|cr Iwcvc days whcn Ihc coupc s hcIcroscxua, I wc
can usc Ihc Icrm, and ahcr a pcrod oI up Io Iwo monIhs Ior Iwo Icmacs.
A mrror s aI I Iakcs.'
Cnc oI Ihc nIcrcsIng Ihngs abouI Ihs nIcrprcIaIon s IhaI, aI|cr
a, as wIh OcscarIcs, and accordng Io Ihc Ircd and Iruc bbca and
FromcIhcan IradIon IhaI I kccp comng back Io, I rcaIcs Ihc hxiIy oI
anmaI dcIcrmnsm wIhn Ihc conIcxI oI nIormaIon and communca-
Ion Io a Iypc oI orgnary pcrIccIon oI IhaI anmaI. Convcrscy, I
"human knowIcdgc has grcaIcr auIonomy Ihan anma knowcdgc n rc-
aIon Io Ihc hcd oI Iorcc oI dcsrc and I "Ihc human ordcr s dsIn-
gushcd hom naIurc," I s paradoxcay bccausc oI an mpcrIccIon, bc-
causc oI an orgnary IauI n man, who has, n shorI, rcccvcd spccch and
Icchncs ony nasmuch as hc acks somcIhng. Hcrc I am spcakng oI
whaI Lacan sIuaIcs aI Ihc ccnIcr oI hs "mrror sIagc, namcy, Ihc "IacI oI
a rca scci]c tcmatutity o] aitth n man ((, Lacans Iacs) . 1hc ack
Icd Io Ihs prcmaIurIy woud corrcspond Io Ihc "objccIvc noIon oI
anaIomcaI ncompcIcncss oI Ihc pyramdaI sysIcm, Io whaI cmbryoIo-
gsIs ca 'jcta/ization,'' and whch, Lacan rccas, s Inkcd Io a ccrIan "nIra-
organc mrror ( bd. ) . An auIoIcc spccuarIy oI Ihc nsdc s Ihus
nkcd Io a ack, Io a prcmaIurIy, Io an ncompcIcncss oI Ihc IIIc man.
I havc j usI rcIcrrcd, raIhcr qucky, hcrc on Ihc Ihrcshod oI "1hc
Subvcrson oI Ihc SubjccI,' Io a mIcd buI nconIcsIabIc advancc rccog-
nzcd by Lacan. uI IhaI has Io bc rcgsIcrcd wIh Ihc grcaIcsI cauIon.
For noI ony s Ihc anma hcd wIhn Ihc magnary and unabc Io ac-
ccdc Io Ihc symboc, Io Ihc unconscous, and Io anguagc (and hcncc,
sI Ioowng our gcncra Ihrcad, Io auIobographca auIo-dcxs) , ' " buI
Ihc dcscrpIon oI Is scmoIc powcr rcmans dcIcrmncd, n Ihc Discouts
dc Romc ( "1hc FuncIon and Fcd oI Spccch and Languagc n Fsycho-
anayss,' ), n Ihc mosI dogmaIcaIy IradIona manncr, hxcd wIhn
CarIcsan hxIy, wIhn Ihc prcsupposIon oI a codc IhaI ony pcrmIs tc-
actions Io sImu and noI tcsonscs Io qucsIons. I rcIcr Io Ihc "scmoIc
sysIcm and noI Io "anguagc, Ior Lacan aso rcIuscs Ihc anma anguagc,
rccognzng n Is casc ony a "codc, Ihc "hIy oI codng, or a "sysIcm oI
AOd Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOdCd? 12b
sgnaIng.` 1hcsc arc oIhcr ways oI namng whaI, wIhn a cognIvsI
probIcmaIc oI Ihc anma IhaI ohcn rcpcaIs Ihc mosI worn-ouI Irusms
oI mcIaphyscs cvcn as I appcars Io rcssI Ihcm, s caIcd Ihc "prcwrcd
rcsponsc jtccnsc tcca/cc]" or "prcwrcd bchavor.`

Lacan s so prccsc and hrm n accrcdIng Ihc oId, ycI modcrnzcd
Iopos oI Ihc bcc IhaI hc sccms, I I mghI say, noI Io havc a ccar con-
sccncc. I dcIccI an unavowcd anxcIy undcrncaIh Ihc auIhorIy oI Ihs
ncw, ycI so od, so od dscoursc conccrnng Ihc bcc. Lacan cIams Io bc
rcyng on whaI hc bIhcy caIs Ihc "anmaI kngdom` n ordcr Io cr-
Iquc Ihc currcnI noIon oI "anguagc as a sgn` as opposcd Io "human
anguagcs.` Whcn bccs appcar Io "rcspond` Io a "mcssagc,` Ihcy do noI
rcspond buI rcacI, Ihcy mcrcIy obcy a hxcd program, whcrcas Ihc human
subjccI rcsponds Io Ihc oIhcr, Io Ihc qucsIon poscd by Ihc oIhcr. 1hs
dscoursc s quIc Icray CarIcsan. LaIcr, as wc sha scc, Lacan cxprcss-
y conIrasIs tcacticn wIh tcscnsc n conIormIy wIh hs opposIon bc-
Iwccn human and anmaI kngdom, and n Ihc samc way IhaI hc opposcs
naIurc and convcnIon:
l shal| show thc inadcquacy oI thc conccption oI "languagc as a sign" by
thc vcry maniIcstation that bcst illustratcs it i n thc animal kingdom, a
maniIcstation which, iI it had not rcccntly bccn thc objcct oI an authcntic
discovcry, it sccms it wou|d havc bccn ncccssary to invcnt Ior this purposc.
lt is now gcncrally admittcd that whcn thc bcc rcturns to thc hivc hom
its honcy-gathcring it indicatcs to its companions by two sorts oI dancc
thc cxistcncc oI ncctar and its rc|ativc distancc, ncar or Iar, hom thc hivc.
Jhc sccond typc oI dancc is thc most rcmarkablc, Ior thc planc in which thc
bcc traccs thc hgurc-oI-cight curvc-which is why it has bccn ca||cd thc
"wagging dancc"-and thc Ircqucncy oI thc hgurcs cxccutcd within a
givcn timc, dcsignatc, on thc onc hand, cxactly thc dircction to bc Iol-
lowcd, dctcrmincd i n rc|ation to thc inc|ination oI thc sun (on which bccs
arc ab|c to oricnt thcmsc|vcs in all wcathcrs, thanks to thcir scnsitivity to
polarizcd light), and, on thc othcr hand, thc distancc, up to scvcra| milcs,
at which thc ncctar is to bc Iound. And thc othcr bccs rcspond to this
mcssagc by sctting OH immcdiatcly Ior thc p|acc thus dcsignatcd.
lt took somc tcn ycars oI paticnt obscrvation Ior Karl von Frisch to dc-
codc this kind oI mcssagc, Ior it is ccrtain|y a codc, or systcm oI signalling,
whosc gcncric charactcr a|onc Iorbids us to quali[ it as convcntional.
ut is it ncccssari|y a languagc: Wc can say that it is distinguishcd lom
languagc prcciscly by thc ]xeJ jmy ita|ics, J. D. | corrclation oI its signs to
thc rcality that thcy signily. For i n a languagc signs takc on thcir valuc
l2 JCquCS DC|||O
from thcir rc|ations to cach othcr in thc lcxical distribution of scman-
tcmcs as much as in thc positiona|, or cvcn hcctional, usc of morphcmcs,
in sharp contrast to thc ]xity j my ita|ics again, J. D. | of thc coding uscd by
bccs. And thc divcrsity of human |anguagcs ||angucs) takcs on its fu||
va|uc hom this cnlightcning discovcry.
Furthcrmorc, whi|c thc mcssagc of thc kind dcscribcd hcrc dctcrmincs
thc action of thc sccius, it is ncvcr rctransmittcd by it. This mcans that thc
mcssagc rcmains ]xcd my ita|ics still, J. D.| in its function as a rclay of thc
action, hom which no subjcct dctachcs it as a symbol of communication
itsclf. (8(8,)
Lvcn iI onc wcrc to subscribc provisionay to this ogic (to which I do
not in Iact objcct in thc sightcst, athough I woud want to rcinscribc it
dihcrcnty, bcyond any simpc opposition bctwccn anima and human) ,
i t i s diIhcut t o rcscrvc, as Lacan docs, thc diIIcrcntiaity oI signs Ior
human anguagc ony, as opposcd to anima coding. What hc attributcs
to signs that, "in a anguagc` undcrstood as bconging to thc human
ordcr, "takc on thcir vauc hom thcir rcations to cach othcr` and so on,
and not just hom thc "hxcd corrcation` bctwccn signs and rcaity, can
and must bc accordcd to any codc, anima or human.
As Ior thc abscncc oI a rcsponsc in thc anima-machinc, as Ior thc
trcnchant distinction bctwccn tcacticn and tcscnsc, thcrc is nothing Ior-
tuitous in thc Iact that thc most Cartcsian passagc oI a is Iound Ioow-
ing thc discoursc on thc bcc, on its systcm oI inIormation, which woud
cxcudc it Irom thc "hcd oI spccch and anguagc.` It is indccd a mattcr oI
thc constitution oI thc subjcct as human subjcct to thc cxtcnt that thc at-
tcr crosscs thc honticr oI inIormation to gain acccss to spccch.
For thc function of languagc is not to inform but to cvokc.
What scck in spccch is thc rcsponsc of thc othcr. What constitutcs mc
as subjcct is my qucstion. n ordcr to bc rccognizcd by thc othcr, uttcr
what was only in vicw of what wi|| bc. n ordcr to hnd him, l call him by a
namc that hc must assumc or rcfusc in ordcr to rcp|y to mc . . . .
lf now p|acc mysclf in hont of thc othcr to qucstion him, thcrc is no
cybcrnctic computcr imaginablc that can makc a rcacticn cut c] what thc
rcscnsc is. Thc dcnnition of rcsponsc as thc sccond tcrm in thc "stimulus
rcsponsc" circuit is simp|y a mctaphor sustaincd by thc subjcctivity im-
putcd to thc animal, a subjcctivity that is thcn ignorcd in thc physical
schcma to which thc mctaphor rcduccs it. This is what ! havc callcd put-
ting thc rabbit into thc hat so as to bc ab|c to pu|l it out again latcr. But a
rcacticn is nct a rcscnsc.
AOd Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOOCd? l21
II I prcss an c|cctric button and a |ight gocs on, thcrc is no rcsponsc cx-
ccpt Ior my dcsirc. (86, translation modihcd, my italics . D. [ , cxccpt Ior
Lacan's "my dcsirc")
ncc again, wc arc not conccrncd with crasing cvcry diffcrcncc bc-
twccn what wc arc calling tcaction and what wc commonly call tcsonsc.
It is noI a mattcr of conmsing what happcns whcn onc prcsscs a computcr
kcy and what happcns whcn onc asks a gucstion of an inIcrlocutor. Wc
arc cvcn lcss conccrncd with aItributing Io what Lacan calls "thc animal
whaI hc also calls a "subjcctivity or an "unconscious such as would, for
cxamplc, allow us to put thc said animal in an analytic situation (cvcn if
such analogous sccnarios cannot bc complctcly cxcludcd for ccttain ani-
mals, in ccttain contcxtsand if timc pcrmittcd wc could imaginc somc
hypothcscs thaI would allow us to rchnc that analogy) . My hcsitaIion
conccrns only Ihc purity, Ihc rigor, and thc indivisibility of Ihc fronticr
that scparatcsalrcady with rcspcct to "us humans -rcaction from rc-
sponsc, and as a conscgucncc, cspccially, thc puriIy, rigor, and indivisibili-
ty of thc conccpt of rcsponsibiliIy that cnsucs. 1hc gcncral conccrn Ihat I
am thus formulating is aggravatcd in at lcast thrcc ways.
l . whcn onc is rcquircd to takc account oI an unconscious that should
prcvcnt us having any immcdiatc and conscious assurancc oI thc hcc-
dom prcsupposcd by any notion oI rcsponsibility,
2. cspccia||y whcn-and this is singularly thc casc Ior Lacan-thc logic oI
thc unconscious is Ioundcd on a logic oI rcpctition which, in my opin
ion, wi|l always inscribc a dcstiny oI itcrability, hcncc somc automatici
ty oI thc rcaction in cvcry rcsponsc, howcvcr originary, hcc, dcciding
jdcciscirc] and a-rcactional it might sccm,
3. whcn, and this is truc oI Lacan in particular, onc givcs crcdcncc to thc
matcriality oI spccch and to thc corporality oI |anguagc.
Lacan rcminds us of Ihis on thc following pagc. "Spccch is in facI a gih of
languagc, and languagc is noI immatcrial. lt is a subtlc body, but body it
is 8;). Yct in thc intcrval hc will havc foundcd all "rcsponsibility,' and to
bcgin with all psychoanalytic rcsponsibility, thus all psychoanalyIic
cthics, in thc distinction, Ihat I h nd problcmatic, bctwccn tcaction and
tcsonsc. Hc will cvcn havc foundcd thcrcand this is prcciscly whaI I
wish to dcmonstratchis conccpI of thc sua)cct.
HcnccIorth thc dccisivc mnction oI my own rcsponsc appcars, and this
tunction is not, as has bccn said, simply to bc rcccivcd by thc subjcct as ac
ccptancc or rcjcction oI his discoursc, but rcal|y to rccognizc him or to
12B JCquCS DC|||d
abo|ish him as subjcct. Such is thc naturc oI thc analyst's rescnsi|i|ity
whcncvcr hc intcrvcncs by mcans oI spccch. (8;, translation modincd)
Why do thc stakcs hcrc sccm to bc so much highcr In problcmatiz-
ing, as I havc donc, thc purity and indivisibi!ity of a linc bctwccn rcaction
and rcsponsc, and cspccially thc possibility of tracing such a linc, bc-
twccn thc human in gcncta/ and thc animal in gcncta/, onc risksanxicty
about such an idca and thc subscgucnt objcctions to it cannot but bc
forthcoming-casting doubt on all rcsponsibility, cvcry cthics, cvcry dc-
cision, and so on. 1o that I would rcspond-for it is indccd a mattcr of
rcsponding-with what follows, schcmatically, by mcans of principlcs,
with thrcc points.
I . On thc onc hand, casting doubt on rcsponsibility, on dccision, on
onc`s own bcing-cthical, sccms to mc to bc-and is pcrhaps what should
forcvcr rcmain-thc unrcscindablc csscncc of cthics. dccision and rc-
sponsibility. Lvcry hrm knowlcdgc, ccrtainty, and assurancc on this sub-
jcct would sufhcc, prcciscly, to conhrm thc vcry thing onc wishcs to dis-
avow, namcly, thc rcactionality in thc rcsponsc. I indccd said "to disavow
jdcnict], and it is for that rcason that I situatc disavowal at thc hcart of all
thcsc discourscs on thc animal.
Z. On thc othct hand, far from crasing thc dihcrcncc-a nonopposi-
tional and inhnitcly dihcrcntiatcd, gualitativc, and intcnsivc diffcrcncc
bctwccn rcaction and rcsponscit is a mattcr, on thc contrary, of taking
that difcrcncc into account within thc wholc diffcrcntiatcd hcld of cxpc-
ricncc and of a world of lifc-forms. And that mcans rchaining fom rc-
ducing this dihcrcntiatcd and multiplc dihcrcncc, in a similarly massivc
and homogcnizing manncr, to onc bctwccn thc human subjcct, on thc
onc hand, and thc nonsubjcct that is thc animal in gcncral, on thc othcr,
by mcans of which thc lattcr comcs to bc, in anothcr scnsc, thc nonsubjcct
that is subjcctcd to thc human subjcct.
]
. ina//y it would bc a mattcr of dcvcloping anothcr "logic of dcci-
sion, of thc rcsponsc and of thc cvcntsuch as I havc also attcmptcd to
dcploy clscwhcrc and which sccms to mc lcss incompatiblc than onc
might think with what Lacan himsclf, in "1hc Subvcrsion of thc Subjcct,`
maintains conccrning thc codc as "codc of thc thcr. Hc rcfcrs to that
thcr as thc onc hom whom "thc subjcct rcccivcs cvcn thc mcssagc that
hc cmits (]o,) . 1his axiom should complicatc thc simplc distinction bc-
twccn tcsonsiai/ity and tcaction, and all that follows from it. It would,
thcrcforc, bc a mattcr of rcinscribing this dictcncc bctwccn rcaction and
rcsponsc, and hcncc this historicity of cthical, juridical, or political rc-
AOd Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOdCd? l2U
sponsibility, within anoIhcr Ihinking of lifc, of thc living, wiIhin a dihcr-
cnt rclaIion of thc living to thcir sclmcss jiscitc}, Io Ihcir autcs, to thcir
own autokincsis and rcactional automaticity, to dcath, to Icchnics or to
Ihc mcchanical jmachiniquc].
Following Ihis digrcssion, if wc arc now Io comc to Ihc latcr Icxt IiIlcd
"1hc Subvcrsion of thc Subjcct and thc OialccIic of Ocsirc in Ihc Frcudian
Lnconscious,` wc will indccd follow this samc logic and thcsc samc op-
positions, namcly, that bctwccn Ihc imaginary and thc symbolic, bcIwccn
thc spccular capturc of which thc animal is capablc and thc symbolic
ordcr of Ihc signihcr Io which iI docs not havc acccss. At Ihc juncIurc bc-
twccn imaginary and symbolic is playcd ouI Ihc wholc gucstion of auto
biography, of auIobiography in gcncral no doubt, but also thaI of Ihc
IhcorcIician or of Ihc insIiIution within whosc history Ihc thcorcIician
arIiculaIcs and signs his discoursc on juncturc, IhaI is to say Lacan's dis-
coursc as auIobiographical analysis. (AlIhough wc cannoI undcrtakc this
within thc limits consIraining us hcrc, iI would bc ncccssary to givc back
a morc accuratc pcrspccIivc, somc ycars af|cr Ihc War, wiIh all Ihc ac-
companying idcological sIakcs, Io Ihc wholc csscnIially anIhropological
dcsign of thc pcriod wiIh rcspccI to iIs claim Io transccnd cvcry csitivc
anthropology and cvcry mctaphysical and humanisI anthropoccntrism.
And cspccially, in a mosI lcgitimaIc way, to Iransccnd biologism, physi-
calism, bchaviorism, gcncIicism, and so on. For Hcidcggcr as for Lacan
and many othcrs, iI was abovc all a maItcr of rclying on a ncw ]undamcn-
ta/ anIhropology and of rigorously rcsponding tc Ihc gucsIion and an-
swcring ]ct Ihc gucstion "WhaI is Ihc human)
In "1hc Subvcrsion of Ihc SubjccI Ihc rchning ot thc analysis is broughI
to bcar on othcr conccptual disIincIions. 1hcy sccm Io mc as problcmaIic
as thosc wc havc just analyzcd, and, morcovcr, thcy rcmain in dissociablc
hom thcm. I am conccrncd in parIicular with whaI appcars as a parcnthc-
sis ( "bscrvc, in parcnthcscs . . . ) , but a parcnIhcsis thaI is to my mind
capital. It rclatcs Io thc tcsIimonial dimcnsion in gcncral, thaI is Io say to
whaI subtcnds Ihc problcmatic wc arc dcaling with hcrc. Who witncsscs
jtcmcinc] Io what and for whom Who provcs, who looks, who obscrvcs
whom and what What is thcrc of knowlcdgc, ol ccrtainty, and of truIh
bscrvc, in parcnthcscs, that this thcr, which is distinguishcd as thc
|ocus oI Spccch, imposcs itsclI no lcss as witncss to thc Truth. Without thc
dimcnsion that it constitutcs, thc dcccption practiscd by Spccch wou|d bc
indistinguishab|c hom thc vcry dihcrcnt prctcncc to bc Iound in physical
combat or scxual disp|ay jaradej. (]o,)
loU JCquCS DC|||d
1hc hgurc of thc animal comcs to thc surfacc thcrcforc in this dihcrcncc
bctwccn prctcnsc j]cintc] and dcccption jttomctic]. 1hcrc is, according
to lacan, a clcar distinction bctwccn what thc animal is capablc of,
namcly, stratcgic prctcnsc (suit, pursuit, or pcrsccution, in war or in sc-
duction) , and what it is incapablc of and incapablc of witncssing to,
namcly, thc dcccption of spccch j/a ttomctic dc /a ato/c] within thc
ordcr of thc signihcr and of 1ruth. 1hc dcccption of spccch, of coursc,
mcans, as wc shall scc, lying ( and thc animal would not propcrly know
how to lic according to common scnsc, according to lacan and to many
othcrs, cvcn if, as onc knows, it undcrstands how to prctcnd), but morc
prcciscly, dcccption involvcs lying to thc cxtcnt that, in promising what is
truc, it includcs thc supplcmcntary possibility of tclling thc truth in
ordcr to lcad thc othcr astray, in ordcr to havc him bclicvc somcthing
othcr than what is truc (wc know thc [cwish story rccountcd by lrcud
and so of|cn guotcd by Lacan. "Wy do you tcll mc that you arc going to
X in ordcr to havc mc bclicvc you arc going to Y whcrcas you arc indccd
going to X) . According to Lacan, thc animal would bc incapablc of this
typc of lic, of this dcccit, of this prctcnsc in thc sccond dcgrcc, whcrcas
thc "subjcct of thc signihcr, within thc human ordcr, would posscss such
a powcr and, bcttcr still, would cmcrgc as subjcct, instituting itsclf and
coming to itsclf as subjcct ay vittuc o] this owct, a sccond-dcgrcc rcllcx-
ivc powcr, a powcr that is conscious of bcing ablc to dcccivc by prctcnding
to prctcnd. nc of thc intcrcsts of this analysis dcrivcs, no doubt, hom
thc fact that in this cssay Lacan givcs much importancc-in any casc,
morc than anyonc clsc in philosophy and morc than hc himsclf docs in
carlicr writings-to thc capacity to prctcnd that hc attributcs to what hc
still calls "thc animal, "an animal,' to what hc nicknamcs hcrc its "danci-
ty" jdansite] with an "a.' Dansity rcfcrs to thc capacity to prctcnd by
mcans of a dancc, lurc, or paradc, by mcans of thc chorcography of thc
hunt or scduction, thc paradc that is indulgcd in bcforc it makcs lovc or
thc movcmcnt of sclf-protcction at thc momcnt it makcs war, hcncc all
thc forms of thc "I am ( following) or "I am followcd that wc arc track-
ing hcrc. ' ut in spitc of what Lacan thus accords or lcnds to thc animal,
hc kccps it within thc imaginary or prcsymbolic ( as wc notcd in thc "mir-
ror stagc and following thc cxamplcs of thc hcn pigcon or migrating lo-
cust) . Hc kccps "thc animal prisoncr within thc spccularity of thc imagi-
nary, hc kccps it morc than thc animal kccps itsclf in such captivity,
spcaking in this rcgard of "imaginary capturc. Abovc all, hc kccps "thc
animal within thc hrst dcgrcc of prctcnsc (prctcnsc without prctcnsc of
prctcnsc) or, which hcrc amounts to thc samc thing, within thc hrst dc-
AOd Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOdCd? 1ol
grcc of thc tracc. thc capacity to tracc, to lcavc a track, and to track, but
not to distract thc tracking or lcad thc trackcr astray by cmsing its tracc or
covcring its tracks. '
An important "ut will, in chcct, fold this paragraph in two ( "ut an
animal docs not prctcnd to prctcnd ]o | ) . A balancc shcct scparatcs thc
accounting of what has to bc accordcd thc animal (prctcnsc and thc
tracc, inscription of thc tracc) and what has to bc dcnicd it (dcccption,
lying, prctcnsc of prctcnsc, and crasing of traccs). utwhat thc articu-
lation of thc "ut pcrhaps lcavcs undctcctcd, discrcctly in thc shadows,
among all thc traits that arc listcd, is a rcfcrcncc to lifc, to thc "vital.
Lvcrything accordcd thc animal is conccdcd on thc grounds of "vital
situations, cvcn though onc would bc tcmptcd to concludc that thc ani-
mal, whcthcr huntcr or gamc, is hcld to bc incapablc of an authcntic rcla-
tion to dcath or of tcstifying to an csscntial mortality in thc hcart of
1ruth or Spccch. 1hc animal is a living crcaturc that is only living, as it
wcrc an "immortal living thing. As Hcidcggcr statcs-Lacan is hcrc clos-
cr to him than cvcr-and, as wc shall scc, this is cspccially thc casc in
tcrms of what binds thc /ogos to thc possibility of "dccciving or "bcing
dcccivcd, thc animal docs not dic. ` ` For thc samc rcason, morcovcr, it
would also bc ignorant of mourning, thc tomb and thc cadavcr, which
for Lacan constitutcs a "signihcr.
bscrvc, i n parcnthcscs, that this thcr, which is distinguishcd as thc
locus oI Spccch, imposcs itsclI no |css as witncss to thc Truth. Without thc
dimcnsion that it constitutcs, thc dcccticn practiscd by Spccch would
bc indistinguishab|c Irom thc vcry dihcrcnt rctcnsc to bc Iound in physi-
ca| combat or scxua| display jaradc]. Prctcnsc oI this kind is dcp|oycd in
imaginary capturc, and is intcgratcd into thc play oI approach and rcjcc-
tion that constitutcd thc origina| dancc, in which thcsc two vita| situa-
tions hnd thcir rhythm, and in accordancc with which thc partncrs or
dcrcd thcir movcmcnts-what l wi|| darc to call thcir "dan city" (dansitc).
lndccd, anima|s, too, show that thcy arc capablc oI such bchaviour whcn
thcy arc bcing huntcd, thcy managc to put thcir pursucrs oII thc sccnt
jdcistcr]' by making a Ia|sc start. This can go so Iar as to suggcst on thc
part oI thc gamc anima| thc nobi|ity oI honoring thc clcmcnt oI display to
bc Iound i n thc hunt. I coursc, that is only a ngurativc and anthropo
morphic suggcstion, likc a "rabbit in thc hat," Ior it wi|l immcdiatc|y bc
madc clcar by thc cnsuing "ut" that honor and nobility, ticd to vouching
for onc's word or thc gih oI spccch (|a Parc|c dcnncc) and to thc symbolic,
is prcciscly what thc anima| is incapablc oI. / anima| docs not givc its
1o2 JCquCS DC|||d
word and onc docs not givc onc's word, or attributc spccch to thc anima|,
cxccpt by mcans oI a projcction or anthropomorphic transIcrcncc. nc
can't |ic to an anima| cithcr, cspccia||y by prctcnding to hidc hom it somc-
thing that onc shows it. sn't that patcnt|y obvious: Jruc cnough, though
it rcmains to bc sccn (\circ.). n any casc it is this wholc organization oI
Lacan's discoursc that wc arc cal|ing into qucstion hcrc. | But an anima|
dce nct rctcnd tc rctcnd. Hc docs not makc tracks whosc dcccption |ics in
thc Iact that thcy wi|| bc takcn as Ialsc, whi|c bcing in Iact truc oncs, oncs,
that is, that indicatc his truc trai|. Ncr dccs an anima| ccvcr u its tracks,
which wcu|d |c tantamcunt tc making itsc|] thc su|]cct c] thc signi]cr. ' `
What docs it mcan to bc ( thc) subjcct of/to thc signihcr, that which
thc animal is hcrc rcputcd to bc incapablc o What docs it signi Lct us
hrst notc in passing that this conhrms thc old (Adamic and Promcthcan)
thcmc of thc animal's profound innoccncc, its incapacity with rcspcct
to thc "signihcr, to lying and dcccit, to prctcndcd prctcnsc, which gcts
linkcd hcrc, in a way that is also vcry traditional, to thc thcmc of a cruclty
that docs not rccognizc itsclf as such, thc crucl innoccncc, thcrcforc, of a
living crcaturc to whom cvil is forcign, living antcrior to thc dihcrcncc
bctwccn good and cvil.

ut to bc subjcct of thc signihcr also mcans, still yct, two indissociablc

things that arc couplcd within thc subjccticity of thc subjcct. 1hc subjcct
of thc signihcr is subjcct( cd) to thc signihcr. lacan ncvcr stops insisting
on thc "dominancc . . . of thc signih cr ovcr thc subjcct and ovcr "thc
symbolic ordcr that is constitutivc for thc subjcct.'" 1hc "subjcct docs
not havc mastcry ovcr it. Its cntry into thc human ordcr of thc law prc-
supposcs this passivc h nitudc, this inh rmity, this lack that thc animal
docs not suhcr hom. 1hc animal docs not know cvil, lying, dcccit. What
it Iacks is prcciscly thc lack by virtuc of which thc human bccomcs sub-
jcct of thc signihcr, subjcct subjcctcd to thc signihcr. ut to bc subjcct of
thc signihcr is also to bc a subjccting subjcct, a subjcct as mastct, an activc
and dcciding subjcct of thc signihcr, having in any casc sumcicnt mastcry
to bc capablc of prctcnding to prctcnd and hcncc of bcing ablc to put
into chcct onc's powcr to dcstroy thc tracc. 1his mastcry is thc supcriori-
of man ovcr thc animot, cvcn if it gains its assurancc hom thc privucgc
constitutcd by a dcfcct jdc]aut], a lack jmanquc], or a fault j]autc], a fail-
ing jdc]ai//ancc] that dcrivcs both hom thc gcncric prcmaturity of birth
and hom thc castration complcx, which lacan dcsignatcs, in a tcxt I shall
shortly citc, as thc lrcudian and scicntihc (or at lcast nonmythological)
vcrsion of original sin or thc Adamic fall.
And Sy !hC AOl n| KCSpOOdCd? 1oo
II is thcrc thaI thc passagc hom imaginary to symbolic is dctcrmincd
as a passagc fom animal Io human ordcr. It is thcrc that subjccticity, as
ordcr of thc signihcr hom Ihc placc of thc thcr, appcars as somcIhing
misscd by or lacking in thc traditional philosophy of Ihc subjccI, as a
maItcr of rclaIions bcIwccn human and animal. 1hat is aI lcast whaI
Lacan allcgcs at Ihc momcnt hc subHy rcinIroduccs an anthropoccntrist
logic and strongly rcinforccs Ihc ]x:m of thc CarIcsian cog/o as a thcsis
on thc animal-machinc in gcncral.
P this has bccn articu|atcd only in a conluscd way cvcn by proIcssiona|
philosophcrs. ut it is clcar that Spccch bcgins only with thc passagc hom
"prctcncc" to thc ordcr oI thc signihcr, and that thc signihcr rcquircs an-
othcr |ocus-thc |ocus oI thc thcr, thc thcr witncss, thc witncss thcr
than any oI thc partncrs-Ior thc spccch that it supports to bc capablc oI
lying, that is to say, oI prcscnting itsclI as Truth.
Jhus it is hom somcwhcrc othcr than thc Rca|ity that it conccrns that
Jruth dcrivcs its guarantcc. it is hom Spccch. Just as it is hom Spccch that
Truth rcccivcs thc mark that cstablishcs it in a hctional structurc. (]o,6)
1his allusion to a "structurc of hcIion would rcfcr us back to Ihc dc-
baIc conccrning "1hc Purloincd Lcttcr." WiIhout rcopcning iI to that
cxtcnI, lcI us notc hcrc Ihc rchccIivc sharpncss of Ihc word ]c/on. 1hc
conccpt it lcads us Ioward is no longcr mcrcly that of thc ]gurc or simplc
]cn/ but Ihc rchcxivc and abyssal conccpt of a ]cigncd ]cn/ or rc/cndcd
rc/cn:c. It is by mcans of Ihc powcr to prctcnd a prctcnsc IhaI onc ac-
ccdcs to Spccch, to thc ordcr of 1ruth, to Ihc symbolic ordcr-in short, Io
thc ordcr of thc human.
( Lvcn bcforc dctailing oncc morc Ihc principlc bchind thc rcading
bcing atIcmptcd hcrc, I would at lcasI likc to advancc a hypoIhcsis. Al-
though Lacan ohcn rcpcats that thcrc is no thcr of thc Ihcr c.g., ]6| ,
although for Lcvinas, on thc oIhcr hand, and hom anothcr point of vicw,
Ihc gucsIion of justicc is born hom this rcgucst of thc third party| and
hom an othcr of thc oIhcr who would not bc "simply onc's fcllow crca-
turc| , ' onc wondcrs whcIhcr Ihc common if disavowcd implication of
thcsc Iwo discourscs on thc oIhcr and Ihc third did not in fact amounI Io
locating at lcast an insIancc of thc animal, of thc animal-o/hcr, of thc othcr
u: unmu/, of Ihc living-mortal- o/hcr, of thc non-fcllow in any casc, thc
non-broIhcr divinc or animal, hcrc inscparablc in short of thc ahuman
combining god and animal according Io whatcvcr thco-zoomorphic pos-
sibiliIics thcrc arc IhaI propcrly constitutc thc myIhs, rcligions, idolatrics,
and cvcn sacrihcial practiccs within thc nonothcisms that claim Io brcak
lo4 JCquCS DC|||d
with idolatry. Morcovcr, thc word ahuman docs not scarc Lacan bccausc,
in a postscript to "1hc Subvcrsion of thc Subjcct, hc notcs that hc was in
no way insultcd by thc cpithct ahuman that onc of thc participants in thc
confcrcncc attributcd to his talk ]z(| . )
What i s Lacan doing whcn hc holds that "thc signihcr rcguircs anothcr
locus-thc locus of thc thcr, thc thcr witncss, thc witncss thcr than
any of thc partncrs In ordcr to brcak with thc imagc and with thc likc-
ncss of a fcllow must not this bcyond of partncrship-thus bcyond thc
spccular or imaginary ducl-bc at lcast situatcd in a placc of altcrity that
is radical cnough to brcak with cvcry idcntihcation of an imagc of sclf,
with cvcry fcllow living crcaturc, and so with cvcry hatcrnity or human
proximity, with all humanity Must not this placc of thc thcr bc
ahuman If this is indccd thc casc, thcn thc ahuman, or at lcast thc hgurc
of somc-in a worddivinanima/ity, cvcn if it wcrc to bc fclt through
thc human, would bc thc guasi-transccndcntal rcfcrcnt, thc cxcludcd,
forccloscd, disavowcd, tamcd, and sacrihccd foundation of what it founds,
namcly, thc symbolic ordcr, thc human ordcr, law, and j usticc. Is not this
ncccssity pcrformcd sccrctly in Lcvinas and in Lacan, who, morcovcr,
cross paths so ohcn in spitc of all thc dihcrcnccs in thc world 1hat is onc
of thc rcasons why it is so dimcult to uttcr a discoursc of mastcry or of
transccndcncc with rcgard to thc animal and to simultancously claim to
do it in thc namc of God, in thc namc of thc namc of thc Fathcr or in thc
namc of thc Law. Must not onc rccognizc lathcr, Law, Animal, and so on,
as bcing, in thc hnal analysis, thc samc thing-or, rathcr, indissociablc
hgurcs of thc samc 1hing nc could conjoin thc Mothcr within that
juncturc and it would probably not changc anything. Mictzschc and Kafka
pcrhaps undcrstood that bcttcr than thc philosophcrs or thcorcticians, at
lcast thosc who bclong to thc tradition that wc arc trying to anayzc hcrc.
ncc morc, of coursc, my primc conccrn is not to mount a hontal at-
tack on thc logic of this discoursc and what it implics vis-a-vis thc Lacan
of thc pcriod of thc Ectits ( p66) . lor thc momcnt, I shall havc to lcavc in
suspcnsc thc gucstion of whcthcr, in latcr tcxts or in thc scminars (pub-
lishcd or unpublishcd, acccssiblc or inacccssiblc) , thc armaturc of this
logic camc to bc cxplicitly rccxamincd-cspccially sincc thc oppositional
distinction bctwccn imaginary and symbolic that forms thc vcry axi-
omatics of thc discoursc on thc animal sccms to bc progrcssivcly aban-
doncd, if not rcpudiatcd, by Lacan. As always, I am trying to takc account
of thc strongcst systcmatic organization of a discoursc in thc form in
which it comcs togcthcr at a rclativcly dctcrminablc momcnt of that
proccss. Jhc tcxts distributcd ovcr a thirty-ycar pcriod and coIlcctcd
AOO Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOOCO? lob
within a singlc volumc, solidly bound to its own intcgrity
jtc/ic soi],
namcly, thc
(ctits, providc us in this rcgard with a rcliablc
purchasc on
that proccss and allow
us to follow its tracks. Among thc publishcd and
acccssiblc tcxts that follow thc
(
ctits, I think that onc would
havc, in par-
ticular, to try to follow thc path that lcads, in an intcrcstin
g but continu-
ous way, to thc analyscs of animal mimctism, for cxamplc
, thosc that still
work from thc pcrspcctivc of thc gazc prcciscly, of thc
imagc and thc
"sccing oncsclf looking,` bcing sccn lookng cvcn by a can of sardincs that
docs not scc mc. ("1o bcgin with, if what Pctit-[can said to mc, namcly,
that thc can did not scc mc, had any mcaning, it was bccausc in a scnsc, it
was looking at mc, all thc samc. It was looking at mc at thc
lcvcl of thc
point of light, thc point at which cvcrything that looks at mc is situatcd-
and I am not spcaking mctaphorically.)
Instcad of objccting to this argumcnt, thcrcforc, I would bc tcmptcd
to cmphasizc that thc logical, and thus rational, hagility of ccrtain of its
articulations should inducc us to rccast in a gcncral way thc wholc con-
ccptual hamcwork.
It sccms dimcult in thc hrst placc to idcnti or dctcrminc a limit, that
is to say an indivisiblc thrcshold bctwccn prctcnsc and prctcnsc of prc-
tcnsc. Morcovcr, cvcn supposing that that limit wcrc conccptually acccs-
siblc, somcthing I do not mmis so, onc would still havc to know in thc
namc of what knowlcdgc or what tcstimony (knowlcdgc is not thc samc
as tcstimony) it would bc possiblc to calmly dcclarc that thc anima/ in
gcncta/ is incapablc of prctcnding prctcnsc. Lacan docs not invokc hcrc
any cthological knowlcdgc (whosc incrcasingly spcctacular rchncmcnt is
proportional to thc rchncmcnt of thc animot), nor any cxpcricncc, ob-
scrvation, or pcrsonal attcstation that would bc worthy of crcdcncc. 1hc
status of thc amrmation that rcmscs thc prctcnsc of prctcnsc to thc ani-
mal is that of a simplc dogma. ut thcrc is no doubt a dissimulatcd moti-
vation to this humanist or anthropoccntric dogmatism, and that is thc
probably obscurc but indisputablc fccling that it is indccd dimcult, cvcn
impossiblc, to disccrn bctwccn prctcnsc and a prctcnsc of prctcnsc, bc-
twccn an aptitudc for prctcnsc and an aptitudc for thc prctcnsc of prc-
tcnsc. How could onc distinguish, for cxamplc, in thc most clcmcntary
scxual paradc or mating gamc, bctwccn a fcint and a fcint of a fcint If it
is impossiblc to providc thc critcrion for such a distinction, onc can con-
cludc that cvcry prctcnsc of prctcnsc rcmains a simplc prctcnsc (animal or
imaginary, in Lacan`s tcrms), or clsc, on thc contrary, and just as likcly, that
cvcry prctcnsc, howcvcr simplc it may bc, gcts rcpcatcd and rcpositcd un-
dccidab|y, in its possibility, as prctcnsc of prctcnsc ( human or symbolic
lo JCquCS DC|||d
in Lacan's tcrms). As l shall makc clcar in a momcnt, a symptomatology
(and, of coursc, a psychoanalysis) can and must concludc with thc possi-
bility, for cvcry prctcnsc, of bcing prctcnsc of prctcnsc, and for cvcry prc-
tcnsc of prctcnsc of bcing a simplc prctcnsc. As a rcsult, thc distinction
bctwccn lic and prctcnsc bccomcs prccarious, likcwisc that bctwccn
spccch and truth (in Lacan's scnsc), and cvcrything hc claims to scparatc
from it. Prctcnsc prcsupposcs taking thc othcr into account, it thcrcforc
supposcs, simultancously, thc prctcnsc of prctcnsc-a simplc supplc-
mcntary movc by thc othcr within thc stratcgy of thc gamc. 1hat supplc-
mcntarity is at work from thc momcnt of thc hrst prctcnsc. Morcovcr,
Lacan cannot dcny that thc animal takcs thc othcr into account. In his ar-
ticlc "n a Qucstion Prcliminary to Any Possiblc 1rcatmcnt of Psychosis
(p;-8), thcrc is a rcmark that gocs in that dircction and which I would
havc likcd to inscrt into this nctwork in a carcful and paticnt manncr.
putting it at thc samc timc into tcnsion, if not in contradiction, with
Lacan's discoursc on thc imaginary capturc of thc animal (thcrcby dc-
privcd of thc othcr, in short) , and into harmony with thc discoursc on
pathology, cvil, lack, or fault that marks thc rclation to thc othcr as such
in thc human, but which is alrcady announccd in thc animal.
To takc up Charcot's Iormu|a, which so dc|ightcd Frcud, "this docs not
prcvcnt j thc thcr| hom cxisting" in his p|acc .
For iI hc is takcn away, man can no longcr cvcn sustain himsclI in thc
position oI Narcissus. As iI by clastic, thc anima springs back on to thc
animus and thc animus on to thc animal, which bctwccn S and sustains
with its |mwe|t "cxtcrna| rc|ations" noticcab|y closcr than ours, without,
morcovcr, onc bcing ab|c to say that its rc|ation with thc thcr is ncgli-
giblc, but only that it docs not appcar othcrwisc than in thc sporadic
skctchcs oI ncurosis. (Ecrits, I,translation modihcd)
In othcr words, thc animal rcscmblcs thc human and cntcrs into rclation
with thc thcr (in a morc fccblc manncr, and by rcason of a morc "rc-
strictcd adaptation to thc milicu) only to thc cxtcnt of bcing ill, of a
ncurotic dcfcct that brings it closcr to man, to man as failurc jdc]aut] of
thc prcmaturc and still insumcicntly dctcrmincd animal. If thcrc wcrc a
continuity bctwccn animal and human ordcrs, as bctwccn animal psy-
chology and human psychology, it would follow this linc of cvil, of fault
and dcfcct. Lacan, morcovcr, has argucd against insisting on a disconti-
nuity bctwccn thc two psychologics (animal and human) , at /cast as sy-
cho|ogics. "May this digrcssion at lcast obviatc thc misundcrstanding that
wc could thus havc providcd thc occasion for in thc cycs of somc, that of
And Sy !hC An| n| KCSpOndCd? 1o1
impuIing Io us Ihc docIrinc of a disconIinuiIy bcIwccn animal psychology
and human psychology IhaI is far hom bcing whaI wc Ihink. WhaI docs
IhaI mcan 1haI Ihc radical disconIinuiIy bcIwccn animal and human,
Ihc absoluIc and indivisiblc disconIinuiIy IhaI hc, howcvcr, conhrms and
compounds, no longcr dcrivcs from Ihc psychological as such, from
anima and sychc, buI insIcad hom Ihc appcarancc of a dil!crcnI ordcr.
n Ihc oIhcr hand, an analogous (noI Io say idcnIical) conccpIual un
dccidabiliIy comcs Io Iroublc Ihc opposiIion IhaI is so dccisivc for Lacan
bcIwccn lcaving Iracks jttacct] and covcring onc's Iracks jcacct scs ttaccs].
1hc animal can Iracc, inscribc, or lcavc a Irack or Iracc, buI, Lacan adds,
iI "docs noI covcr up iIs Iracks, which would bc IanIamounI Io making iI-
sclf Ihc subjccI of Ihc signihcr. uI Ihcrc again, supposing onc can IrusI
Ihc disIincIion, Lacan docs noI j usIi by mcans of ciIhcr IcsIimony or
somc cIhological knowlcdgc Ihis amrmaIion IhaI "Ihc animal, as hc calls
iI, Ihc animal in gcncral docs noI covcr iIs Iracks. AparI from Ihc facI
IhaI, as I havc Iricd Io show clscwhcrc (and Ihis is why so long ago I sub-
sIiIuIcd Ihc conccpI of Iracc for IhaI of signihcr), Ihc sIrucIurc of Ihc
Iracc prcsupposcs IhaI to ttacc amounIs Io ctasing a ttacc as much as Io
imprinIing iI, all sorIs of somcIimcs riIual animal pracIiccs, for cxamplc,
in burial and mourning, associaIc Ihc cxpcricncc of Ihc Iracc wiIh IhaI of
Ihc crasurc of Ihc Iracc. A prcIcnsc, morcovcr, and cvcn a simplc prc-
Icnsc, consisIs in rcndcring illcgiblc or impcrccpIiblc a scnsiblc Iracc.
How can iI bc dcnicd IhaI Ihc simplc subsIiIuIion of onc Iracc for anoIh-
cr, Ihc marking of Ihcir diacriIical diffcrcncc in Ihc mosI clcmcnIary
inscripIionwhich capaciIy Lacan conccdcs Io Ihc animal-involvcs
crasurc as much as iI involvcs Ihc imprinI II is as dimculI Io assign a
honIicr bcIwccn prcIcnsc and prcIcnsc of prcIcnsc, Io havc an indivisiblc
linc pass Ihrough Ihc middlc of a fcigncd fcinI, as iI is Io assign onc bc-
Iwccn inscripIion and crasurc of Ihc Iracc.
uI lcI us Iakc Ihis furIhcr and posc a Iypc of gucsIion IhaI I would
havc wishcd, had I Ihc Iimc, Io posc gcncrally. II is lcss a maIIcr of asking
whcIhcr onc has Ihc righI Io rcfusc Ihc animal such and such a powcr
(spccch, rcason, cxpcricncc of dcaIh, mourning, culIurc, insIiIuIion,
Icchnics, cloIhing, lic, prcIcnsc of prcIcnsc, covcring of Iracks, gif|, laugh-
Icr, Icars, rcspccI, and so onIhc lisI is ncccssarily wiIhouI limiI, and Ihc
mosI powcrful philosophical IradiIion wiIhin which wc livc has rcmscd
Ihc "animal all Ihosc Ihings) Ihan of asking whcIhcr whaI calls iIsclf
human has Ihc righI Io rigorously aIIribuIc Io man, which mcans Ihcrc-
forc Io aIIribuIc Io himsclf, whaI hc rcmscs Ihc animal, and whcIhcr hc
can cvcr posscss Ihc utc, tigotous, indivisia/c conccpI, as such, of IhaI
loB JCquCS DC|||d
attribution. 1hus, wcrc wc cvcn to supposcsomcthing I am not rcady
to conccdc-that thc "animal wcrc incapablc of covcring its tracks, by
what right could onc conccdc that powcr to thc human, to thc "subjcct of
thc signihcr Espccially from a psychoanalytic point of vicw Grantcd,
cvcry human can, within thc spacc of doxic phcnomcnality, havc con-
sciousncss of covcring its tracks. ut who could cvcr judgc thc chcctivity
of such a gcsturc Is it ncccssary to rccall that cvcry crascd tracc, in con-
sciousncss, can lcavc a tracc of its crasurc whosc symptom ( individual, or
social, historical, political, and so on) will always bc capablc of cnsuring
its rcturn And is it ncccssary, abovc all, to rcmind a psychoanalyst of
that And to rccall that cvcry rcfcrcncc to thc capacity to crasc thc tracc
still spcaks thc languagc of thc conscious, cvcn imaginary cgo (nc can
scnsc all thc virtual conscgucnccs crowding in hcrc hom thc sidc of thc
gucstion poscd by this colloguium, namcly, autobiography. )
All this will not amount to saying ( somcthing I havc dcvclopcd at
lcngth clscwhcrc) that thc tracc cannot bc crascd. n thc contrary. A
tracc is such that it is always bcing crascd and always ablc to bc crascd jI/
aatticnt unc ttacc dc tou)outs s`c]acct ct dc tou)outs ouvoit s`c]acct].
ut thc fact that it can ac crascd jqu`c//c s`c]acc], that it can always bc
crascd or crasc itsclf, and that from thc hrst instant of its inscription,
through and bcyond any rcprcssion, docs not mcan that somconc, God,
human, or animal, can bc its mastcr subjcct and posscss thc powcr to crasc
it. n thc contrary. In this rcgard, thc human no morc has thc owct to
covcr its tracks than docs thc so-callcd animal. 1o tadica//y crasc his traccs,
that is to say by thc samc tokcn to tadica//y dcstroy, dcny, put to dcath,
cvcn put himsclf to dcath.
ut lct us cspccially not concludc, thcrcforc, that thc traccs of thc onc
and of thc othcrs arc inchaccablc, or that dcath and dcstruction arc impos-
siblc. 1raccs crasc (thcmsclvcs), likc cvcrything clsc, but thc structurc of
thc tracc is such that it cannot bc in anyonc`s owct to crasc it, and cspccial-
ly not to "judgc its crasurc, cvcn lcss by mcans of a constitutivc powcr as-
surcd of bcing ablc to crasc, pcrformativcly, what crascs itsclf. 1hc distinc-
tion might appcar subtlc and hagilc but its hagility rcndcrs hagilc athc
solid oppositions that wc arc in thc proccss of tracking down jdc-istct],
bcginning with that bctwccn symbolic and imaginary which undcrwritcs
hnally this wholc anthropoccntric rcinstitution of thc supcriority of thc
human ordcr ovcr thc animal ordcr, of thc law ovcr thc living, and so on,
whcrcvcr such a subtlc form of phallogoccntrism sccms in its way to tcsti
to thc panic Frcud spokc of. thc woundcd rcaction not to humanity's ]tst
trauma, thc Copcrnican (thc Earth rcvolvcs around thc sun), nor its Ihlrd
AOd Sy tne AO| n| RCSpOOdCd? 1oU
trauma, thc Frcudian (thc dcccntcring of consciousncss
undcr thc gazc of
thc unconscious) , but rathcr to its sccond trauma, thc
Oarw
inian.
cforc wc lcavc, provisionally, Lacan's tcxt, I would
likc to
dch nc a
task and prohcr a rcmindcr. 1hc task is onc that would
involv
c us,
hom
thc vantagc of cvcrything that wc havc hcrc inscribcd
undcr thc sign of
thc Cartcsian cogito, in closcly analyzing Lacan's rcfcrcnc
cs to
Ocscartcs.
As is thc casc with rcfcrcnccs to Hcgcl, with which it is of|cn
assoc
iatcd,
thc appcal to Ocscartcs, to thc Cartcsian I thin/, was constant, dctcrmi-
nant, complcx, and diffcrcntiatcd. Within that rich nctwor
k and that
widc-rcaching proccss, a hrst signpost is sct by our problcm
atic. It can bc
found in thc pagcs immcdiatcly following thc paragraph on thc dihcr-
cncc bctwccn thc nonprctcnding prctcnsc of thc animal and thc
prctcnd-
ing prctcnsc of thc human capablc of crasing its own traccs. Lacan sharcs
out both praisc and criticism.
On thc onc hand, thc "Cartcsian cogito did not fail to rccognizc what
is csscntial, namcly, that thc consciousncss of cxistcncc, thc sum, is not
immancnt to it but transccndcnt, and thus bcyond spccular or imaginary
capturc. 1hat amounts to conhrming that an animal cogito would rcmain
a captivc of thc idcntihcatory imagc, a situation that could bc formalizcd
by saying that thc animal acccdcs to thc cgo jmoi} only by lacking thc I
[c], but an I that itsclf acccdcs to thc signihcr only hom thc pcrspcctivc
of a lack. thc (animal) sclf lacks thc lack. For cxamplc, Lacan writcs.
From this point on, thc cgo is a function oI mastcry, a play oI prcscncc, oI
bcaring (restance), and oI constitutcd rivalry al| traits that arc not rc
hscd thc anima| | . ln thc capturc to which it is subjcctcd by its imaginary
naturc, thc cgo masks its dup|icity, that is to say, thc consciousncss i n
which it assurcs itsclI oI an inconstcstablc cxistcncc ,a naivcty to bc Iound
in thc mcditation oI Fcnclon) is in no way immancnt in it, but, on thc
contrary, is transccndcnt, sincc it is supportcd by thc unbrokcn linc oI thc
cgo idca| (which thc Cartcsian ccgitc did not Iail to rccognizc). As a rcsu|t,
thc transccndcntal cgo itsclI is rclativizcd, implicatcd as it is in thc mcccn-
naissance in which thc cgo's idcntihcations takc root. (crits,
3
c;)
ut, on thc othct hand, thcrcforc, thc cgo cogito gcts dislodgcd hom its
position as ccntral subjcct. It loscs its mastcry, its ccntral powcr, it bc-
comcs subjcct subjcctcd to thc signihcr.
1hc imaginary proccss cxtcnds thus from thc spccular imagc all thc
way to "thc constitution of thc cgo by way of subjcctihcation by thc signi-
h cr (ibid. ) . 1hat sccms to conhrm that thc bccoming-subjcct of thc cgo
passcs by way of thc signihcr, Spccch, 1ruth, and so on, that is to say by
14U JCquCS DC|||O
losing its immcdiatc Iransparcncy, consciousncss as consciousncss of thc
sclf idcntical to itsclf. Which cnds only in an apparcnt paradox. thc sub-
jcct is conhrmcd in thc cmincncc of its powcr by bcing subvcrtcd and
broughI back to iIs own lack, mcaning Ihat animality is on thc sidc of thc
conscious cgo whcrcas thc humanity of thc human subjcct is on thc sidc
of Ihc unconscious, thc law of thc signihcr, Spccch, thc prctcndcd prc-
Icnsc, and so on.
Jhc promotion ot consciousncss as bcing cssentia| to thc subjcct in thc
historica| ahcr-cccts oI thc Cartcsian ccgitc is Ior mc thc dcccptivc ac-
ccntuation oI thc transparcncy oI thc I in action at thc cxpcnsc oI thc
opacity oI thc signihcr that dctcrmincs thc l, and thc sliding movcmcnt
(g/isscmcnt) by which thc Bcwusstscin scrvcs to covcr up thc contusion oI
thc Sc|bst cvcntually rcvcals, with all Hcgc|'s own rigour, thc rcason Ior his
crror in 1hc Phcncmcnc|cgy c] Mind. (Ibid.)
1hc acccnt on transparcncy is thus said to bc "dcccptivc jtomcusc].
1hat not only mcans a casc of "bcing dcccivcd by thc crror, but of "bcing
dcccivcd by thc dcccit, or lic, thc lying-Io-oncsclf as bclicf, Ihc "making
bclicvc in thc transparcncy of thc cgo or of sclf to itsclf. Such would bc
thc risk of Ihc IradiIional intcrprcIation of thc Cartcsian cogito, pcrhaps
that of thc auIointcrprcIation of Ocscartcs himsclf, of his intcllcctual
autobiography, onc ncvcr knows. Whcncc Ihc Lacanian promoIion of thc
cogito and his diagnosis of Ihc lic, of dcccit, and of a dcccpIivc trans-
parcncy in thc vcry hcart of thc cogito.
"Hcgcl's rigor,' hc says. nc would havc thcn to follow thc inIcrprcta-
Iion proposcd by Lacan of Ihc strugglc bctwccn MasIcr and Slavc, thcrc
whcrc it comcs to a "dccomposiIion of thc cguilibrium of countcrparI
jscma/aa/c] to countcrpart (o8) . 1hc samc moIif of thc "alicnating
dialcctic of Mastcr and Slavc appcars in "VarianIcs dc la curc-typc
() . Animal spcculariIy, wiIh its lurcs and abcrraIions, comcs Io
"durably structurc thc human subjcct by rcason of thc prcmaturity of
birth, said Io bc a "facI in which onc apprchcnds this dchisccncc in thc
natural harmony, dcmandcd by Hcgcl as thc fccund illncss, thc happy
fault of lifc, whcrc man, by bcing disIinguishcd in his csscncc, discovcrs
his cxistcncc ,Ectits lrcnch| , () . Wc could siIuatc thc rcin scription of
thc gucstion of thc animal, in our rcintcrprcIation of Lacan's rcintcrprc-
taIion of Hcgcl, at Ihc point whcrc Lacan rcintroduccs Ihis rcmindcr
rcgarding thc imaginary, rcgarding "spccular capturc and thc "gcncric
prcmaturation of birIh, Ihc "dangcr . . . which Hcgcl was unawarc of
,Ectits, o8) . Jhcrc again it is lifc that is aI sIakc, as Lacan makcs c|car, and
AOd Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOdCd? l4l
thc passagc to thc human ordcr of thc subjccI, bcyond thc animal imagi-
nary, is indccd a gucstion of lifc and dcath.
Jhc strugg|c that cstab|ishcs this initial cnslavcmcnt is rightly callcd a
strugglc oI purc prcstigc jwhich mcans, according to Lacan, that it is no
longcr animal | , and thc stakc, liIc itsc|I, is wcll suitcd to ccho that dangcr
oI thc gcncric prcmaturation oI birth, which Hcgcl was unawarc oI, and
in which I scc thc dynamic motivation oI spccular capturc. (Ibid., transla-
tion modihcd)
How should wc undcrsIand this word gcnctic, for it gualihcs so forcc-
fully Ihc insistcnt and dcIcrminant conccpI of "prcmaturation,` namcly,
thc absolutc cvcnt wiIhout which thc wholc discoursc would losc iIs
"motivaIion jtcssott], as Lacan himsclf says, bcginning with thc rclc
vancc of thc disIinction bcIwccn imaginary and symbolic Is thc "gcncr-
ic a trait of "humankind jdu gcntc humain] as a kind of animal, or a
trait of Ihc human inasmuch as iI cscapcs classihcation jgcntc], prccisc-
ly, cscaping thc gcncric or thc gcnctic-by mcans of Ihc dcfccI, prcciscly,
of a ccrtain dc-gcncration jdc-gcnctation] rathcr Ihan dc-gcncracy jdc
gcnctcsccncc], by mcans of a dc-gcncraIion whosc vcry dcfcct cngcndcrs
symbolic "gcncraIion, thc rclation bctwccn gcncrations, thc law of Ihc
Mamc of thc Fathcr, Spccch, 1ruIh, Occcit, thc prctcndcd prcIcnsc, thc
powcr Io crasc onc`s Iraccs, and so on
n thc basis of this gucstion, which wc shal! lcavc in suspcnsc, as a task,
thcrc whcrc it procccds ncvcrthclcss from Ihis tradiIional logic of Ihc origi-
nary dcfcct, I comc back Io whaI I announccd as a hnal rcmindcr, namcly,
what brings Iogcthcr this wholc pcrspcctival conhguration of Ihc dcfccI
within thc history of original fault, of an original sin IhaI hnds its mythical
rclay in thc sIory of cdipus, thcn its nonmythic rclay in thc "castration
complcx, such as it was formulatcd by Frcud. In thc passagc that follows, I
shall undcrlinc lack and dcfccI, and wc shall hnd thcrc again all thc stagcs
of our journcy, Gcncsis, Ihc scrpcnt, thc gucstion of thc I and thc "Who
Am I ( Following) -a guotation from Valcry's aauchc d'un sctcnt
("thc univcrsc is a dc]cct in thc purity of Mon-cing) , and so on.
This is what thc subjcct lacks in ordcr to think himsc|I cxhaustcd by his
ccgitc, namcly, that which is unthinkab|c Ior him. ut whcrc docs this
bcing, who appcars in somc way de]ect/ve jen dc]autj in thc sca oI propcr
nouns, originatc:
Wc cannot ask this qucstion oI thc subjcct as `l. Hc |acks cvcrything
nccdcd to know thc answcr, sincc iI this subjcct `! was dcad, hc wou|d
l42 JCquCS DC|||O
not, as said carlicr, know it. Hc docs not know, thcrcIorc, that ! am a|ivc.
How, thcrcIorc, wil| "I" provc to mysc|I that I am:
For l can only just provc to thc thcr that hc cxists, not, oI coursc,
with thc prooIs Ior thc cxistcncc oI Cod, with which ovcr thc ccnturics hc
has bccn killcd oII, but by |oving him, a so|ution introduccd by thc
Christian kerygma. lndccd, it is too prccarious a so|ution Ior mc cvcn
to think oI using it as a mcans oI circumvcnting our problcm, namcly.
"What am `l':"
"I" am i n thc placc hom which a voicc is hcard c|amouring "thc uni-
vcrsc is a de]ect in thc purity oI Non-cing."
And not without rcason, Ior by protccting itsclI this p|acc makcs cing
itsclI languish. This placc is ca||cd ]cu/ssance, and it is thc a|sence oI this
that makcs thc univcrsc vain.
P I rcsponsib|c Ior it, thcn: Ycs, probab|y. ls this ]cu/ssance, thc |ack
oI which makcs thc thcr insubstantia|, minc, thcn: Expcricncc provcs
that it is usua||y Iorbiddcn mc, not only, as ccrtain Iools bclicvc, bccausc
oI a bad arrangcmcnt oI socicty, but rathcr bccausc oI thc ]au|t (]aute) oI
thc thcr iIhc cxistcd. and sincc thc thcr docs not cxist, a|l that rcmains
to mc is to assumc thc ]au|t upon "I," that is to say, to bclicvc in that to
which cxpcricncc |cads us a||, Frcud in thc vanguard, namcly, to cr/g/na|
s/n. For cvcn iI wc did not havc Frcud's cxprcss, and sorrowlu| avowa|, thc
Iact would rcmain that thc myth Frcud gavc us-thc |atcst-born myth in
historyis no morc usc than that oI thc Iorbiddcn app|c, cxccpt Ior thc
Iact, and this has nothing to do with its powcr as myth, that, though morc
succinct, it is distinctly |css stulti[g (crct/n/:ant).
ut what is not a myth, and which Frcud ncvcrthc|css Iormu|atcd
soon ahcr thc cdipus complcx, is thc castration comp|cx. ( Ecr/ts,
3
:;~I8,
translation modihcd)
Notes
This cssay is part oI an cxtcndcd lccturc givcn by Jacqucs Dcrrida at a conIcrcncc
dcvotcd to his work in :
99
; at Ccrisy-|a-Sa||c, Francc, titlcd ` Anima| auto-
biographiquc." That |ccturc, hom work in progrcss dcstincd to appcar in book
Iorm, inc|udcd analyscs oI Dcscartcs, Kant, Hcidcggcr, Lcvinas, and Lacan. Jhc
introductory outlinc oI that discussion appcars as "L'anima| quc donc jc suis" in
L`An/ma| autc|/cgrah/que, cd. Maric-Louisc Mallct ( Paris. Calilcc, :
999
) . It ap
pcars as "Thc Anima| That ThcrcIorc I Am (Morc to Follow)," trans. David Wills,
Cr/t/ca| Inqu/ry z8. z (zccz). Thc cssay pub|ishcd hcrc Iollows a chaptcr on thc
anima| according to Lcvinas.-IJ.
AOd Sy !hC AO| n| KCSpOOdCd? 14o
! . Ear|icr in thc lccturc, in rcrcading Dcscartcs, ! c|aboratcd at lcngth upon
what shall hcrc ca|| thc questicn c] the te/y or tescnse, and dcnncd thc hcgc
monic pcrmancncc oI thc "Cartcsianism" that dominatcs thc discoursc and prac-
ticc oI human or humanist modcrnity with rcspcct to thc anima|. A pro-
grammcd machinc such as thc animal is said to bc incapablc not oI cmitting
signs, but rathcr, according to thc nfth part oI thc Disccutse cn Methcd, oI "rc-
sponding." Likc animals, machincs with "thc organs and outward Iorm ]gute,
Iacc| oI a monkcy . . . cou|d ncvcr usc words, or put togcthcr othcr signs, as wc do
in ordcr to dcc|arc our thoughts to othcrs. For wc can ccrtain|y conccivc oI a ma-
chinc so constructcd that it uttcrs words, and cvcn uttcrs words which corrc-
spond to bodily actions causing a changc in its organs (c.g. iI you touch it in onc
spot it asks what you want oI it, iI you touch it in anothcr it crics out that you arc
hurting it, and so on). ut it is not conccivablc that such a machinc should pro-
ducc dihcrcnt arrangcmcnts oI words so as to givc an appropriatcly mcaningful
answcr jcut tccndte] to whatcvcr is said in its prcscncc, as thc du||cst oI mcn
can do" ( Rcnc Dcscartcs, The Phi/cschica/ wtitings e] Descattes, vol. :, trans.
John Cottingham, Robcrt Stoothoh, and Duga|d Murdoch Cambridgc. Cam
bridgc Univcrsity Prcss| , I]p, :(o).
2. Scc "Thc Animal That ThcrcIorc Am" Ior cxtcndcd discussion oI this
ncologism that phonically singularizcs thc plural oI anima| (animaux)noting
thus thc habit oI spcaking oI all animal spccics as iI thcy wcrc oncand com
bincs it with thc word Ior "word" (mct).Ttans. |
3. Jacqucs Lacan, "Thc Subvcrsion oI thc Subjcct and thc Dia|cctic oI Dcsirc
in thc Frcudian Unconscious," in Ectits. A Se/ecticn, trans. Alan Shcridan (Ncw
York. Norton, Ip;;) , ]o,. j Subscqucnt rcIcrcnccs to thc Shcridan translation oI
Ectits arc givcn i n thc tcxt. thcr trans|ations hom Lacan arc my LY.Ttans.|
4. Jacqucs Lacan, "Position dc |'inconscicnt," in Ectits ( Paris. Scuil, Ip66),
8](. jThc origina| Frcnch vcrsion oI Ectits wn| bc hcnccIorth idcntincd as "Ectits
(French).Ttans.|
5. Scc cspccially Ectits (Frcnch), Ipo~pI.
6. Ptcceedings c] the Rcya/ Scciety, Scrics ( iologica| Scicnccs), no. 845,
Fcbruary 3, ! 939, vol. I 26.7mns. [
7. Scc ibid., :8ppI, and also ](z, ](,(6, (,z.
8. "Thc mirror stagc as Iormativc oI thc hnction oI thc ! as rcvca|cd in thc
psychoana|ytic cxpcricncc" (Ectits, ]) .
p
. Jacqucs Lacan, "Variantcs dc |a curc-typc," in Ectits ( Frcnch), ],(. "For it is
ntting to rct|cct on thc Iact that it is not on|y through a symbolic assumption that
spccch constitutcs thc bcing oI thc subjcct, but that, through thc law oI thc al-
liancc. whcrcin thc human ordcr is distinguishcd hom naturc, spccch dctcrmincs
l44 JCquCS DC|||O
not on|y thc status oI thc subjcct but thc coming-into-thc-world oI its bio|ogical
bcing."
l 0. j Scc opcning notc on thc titlc oI thc Ccrisy-la-Sallc conIcrcncc and oI
Dcrrida's complctc lccturc, "Thc Animal That ThcrcIorc I P.~Trans. |
l I . CI. Joc||c Proust, Ccmmcnt |'csr/t v/cnt aux |tcs. Essa/ sur |a rcrcscnta-
t/cn (Paris. Callimard, I
99
;), :,c. Thc samc author docs a|l shc can to cnsurc that,
in thc casc oI thc anima|, thc vcry word rcscnsc signihcs nothing morc than a
programmcd rcact/cn, dcprivcd oI all rcsponsibi|ity or cvcn oI any rcsponsivity
that l would cautiously call "intcntional,' givcn that that word is uscd with a con-
hdcncc and an imprudcncc, not to say a lcvcl oI phcnomcno|ogical vulgarity,
that is a|most laughablc. Conccrning thc syrphid, an inscct that is "programmcd
to scck out Icma|cs by automatica|ly applying a pursuit trajcctory in accordancc
with a givcn a|gorithm in ordcr to intcrccpt thc pursucd objcct," JoHlc Proust
citcs Ruth Millikan and commcnts thus. "What is intcrcsting in this typc oI rc-
sponsc is thc Iact that it is /n]lcx/||y provokcd by ccrtain prccisc charactcristics in
thc st/mu|us (in thc cvcnt its sizc and spccd) . Thc inscct cannot rcspond to othcr
charactcristics, ncithcr can it cxc|udc targcts maniIcsting charactcristics that arc
incompatiblc with thc dcsircd mnction. lt cannot abandon its coursc by`pcrcciv-
ing' that it is not Io||owing a Icma|c. This inscct appcars not to havc any mcans oI
cva|uating thc corrcctncss oI its own pcrccptions. It wou|d thcrcIorc sccm cxag-
gcratcd|y gcncrcus to attributc to it a rccr|y /ntcnticna| capabi|ity. lt rcscnds tc
s/gns, |ut thcsc signs arc not charactcristic oI an indcpcndcnt objcct, thcy arc
charactcristic oI proximatc stimu|i. As Mi|likan statcs, it Iollows a `proximal ru|c.'
Howcvcr, thc prcwircd rcsponsc aims to bring about thc Iccundation oI a Icma|c
syrphid, that is to say an objcct cxisting in thc wor|d" (zz8z
9
) . l havc undcr|incd
thosc words that, morc than othcrs, wou|d call Ior a vigi|ant rcading. Thc critica|
or dcconstructivc rcading I am calling Ior wou|d scck |css to rcstitutc to thc ani
ma| or to such an inscct thc powcrs that it is not ccrtain to posscss ( cvcn iI that
somctimcs sccms possiblc) than to wondcr whcihcr onc cou|d not c|aim as
much rclcvancc Ior this typc oI ana|ysis in thc casc oI thc human, with rcspcct,
Ior cxamp|c, to thc "wiring" oI its scxua| and rcproductivc bchavior. And so on.
I 2. Pronounccd thc samc as dcns/tc (dcnsity).Tran5. ]
I 3. Scc "Thc Anima| That ThcrcIorc I Am.Trans.]
l 4. dc-/stcr /c dc-/stagc ct J'chaccr sa tracc. Cnc /stc is a track and /stcr is
somctimcs uscd Ior "to Io|low (an animal's) tracls." Howcvcr, dc/stcr, which
looks to havc a privativc scnsc, is thc morc usua| word Ior "to Io||ow tracks." Hcrc
Dcrrida is giving dc-/stcr that privativc scnsc, Io|lowing Lacan's usagc as cx-
plaincd in notc :, bclow.Trans. |
o. A||ow mc to rcIcr thc rcadcr to my Acr/as, trans. Thomas Dutoit (Stan-
Iord, Calif. StanIord Univcrsity Prcss, :
99
]), cspccia||y ],-]8 and ;(;6.
And Sy !hC An| n| KCSpOndCd? l4b
!. n an important notc in thc "Scminar on `Thc Pur|oincd Lcttcr, " Lacan
cxp|ains thc original usagc oI thc word dcister that hc is having rccoursc to hcrc.
not to track, Iollow a sccnt or tracks, but, on thc contrary, as it wcrc, to conhsc
thc issuc j|rcui||er |es istes] by covcring onc's tracks, dc-ister. n thc samc notc
hc invokcs both Frcud's Iamous tcxt on thc "antithctica| scnsc oI words,' "primal
or not," thc "magistcrial rcctihcation" that cnvcnistc contributcd to it, and in-
Iormation Irom |och and Von Wartburg dating thc sccond scnsc oI thc word
dcister hom :8;,. Thc qucstion oI thc antinomic scnsc oI ccrtain words, Lacan
makcs clcar, "cannot bc dispcnscd with jreste enticre] iI onc is to bring out thc in
stancc oI thc signihcr in all its rigor" \a|e French Studies (8 jIp;,| . ,I, trans|ation
modihcd).
And, indccd, wou|d bc tcmptcd to add in ordcr to raisc thc stakcs, cspccial|y
iI, as is thc casc hcrc, wc arc to put to thc tcst thc axioms oI a logic oI thc signihcr
in its doublc rclation to thc distinction bctwccn anima (capturc by thc imagi
nary) and human (acccss to thc symbolic and to thc signih cr) ordcrs, on thc onc
hand, and to anothcr intcrprctivc implcmcntation oI undccidability, on thc
othcr. Jhc supposcdly assurcd dicrcncc bctwccn ister and dc-ister, or rathcr,
bctwccn dcister (track, or Iollow a track) and dc-ister ( covcr onc's tracks and
purposc|y |cad thc huntcr oII thc track) , coa|csccs and undcrwritcs thc wholc
distinction bctwccn human and animal, according to Lacan. lt would bc cnough
Ior this distinction to wavcr Ior thc wholc axiomatic to Iall apart, in its vcry prin
cip|c. Jhat is what wc arc going to havc to makc clcar.
I 7. Lacan, Ecrits, ]o,. lta|ics arc, oI coursc, minc. E|scwhcrc will analyzc an
othcr tcxt that, obcying thc samc logic ( "thc scxual instinct . . . crysta||izcd in a
rc|ation . . . that is imaginary"), conccrning prcciscly thc sticklcback and its
"dancc oI copulation with thc Icma|c,' introduccs thc qucstion oI dcath, oI thc
|eing a|ready dead, and not just thc bcing-morta| oI thc individual as a "typc" oI
thc spccics, not horscs but thc horsc. Cl Les ccrits techniques de Freud ( Paris.
Scui|, :p;,) , I(o(.
! b. "lI instinct in cIIcct signihcs thc undcniablc animality oI man, thcrc
sccms no rcason why that animality shou|d bc morc docilc Ior bcing incarnatcd
in a rcasonablc bcing. Thc Iorm oI thc adagchcm hcmini |uubbctrays its
scnsc, and in a chaptcr hom his Criticcn, a|thazar Cracian c|aboratcs a Iab|c in
which hc shows what thc moralist tradition mcans whcn it holds that thc Icrocity
oI man with rcspcct to his Ic|low surpasscs cvcrything animals arc capablc oI,
and that carnivorous animals thcmsc|vcs would rccoil in horror hom thc thrcat
to which hc cxposcs a|| naturc. ut this vcry cruc|ty implics humanity. t is a Icl
low crcaturc that hc has in his sights, cvcn in thc guisc oI a bcing hom a dicrcnt
spccics" ( Jacqucs acan, "Fonctions dc la psychanalysc cn criminologic,' in Ecrits
Frcnch[ , :(,).
l4 JCquCS DC|||d
l
,
. CI. Jacqucs Lacan, "Lc scminairc sur La Lcttrc volcc". "it was ncccssary
to i||ustratc in a concrctc way thc dominancc that wc amrm Ior thc signihcr ovcr
thc subjcct" ( crits j Frcnch| , i j not in English translation-Trans. | ) , and "wc
havc dccidcd to i||ustratc Ior you today . . . that it is thc symbo|ic ordcr which is
constitutivc Ior thc subjcct-by dcmonstrating in a story thc dccisivc oricntation
jdcterminaticn ma]eurej which thc subjcct rcccivcs hom thc itincrary oI a signi
hcr" ( \a|e French Studies | :,;y| . |o) .
20. CI. Jacqucs Lacan, "Lc Factcur dc l a vcritc," i n The Pcst Card, trans. Alan
ass (Chicago. Univcrsity oI Chicago Prcss, i,;).
2 ! . Emmanuc| Lcvinas, "Paix ct proximitc," in Emmanue| Lcvinas ( Paris.
Cahicrs dc |a nuit survci|lcc, :,|) , )|y. I citcd and commcntcd on this in my
Adieu tc Emmanue| Levinas, trans. Michacl Naas and Pasca|c-Annc rault (Stan-
Iord, Calif.. StanIord Univcrsity Prcss, i,,,) .
22. A study oI thc valuc oI "hatcrnity," whosc tradition and authority I havc
attcmptcd to dcconstruct (in Pc|itics c] Friendshi, trans. Ccorgc Col|ins London.
Vcrso, :,,;| ) , shou|d a|so bc ab|c to idcnti[ thc crcdit givcn to it by Lacan, and
that wcll bcyond thc suspicion in which thc murdcrous and patricidal brothcrs
arc hcld according to thc logic oI Tctem and Ta|cc. ln various p|accs Lacan in cI-
Icct drcams oI ancther ]aterniq Ior cxan\p|c, in thcsc |ast words hom "Agrcssivity
in Psychoanalysis". "it is our daily task to opcn up to this bcing oI nothingncss
thc way oI his mcaning in a discrcct Iratcrnitya task Ior which wc arc a|ways
too inadcquatc" (crits, z,) .
23. Jacqucs Lacan, "Jhc Linc and Light," i n The Fcur Fundamenta| Ccncets c]
Psychcana|ysis. The Seminar c] ]acques Lacan, Bcck XI, trans. A|an Shcridan
(Ncw York. Norton, :,,), ,y. Scc a|so, cspccially, ;y
24. Jacqucs Lacan, "Situation dc |a psychana|ysc ct Iormation du psychana-
lystc cn i,y, in Ecrits ( Frcnch), ||.
l0U@R0@ RB HU0B0
CIV CBK|
nc cxplanaIion for Ihc conIinuing aIIracIion of Ihc animal for arIisIs,
philosophcrs, and oIhcrs is Ihc pcrccpIionwhich may or may noI bc
jusIihcd-IhaI Ihc vcry idca of Ihc animal is in somc way aligncd wiIh
crcaIiviIy, or in alliancc wiIh crcaIiviIy. WhaI is iI Io bc animal WhaI
docs iI Iakc, whaI is sumcicnI, Io suggcsI or Io gcsIurc Ioward Ihc oIhcr-
Ihan-human 1his is a maIIcr noI of cxIravagancc buI of sobricIya
maIIcr of judging jusI whaI iI Iakcs Io sIcp asidc from Ihc human, Io indi-
caIc an oIhcr, Io signal Ihc animal, and Ihus Io cnIcr IhaI privilcgcd "cx-
pcrimcnIal sIaIc of idcnIiIy-suspcnsion IhaI has so conciscly and con-
IcnIiously bccn namcd bccoming-animal, dcvcnit-anima/.'
What Does It Take to Be an An|ma|?
pporIuniIics Io Iakc on Ihc guisc of Ihc animal arc cagcrly graspcd. In
Ihc ppos, Ihc arIisI [ordan ascman IaughI himsclf Iaxidcrmy in ordcr Io
makc a numbcr of sIriking picccs IhaI oftcn usc Ihc skins of domcsIic
animals discovcrcd as roadkill ouIsidc his sIudio in casI London. 1hc
hnishcd picccs occupy an uncasy middlc ground somcwhcrc bcIwccn
sculpIurc and convcnIional Iaxidcrmy, ascman himsclf Ihinks of Ihcm
as "cmpIy Irophics. nc such piccc, IiIlcd 8c \cut Dcg, is csscnIially a
hcaddrcss madc hom a scalpcd pair of AlsaIian's cars ( Figurc I ) . II has only
bccn cxhibiIcd oncc, mounIcd approximaIcly aI hcad hcighI on Ihc wall of
J4
14B S!CvC BkC|
|U|C 1. JO|DBR BSC0BR, 0 Y0ut 0g, J1. LOS CB|S, | BS\lC. |ROIO|BR COy|R\
JO|DBR BSC0BR.
a gallcry in Austria. Although ncvcr intcndcd to bc worn, ascman found
to his surprisc that visitors to thc gallcry cagcrly aligncd thcmsclvcs with
thc piccc, thcir backs to thc wall, in ordcr to havc thcmsclvcs photo-
graphcd appcaring to "wcar thc cars and to think thcmsclvcs into this
ncw statc of bcing, just as thc titlc suggcsts. As thc artist acknowlcdgcs,
"it's about dcsirc, frustratcd dcsirc, morc than anything clsc, bccausc
thcrc is a strong dcsirc to wcar it. lt might sickcn you, but you do fccl
compcllcd to put thc damn thing on.
1his particular hcaddrcss-bcing madc from thc skin of a rcal ani-
mal-is no mcrc rcprcscntation, but in all othcr rcspccts it is not so dif-
fcrcnt from thc souvcnir Mickcy Mousc car scts sold to bc worn by
visitors to Oisncyland, which in othcr circumstanccs havc scrvcd as a
sumcicnt sign of animality (of drcssing up as an animal, that is to say)
that thcy havc bccn worn by Amcrican animal rights protcstcrs sccking
to alcrt thc public to thc fatc of laboratory micc subjcctcd to cosmctics
tcsting (Figurc z). 1hc fcgucnt adoption of such guiscs in thc causc of
animal rights calls for a study in itsclf, but thcrc too thc conncction is
somctimcs madc bctwccn animal idcntity and crcativity. rian Lukc, for
cxamplc, spccihcally vicws animal libcration "as crcativc, not rcstrictivc.
It cxtcnds possibilitics for action. 1hc tcrm hc proposcs lor thc adop-
tion of thcsc ncw possibilitics is going ]cru/-a statc in which humans
S| OugD| ng !DC HunO 14U
gU|C Z. ` lCD \O DCB\R |O\CS\, C |CB 1. PR 0B| HgR\S PDVOCB\CS O \RC MUDSOR
VB| |Cy, CBCOR, |CW 1O|K.
put thcmsclvcs into "thc position of fcral animals, formcrly domcsticat-
cd but now occupying a scmiwild statc on thc boundarics of hicrarchical
civilization.
Such possibiliIics, which appcar morc opcn-cndcd in tcrms of how
thcy scc thc boundarics of Ihc human and thc nonhuman animal, and
thc scopc for somc kind of exchange across Ihosc boundarics, havc also
bccn of intcrcst to arIists and philosophcrs. 1hcir various approachcs to
thc gucsIion of what iI is to bc animal tcnd Io complicatc thc rolcs of vari-
ous parts of thc pcrforming body in any taking on of animality.
The Hands of Beuys and Hede@er
Whcn, in p;(, [oscph cuys stagcd his wccklong pcrformancc Coyote.
I Li/e Ametica and Ametica Li/es Me in thc Rcnc lock Gallcry in
Mcw York, Ihc spccIaclc prcscntcd to vicwcrs Ihrough thc chain-link bar-
ricr scparating thcm from thc main spacc of Ihc gallcry was IhaI of Ihc
artist and a livc coyotc ( "LiItlc [ohn) playing ouI a mainly improviscd
cncountcr as Ihc wcck progrcsscd ( Figurc ]) . In this confrontaIion of
human and animal, cuys suggcstcd, "thc rolcs wcrc cxchangcd immcdi-
atcly. Although initially structurcd by a cyclc of riIualizcd actions, cuys
was acting out thc limits of his own control of thc situation, with thc coy-
otc hguring for him as "an important coopcrator in thc production of
U|C . JOSCR CUyS, C0y0l0. lLlK0 An0OCd dnO An0tlCd LlK05 M0, J1. |RO\O|BR
COy|R\ LPL ZJ.
S|OugD| Og tne HunO lbl
hccdom. 1hc animaI cnablcd thc artist to cdgc closcr to that which "thc
human bcing cannot undcrstand.
In fact, howcvcr, it is thc manncr in which cuys cstablishcd his hu-
manncss that is cspccially rcvcaling. In a spacc strcwn with straw, lcngths
of fclt, rippcd copics of thc wa// Sttcct {outna/, and a varicty of othcr ma-
tcrials thc artist had brought along, a pair of glovcs (which hc had paint-
cd brown and which wcrc rcpcatcdly thrown to thc coyotc) arc worthy of
particular notc. 1hcir color rcprcscntcd "thc wto sculptural form,' and
thcir form was that of his own hands. cuys cxplaincd.
Thc brown glovcs rcprcscnt my hands, and thc Irccdom oI movcmcnt
that human bcings posscss with thcir hands. Thcy havc thc hccdom to
do thc widcst rangc oI things, to uti|isc any numbcr oI tools and instru-
mcnts. Thcy can wic|d a hammcr or cut with a kniIc. Thcy can writc or
mould Iorms. Hands arc univcrsa|, and this is thc signiIicancc oI thc
human hand . . . . Thcy arc not rcstrictcd to onc spccic usc likc thc
ta|ons oI an caglc or thc mo|c's diggcrs. So thc throwing oI thc glovcs to
Litt|c John mcant giving him my hands to p|ay with. ( Tisda||, ]cseh
Beuys, z, z,-)o)
1hc artist givcs somcthing to thc animal, and what hc chooscs to givc
is his hands. 1hcy carry associations of crcativity ( "thc will to sculptural
form) and thcy cnablc thc animal to play. 1hcy arc, in a scnsc, thc oppo-
sitc of ascman's dog hcaddrcss. 1hcy arc j ust sumcicnt to gcsturc to-
ward thc othcr-than-animal. thc human.
1his would bc of no grcat intcrcst wcrc it not for thc fact that cuys's
position so closcly cchocs that of thc philosophcr Martin Hcidcggcr in
his p(; "Lcttcr on Humanism. Hcidcggcr had pcriodically addrcsscd
thc rclation of humans and othcr animals, somctimcs at grcat lcngth,
sincc thc latc pzos. His initial thcscs, framcd as a mcans of asscssing how
it was possiblc to know or to havc acccss to thc cxpcricncc of thc world,
ran as follows.
I . Thc stonc is worldlcss.
2. Thc animal is poor in world.
3. Man is world-Iorming.
1hcy wcrc intcndcd as no morc than provisional and cxploratory tools.
Oisparaging as thc tcrm "poor in world (wc/tatm) may sound, it was
thc fact that Hcidcggcr could usc it whilc cxplicitly acknowlcdging
thc grcat "discriminatory capacity of a falcon's cyc or of "thc caninc
scnsc of smcll-and whilc arguing that "amocbac and infusoria wcrc
lb2 S!CvC B|C|
no lcss pcrfcct and complctc than "clcphants or apcsthat lcd him rc-
pcatcdly to insist that povcrty in world "must not bc takcn as a hicrarchi-
cal cvaluation.
1hcsc writings havc bccn disscctcd in considcrablc dctail by [acgucs
Ocrrida, who by thc ios had bccomc incrcasingly conccrncd with
philosophy's ( and thus humanity's) rcsponsibilitics toward animals.
Hcidcggcr's "Lcttcr on Humanism-which cxplorcs thc gucstion of thc
"abyss scparating humans from othcr animals morc brichy and morc
dogmatically than his carlicr writings-contains what Ocrrida rcgards as
Hcidcggcr's most "scriously dogmatic scntcncc. "Apcs, for cxamplc, havc
organs that can grasp, but thcy havc no hand.

In a fascinating cxploration of cxactly what thc hand mcant to
Hcidcggcr (which includcs an all too bricf rcfcrcncc to "thc play and thc
thcatrc of hands in cxtant photographs of thc philosophcr), Ocrrida
shows that a numbcr of far from obvious associations clustcrcd around
Hcidcggcr's conccption of thc human hand, marking it out as uttcrly
othcr than thc animal's paws, claws, or talons. For onc thing, this hand
has a complcx rclation to thought.
I thcrc is a thought oI thc hand or a hand oI thought, as Hcidcggcr givcs
us to think, it is not oI thc ordcr oI conccptual grasping. Rathcr this
thought oI thc hand bclongs to thc csscncc oI thc gi]t, oI a giving that
would givc, iI this is possiblc, without taking hold oI anything. I thc hand
is also, no onc can dcny this, an organ Ior gripping, that . . . is not thc
hand's csscncc in thc human bcing. ( Cesch|echt ," :6
9
, :;z~;]) .
1his amounts, Ocrrida notcs, to an "assurcd opposition of giving and
ta/ing: man's hand givcs and givcs itsc/]. . . likc thought or what givcs it-
sclf to bc thought . . . whcrcas thc organ of thc apc . . . can only ta/c ho/d
o] gtas, /ay hands on thc thing" ( i;) .
1his i s indccd an impovcrishcd notion of thc animal. Put alongsidc
thc carlicr thcsis that only humans arc "world-forming, it lcavcs thc ani-
mal gazing across thc abyss not only at all that is human, but also at all
that is associatcd with thought, gcncrosity, and crcativity. In tcrms of thc
widcsprcad cultural fascination with thc animal, this sccms wrong.
Although animals, including thc grcat apcs, arc still widcly rcgardcd and
trcatcd as bcing lowcr down on somc notional phylogcnctic hicrarchy
than arc humans, thcir valuc to thc human imagination has scldom bccn
in doubt.
It is for thcsc rcasons that it sccms so odd to hnd cuys gcncrously
(or, morc accuratcly, condcsccndingly) ofcring thc coyotc his own crca-
S| OugD| ng !DC HunO 1bo
Iivity, in Ihc form of Ihc painIcd brown glovcs, whcn thc conIinuing
powcr and fascination of Ihat wholc wccklong cxchangc bctwccn thcm-
alrcady morc than a guartcr of a ccnIury ago-lics in thc idca of thc artist
slowly giving up prcconccpIions and lcarning somcthing of what Ihc
animal has to ohcr him.
1his Icnsion, this awkwardncss, may ncvcrIhclcss bc in kccping with
cuys's rolc as a pcrformcr rathcr than a philosophcr. Philosophy has all
too oftcn Iricd to scItlc maItcrs (on thc gucsIion of animals as much as
on any othcr), whcrcas art has morc of|cn sccn thc scopc for unsctIling
things. Ocrrida admitIcdly noIcs what hc calls thc "prccariousncss of
Hcidcggcr's opposition of "Ihc gih and thc grip ( ;6), bul it may wcll bc
that artisIs arc in a bcItcr posiIion Io dcmonstratc and Io 06l 0ul Ihat
prccariousncss. And whcrc Ocrrida staIcs that, for Hcidcggcr, "a hand
can ncvcr upsurgc ouI of a paw or claws (;8), thcrc is no shortagc of art
that hnds both this and iIs oppositcpaws and claws upsurging out of
hands-Io bc a sourcc of fascinaIion, anxicIy, and dclight.
Art's An|ma| Hands
For many contcmporary arIists, Ihc animal stands in as a ncw form
of bcing, a crcaIivc posImodcrn bcing, and it cmphatically docs havc
hands.' Lxamplcs abound. A pp; vidco pcrformancc by Ldwina Ashton,
titlcd Shcc, is sccn on two adjaccnt vidco scrccns. n thc righI, a hgurc
drcsscd as a shccp looks across, as iI wcrc, to thc othcr scrccn, on which
an apparcntly idcnIically drcsscd hgurc, in much Ihc samc domcstic scI-
ting, sits aI a dcsk with iIs script ( Figurc (). In a faltcring voicc, Ihis scc-
ond shccp rccitcs a scrics of appalling shccp jokcs. "Why do shccp hatc
pcns ccausc Ihcy can't wriIc, "Can you sIop making thaI noisc with
Ihc papcr Why ccausc I hatc shccp rustlcrs, and so on.
oth pcrformcrs arc Ashton hcrsclf, but wiIh hcr voicc disguiscd.
"I don't want to bc in thcm,' shc has said of m hcr vidco pcrformanccs.
A long Iimc was spcnt "Irying to gcI thc faccs right on Ihc handmadc
costumcs, Io achicvc "a sumcicnI dcgrcc of blankncss, whilc ncvcrIhc-
lcss crcating for thc animal what shc calls a kind of "haphazard look.
Strangcly, cvcn on rcpcaIcd vicwings, this charactcrlcss shccp is cntircly
bclicvablc. Stuck insidc thc thing, and tclling bad jokcs at thc cxpcnsc of
thc animal idcntity shc has Iakcn on, shc physically tugs thc fcaIurcs of its
makcshih facc back and forIh. It is Ihc hands, morc Ihan anything, Ihat
tcll of this problcmatizcd and uncomfortablc idcnIiIy. whcn Ihcy arc noI
aI hcr facc, shc is cndlcssly, agitatcdly wringing thcm throughout thc
four-minuIc duraIion of thc piccc.
1b4 S!CvC BkC|
|U|C . LDW|RB PSR\OR, VIDCO S\| | | |OD D00, lUU1. |RO\O|BR COU|\CSy O \RC B|\|S\.
Asidc hom Ashton`s Shcc, it has gcncraly bccn thc hands of primatcs
to which artists havc bccn so kccn to attcnd. 1hc handcdncss of [ohn
Isaacs's pp |ntit/cd (Mon/cy) is cspccially striking ( Figurc ) . 1hc
chimpanzcc's hands and "fcct wcrc cast hom thc hands of thc hvc-ycar-
old son of onc of thc artist's fricnds. "1hc hands arc rcally badly grahcd
on-thcrc's no attcmpt to prctcnd that thcy'rc part of thc samc animal.
1hc rcalism of thc piccc, which is morc likc a waxwork or manncguin
than a sculpturc, makcs this abcrrant crcation (whosc body is both rav-
agcd and dclicatc) particularly disturbing.
1his piccc crops up, uncrcditcd but unmistakablc, in Wil Sclf's pp;
novcl Ctcat Acs. 1hc book's ccntra charactcr, thc artist Simon Oykcs,
wakcs onc morning, af|cr a night of cspccially hcavy rccrcational drug
abusc, to hnd that hc has turncd into a chimpanzcc, as havc all othcr in-
habitants of his prcviously human world. 1oward thc cnd of thc novcl, at
a chimp-packcd cxhibition opcning in thc Saatchi Gallcry (thc placc
whcrc Isaacs's sculpturcs had in fact bccn displaycd a ycar carlicr), Oykcs
comcs across a display of "various chimpikins, thc strangcst of which
"was covcrcd with a most inhuman coat of patchy fur, and had hind
paws with prchcnsilc digits, onc of which it was using to givc itsclf an in-
tcrminablc mainlinc h.As Oykcs pcrccptivcly rcmarks of thcsc thin|y
S|Ough|ng !hC Hunn 1bb
primatomorphizcd vcrsions of Isaacs's manncguin-likc works, "Ihcsc
chimpikins arc alluding to somc crucial loss of pcrspcctivc, occas

oncd
by Ihc cnforccmcnt of a hard dividing linc bctwccn chimp and bcasI.
Art's uncomfortablc crasurc of such dividing lincs is cvidcnt in thc
photographcr Robin Schwartz's scrics of "primatc portraiIs, cspccially
|U|C . JODR SBBCS, Unllll0O (M0nK0y), J. NXCD 0CDB. P|\S LOURC| LO| |CC\ OR.
DO\O|BDy, MByWB|D LB| | C!y, LORDOR. L O LDB|| CS BB\CDl, J. POIO|BD COy
|D\ \CDCR WD\C. HC|R\CD W\D C|0SSOR OI \DC B|\lS\.
lb S!CvC BkC|
thc p88 photograph Ping ( ligurc 6) , which shows a fcmalc capuchin
looking rcmarkably at casc on a sofa, onc arm drapcd casually across a
cushion, and surroundcd by cuddly toy animals from which at hrst
glancc it is not casy to distinguish thc monkcy. n furthcr inspcction,
somcthing about thc posc of thc animal rccalls arthcs's commcnts on
Robcrt Mapplcthorpc's photograph \oung Man with Atm xtcndcd,
about which hc wrotc. "thc photographcr has caught thc boy's hand . . . at
just thc right dcgrcc of opcnncss,` so that it is "ohcrcd with hcncvolcncc."
Paula Rcgo`s vision of thc animal as artist in Rcd Mon/cy Dtawing and
in Mon/cys Dtawing ach Othct ( Figurc ;) , both dating hom p8, rc-
inforccs morc cxplicitly thc ncccssary handcdncss of any conccption of
thc animal as both crcativc and gcncrous. How can thc apc hgurc as an
artist (as it docs in so many postmodcrn imaginings) if it docs not havc a
hand 1hc gucstion is by no mcans cntircly rhctorical. 1hc living apcs
whosc handiwork is rccordcd in 1hicrry Lcnain`s survcy, Mon/cy Painting,
bring Rcgo`s imagc of thc monkcy paintcr (an old thcmc, in any casc) to
lifc. Mo mattcr that Lcnain insists that thc work of thcsc crcaturcs is not
in fact "art in any usual scnsc of that word. Many contcmporary artists,
Isaacs includcd, arc kccn to distancc thcmsclvcs from just thc kind of ac-
tivitics and objccts traditionally undcrstood to bc art.
|U|C . HODR CDWB|IZ, Hlng. CduCln, ndl, b Ydt5 lO, 1. LC|BIR S|VC|
|R\. |RO\OIBR COy|D\ HODR CDWBI\Z, J1. HC|R\CD W\D C|0SSOR O \DC
DO\OlBDC|.
S|Ough|Og !hC HunO lb1
|gU|C 1. |BU|B HCgO, M0nK0y5 tdwlng LdC l0f lUBl.PC|y| C OR BC|. |RO\Og|BR
COU|\CSy O \RC B|\S\. HC|R\CD W\R C|0SSOR O NB|DO|OUgR RC P|\, LORDOR.
Lcnain's cmphasis on thc fact that thc apcs' intcrcst is only in thc "purc
disruptivc play of activc imagc making, and not at all in "thc product of
thcir acts of dclibcratc disruption, may say morc than hc rcalizcs about
why thc distinctly "handcd, playml, and non posscssivc apc continucs to
scrvc as onc rathcr uscml modcl of thc postmodcrn artist. " 1his is ccr-
tainly how Hclcnc Cixous undcrstands thc rcsponsibilitics of artists. thcy
arc "thosc who crcatc ncw valucs . . . invcntors and wrcckcrs of conccpts
and forms, thosc who changc lifc.' ' In Frcnch thcsc arc /cs dcsotdon-
nantcs, thc sowcrs of disordcr, hcr ncologism signihcantly incorporating
thc word donnant(c) ( gcncrous, opcn-handcd) , thus cmphasizing thc
ccntrality of gcncrosity to this account of crcativity.
|m|tat|ng the An|ma|
Any asscssmcnt of what it takcs to bc an animal, or to bc takcn to bc an
animal, or to bccomc animal ( for this is always an activc, actcd-out pro-
ccss), cannot dodgc thc dimcult gucstion of imitation. It is Oclcuzc and
Guattari who havc madc this gucstion so difhcult for thc postmodcrn
artist, for thcy rulc it out as untcnablc and uncrcativc. "Mo art is imita-
tivc, no art can bc imitativc, thcy writc, and "bccoming animal docs not
consist in
playing animal or imitating an animal |]o(, z]8).
lbB S!CvC BkC|
Radical as thcir account of bccoming-animal undoubtcdly is (in tcrms
of its cxploration of both animality and crcativity) , a dcgrcc of unrccog-
nizcd nxity undcrpins this apparcntly huid conccpt. 1hc rcfusal of imita-
tion is onc of thc kcy stratcgics by which thc authors try to clari what
thcy mcan by bccominganimal. 1hcy proposc. "Wc fall into a falsc altcr-
nativc if wc say that you cithcr imitatc or you arc. What is rcal is thc bc-
coming itsclf . . . not thc supposcdly hxcd tcrms through which that
bccoming passcs ( z]8) . Mcvcrthclcss, thcy watn against imitation rathcr
than suggcst it to bc an impossiblc undcrtaking. ut to bc ablc to imitatc
an animal (or, indccd, to rcfusc to do so) alrcady prcsupposcs a knowl-
cdgc of what that animal is. Lnlikc philosophy, much contcmporary art
appcars to hnd such knowlcdgc unintcrcsting.
Whcthcr or not thcy arc donc in thc spirit of bccoming, forms of what
arc most rcadily dcscribcd as imitation sccm ccntral to art's cxploration of
thc animal. In bcing both outlandish and prcpostcrously transparcnt,
howcvcr, thcy makc no claims to thc "naturc of thc imitatcd animal.
1hcsc imitations gcncrally act out thc instability rathcr than thc hxity of
thc thing nominally imitatcd. 1hcy suggcst playfuI cxchangcs bctwccn thc
human and thc animal, or bctwccn onc animal and anothcr, which may
alludc to bordcrs and distinctions but which arc not impcdcd by thcm.
In William Wcgman's p;o photograph Cow, a stuhcd parrot appcars
to cast thc shadow of a crow. In many of Wcgman's subscgucnt photo-
graphs of his famous pct Wcimarancr, Man Ray, thc dog imitatcs or is
drcsscd as various othcr kinds of animal. lcopard, zcbra, bat, dinosaur,
and so on. As thc artist laconically puts it, "I likc things that huctuatc.
1hc drcssing up, rathcr as in Ashton's Shcc, is gcncrally a halmcartcd
and haphazard al!air. In /chant (p8), Man Ray is givcn tusks and a
trunk ( which appcars to bc an ovcrsizcd old stuffcd sock) , and sits in
a domcsticizcd "junglc sctting indicatcd by a singlc pottcd rubbcr plant.
In Ftog/Ftog ! (p8z), thc dog looks down at a hog, which it fccbly imi-
tatcs by wcaring Ping-Pong ball cycs and grccn rubbcr llippcrs on its
hind lcgs.
"Imitation of an animal can bc just that casy and approximatc. asc-
man's 8c \out Dog is a positivc invitation to thc vicwcr to takc on dogncss
mcrcly by imitating onc aspcct of thc animal`s appcarancc. Paula Rcgo`s
pp( Dog woman scrics bcgins with a largc pastcl drawing in which thc
artist hcrsclf is sccn "sguatting down and snarling, shc suggcsts that "thc
physicality of thc picturc camc hom my turning mysclf into an animal in
this way. '' In Lucy Gunning's vidco 1hc Hotsc Imtcssionists, four young
womcn takc turns to do thcir bcst imprcssions of thc sound and movc-
S| OugD| Og !DC HunO lbU
mcnts of horscs. 1hcir hands, signih cantly, arc ccntral to thcsc imita-
tions. cithcr hcld up to indicatc thc horsc's raiscd forclcgs or cuppcd to
thc mouth to aid thcir imprcssions of thc animal`s ncighing and whinny-
ing. Awarc of thc prcpostcrousncss of thcsc poor imitations, thcir at-
tcmpts constantly brcak down into bursts of laughtcr.
It is not only artists and thcir vicwcrs or collaborators who can cstab-
lish thc scopc for crcativc cxprcssion in animal imtation, and its inscpara-
bility from what Oclcuzc and Guattari rcgard as a morc thoroughgoing
bccoming-animal. A bricf cpisodc in a homc vidco shows a collcaguc's
young daughtcr running in circlcs at somc spccd around thcir living room
shouting "!'m a bcc I'm a bcc I'm a bcc at thc top of hcr voicc-a com-
pclling and cntircly convincing instancc of bccoming-animal bcing
achicvcd through conviction and rcpctition, with no nccd for drcssing up.
In all thcsc instanccs, it might bc said that thc thing imitatcd or
gcsturcd toward is not so much an animal as a vcrsion of thc imitator or
gcsturcr-"l`animal guc donc jc suis, as Ocrrida has it. ' In a postmodcrn
agc markcd by "a dccply fclt loss of faith in our ability to rcprcscnt thc
rcal,' ' this is pcrhaps how thc animal is now most productivcly and
imaginativcly thought in art-as a thing activcly to bc pcrformcd, rathcr
than passivcly rcprcscntcd.
Such pcrformanccs appcar to ncccssitatc thc sloughing of prcconccp-
tions and of idcntitics. [ohn Isaacs's animal picccs havc bccn callcd "anti-
subjccts,' and Isaacs has himsclf proposcd that for him "thc animal
plays thc rolc of thc nonspccihc human, and is thcrcforc ncccssarily a
thing "without an idcntity. Ldwina Ashton, similarly, takcs pridc in say-
ing of thc crcaturcs in hcr own animal pcrformanccs, such as Shcc, that
"you couldn't psychoanalyzc thosc paticnts, could you And although
[ordan ascman himsclf has no particular intcrcst in thc gucstion of
psychoanalysis, his manipulations of animal form havc bccn praiscd for
thc fact that thcy opcratc "without thc safcty nct of psychoanalysis.' '
[acgucs Ocrrida, pursuing hi s own litcrary-philosophical variant on
thcsc ncw kinds of bcings, puns animaux into animots, in ordcr to dc-
scribc an awkward, living word-thing that can only bc dchncd ncgativcly.
"Mi unc cspccc, ni un gcnrc, ni un individu ("lAnimal, zpz). In cach of
thcsc cascs, this is thc animal as a thing that can only bc thought activcly,
and that approachcs that gcnuincly cxpcrimcntal statc of bccoming-
animal whcrc things "ccasc to bc subjccts to bccomc cvcnts ( Oclcuzc
and Guattari, A Thousand P/atcaus, z6z) . Any such cvcnt is onc in which,
as Hcidcggcr rccognizcd many ycars bcforc Oclcuzc and Guattari, thc
human dcviscs a mcans of going along with thc animal.
lU 5teve 3ke|
0o|ng AIong wth the An|maI
Flawcd as his approach may havc bccn, it should not bc forgottcn that
Hcidcggcr's conccrn was to undcrstand thc animal in its othcrncss, and
to lct that othcrncss bc. 1his undcrstanding was to bc achicvcd, hc pro-
poscd, through an imaginativc transposition of thc human into an ani-
mal. In this "sclf-transposition, "thc othcr bcing is prcciscly supposcd to
rcmain what it is and how it is. 1ransposing oncsclf into this bcing
mcans . . . bcing ablc to go along with thc othcr bcing whilc rcmaining
othct with rcspcct to it. It is a "going-along-with undcrtakcn for thc
sakc of "dircctly lcarning how it is with this bcing , Thc Fundamcnta/
Conccts o] Mctahysics, zoz]) . 1hc notion of lctting thc animal's othcr-
ncss bc has links to thosc postmodcrn conccptions of thc animal that try
to avoid forcibly rcndcring it mcaningml in human tcrms, thus rcducing
its othcrncss to samcncss, and its wondcr to familiarity.
1wo cxamplcs suggcst how this going-alongwith can bc actcd out as
an cxchangc, a handing-across, which pivots on thc work of art itsclf.
oth conccrn humans in alliancc with living animals, "lcarning how it is
with thosc bcings, as Hcidcggcr puts it. Ily and Suzi, thc ritish artists
known for painting prcdators in thcir natural habitat at thc closcst pos-
siblc guartcrs-whcthcr it bc whitc sharks undcrwatcr of! thc coast of
Capc 1own, chcctahs in Mamibia ( Figurc 8), or anacondas in Vcnczucla-
havc an unusual working mcthod. 1hc two work simultancously on cach
imagc, "hand ovcr hand, as thcy put it, and whcrcvcr possiblc thcy also
allow thc dcpictcd animals to "intcract with thc work and mark it fur-
thcr thcmsclvcs. 1his may takc thc form of bcars or clcphants lcaving
prints or urinc stains on an imagc, or of chunks bcing bittcn oh by a
wolf or a shark. Such intcractions arc cxtcnsivcly documcntcd "as a pcr-
formancc by thc photographcr Grcg Williams, who travcls with thc
artists.
It is thc paintings thcmsclvcs, oncc markcd by thc animal, that arc
thc crucial documcnt. In a world that has grown largcly indihcrcnt to
thc gucstion of cndangcrcd spccics, thcsc works arc dcscribcd by thc
artists as "a gcnuinc artifact of thc cvcnt, and arc intcndcd to bring
homc thc truth and immcdiacy of thcsc animals' prccarious cxistcncc.
For thcrc to bc an animal-madc mark, thc animal has to bc prcscnt, and
activcly participatc. What is pcrformcd through its prcscncc is thc ani-
mal's rcality, and what is challcngcd is prcciscly that postmodcrn "loss
of faith in our ability to rcprcscnt thc rcal (crtcns, Thc Idca o] thc
Postmodctn, ) .
S| Ough| ng !hC Hunn ll
||gU|C B. LDCC\BDS W|\D B|R\|Dg. L| | y BRD UZl W|\D L|Cg Wl | | lB0S, |B0| D| B, |UUB.
DO\Og|BD COylgD\ L|OWDBg. HCll R\CD W|ID C|0|SS|OR O L|ZB B0OS.
A sccond cxamplc conccrning thc placc thc living animal may havc in
thc artist`s crcativity is drawn from Mon/cy Painting, whcrc 1hicrry
Lcnain rccounts thc "astonishing collaboration bctwccn thc Frcnch
paintcr 1cssarolo and a fcmalc chimpanzcc namcd Kunda ( Figurc p) .
During thc scssions in which thcy both paintcd, hc lcft thc initiativc to
Kunda and thcn complctcd hcr clustcrs oI lincs by thc addition of ngura-
tivc clcmcnts . . . . Tcssarolo says that at timcs, Kunda would acccpt his ad
ditions with cnthusiasm, at othcrs shc would rub thcm out and wait Ior
him to draw somcthing clsc. ncc thc picturcs wcrc nnishcd thcy wcrc
signcd by both artists, thc paintcr putting his namc on onc sidc and
Kunda a handprint on thc othcr. (:c
9
)
Lcnain spccihcally dcscribcs as "postmodcrn this art which, "con-
ccivcd without irony, aims "to givc mll rccognition to thc part playcd by
thc animal ( op-) . ln works such as thosc of lly and Suzi, or of
Kunda and 1cssarolo, it is thc mark of thc hand on thc painting as point
of cxchangc that, for thc prcscnt, bcst rccords thc loosc crcativc alliancc
of animal and artist. It may not yct bc cntircly clcar what is cxchangcd
bctwccn thc human and thc animal in thcsc instanccs, but thc politics
and poctics of that cxchangc call urgcntly for mrthcr cxploration.
|U|C 9. DC |CRCD B|R\CI 1CSSB|O|O WO|K|R W\D URDB, B CDDBRZCC. |DO\O|BD
COy||D\ JBCUCS NURCD. HC|| D\CD W|\D C|D|SS|OR O CSSBIO|O.
S| OugD| ng !DC Hunn lo
Notes
l. Scc Ci||cs Dc|cuzc and Fclix Cuattari, A Thcusand P|ateaus. Ca/ta|/sm and
Sch/zchren/a, trans. rian Massumi ( London. Athlonc Prcss, :,) . Subscqucnt
rcIcrcnccs arc givcn in thc tcxt.
2. Unlcss othcrwisc indicatcd, inIormation about thc work oI Edwina Ashton,
Jordan ascman, John lsaacs, and lly and Suzi is drawn from thc author's un-
publishcd intcrvicws with thcsc artists, conductcd in London bctwccn :,, and
:ooo. Statcmcnts by thc artists arc a|so hom this source.
]
. rian Lukc, "Taming ursclvcs or Coing Fcra|:. Toward a Nonpatriarcha|
Mctacthic oI Animal Libcration," in An/ma|s and wcmen. Fem/n/st Thecret/ca|
Ex|crat/cns, cd. Caro| J. Adams and Joscphinc Donovan ( Durham, N.C., and
London. Dukc Univcrsity Prcss, :,,y), z,o-,:, ):).
4. cuys is quotcd i n Carolinc Tisda||, ]cseh Beuys. Ccycte (Munich.
Schirmcr-Mosc|, :,o), z, z. Subscqucnt rcIcrcnccs arc givcn in thc tcxt.
5. Martin Hcidcggcr, The Fundamenta| Ccnce|s c] Metahys/cs. hcr|d,
F/n/tude, Sc|/tude, trans. William McNci|l and Nicholas Walkcr ( |oomington.
Indiana Univcrsity Prcss, :,,y) , :, :,. Subscqucnt rcIcrcnccs arc givcn in
thc tcxt.
6. Jacqucs Dcrrida, " Cesch|echt l. Hcidcggcr's Hand," trans. J. P. Lcavcy, in
Deccnstruct/cn and Ph/|cschy. The Texts c] ]acques Derr/da, cd. John Sa|lis
(Chicago. Univcrsity oI Chicago Prcss, :,;), :;). Subscqucnt rcIcrcnccs arc givcn
in thc tcxt.
7. Scc Stcvc akcr, The Pcstmcdern An/ma| (London. Rcaktion ooks, zooo) .
8. Wil| Sc|I, Creat Aes (London. loomsbury, :,,;), ):-z.
,
. Roland arthcs, Camera Luc/da Re]|ect/cns cn P|ctcgmhy, trans. Richard
Howard (London. Jonathan Capc, :,z), y,.
I 0. Thicrry Lcnain, Mcnkey Pa/nt/ng, trans. C. camish ( London. Rcaktion
ooks, :,,;), :;. Subscqucnt rcIcrcnccs arc givcn in thc tcxt.
I I . Hclcnc Cixous, "Sortics," in Hclcnc Cixous and Cathcrinc Clcmcnt, The
New|y Bcrn wcman, trans. ctsy Wing ( Manchcstcr. Manchcstcr Univcrsity
Prcss, :,), .
! 2. Wcgman is quotcd in Pctcr Wcicrmair, "Photographs. Subvcrsion through
thc Camcra," in W||/am wegman Pa/nt/ngs, Draw/ngs, Phctcgrahs, \/dectaes,
cd. Martin Kunz (Ncw York. Harry N. Abrams, :,,o), .
l 3. Rcgo is quotcd in John McEwcn, Pau|a Regc, zd cd. ( London. Phaidon
Prcss, :,,;), z:z.
l 4. Jacqucs Dcrrida, "L'Anima| quc donc jc suis (suivrc),' in L'An/ma| autc-
|icgrah/que. Autcurs de )acques Derr/da, cd. Maric-Louisc Mallct (Paris. Cali|cc,
:ppp), z;:~]c:. Subscqucnt rcIcrcnccs arc givcn in thc tcxt.
14 S!CvC BkC|
I 5. Hans crtcns, Thc Idca c] thc Pcstmcdcrn A H/stcry ( London and Ncw
York. Routlcdgc, i,,y), ii. Subscqucnt rcIcrcnccs arc givcn in thc tcxt.
l 6. Martin Hcntschcl, "Passagc,' in Passagc Ncuc Kunst /n Ham|urg E. V, cx-
hibition catalog ( Hamburg. Kunsthaus, i,,), .
I 7. Jcan-Paul Martinon, "n thc Edgc of thc Abyss," in ]crdan Bascman B|unt
O|]ccts, cxhibition catalog (Craz, Austria. Calcric Eugcn Lcndl, i,,;).