Who Follows Whom? Derrida, Animals and Women

Derrida Today ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 151-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Guenther

In ‘L'Animal que donc je suis’, Derrida analyzes the paradoxical use of discourses on shame and original sin to justify the human domination of other animals. In the absence of any absolute criterion for distinguishing between humans and other animals, human faultiness becomes a sign of our exclusive capacity for self-consciousness, freedom and awareness of mortality. While Derrida's argument is compelling, he neglects to explore the connection between the human domination of animals and the male domination of women. Throughout ‘L'Animal’, Derrida equivocates between ‘man’ and ‘humanity,’ and between the biblical figures of Ish and Adam. In so doing, he repeats a gesture that he himself has insightfully criticized in other philosophers, such as Levinas. By articulating the distinctions that Derrida elides, I suggest a way of reading Genesis which avoids this difficulty, but also continues Derrida's project.

1993 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-57
Author(s):  
EILEEN HARRIS
Keyword(s):  

2001 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Frosh

This paper describes some links between Freud's creative activity in The Interpretation of Dreams and his identification with the biblical figures of Joseph and Moses. In particular, it draws on traditional Jewish thought on the relationship between prophecy and dreaming, and on the characters of Joseph and of Moses. It is argued that The Interpretation of Dreams shows Freud exploring aspects of his gendered and cultural identity and finding a place for himself as a provocative and iconoclastic ‘dreamer’ in the Jewish tradition.


2006 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 12-12
Author(s):  
Robert D. Arnott ◽  
Rodney N. Sullivan

Author(s):  
Michael Ruse

The Augustinian vision of humankind, on which so much Christian thinking about war is based, is false. Thanks to Darwinian evolutionary biology we know there was no original couple, Adam and Eve; there was no eating of the apple; there is no original sin. We are not innately depraved in this way. Morbid fatalism is inappropriate. The killer-ape vision of humankind, on which so much Darwinian thinking about war is based, is equally false. Thanks to updated Darwinian evolutionary biology, we know that we did not evolve in the violent ways often presumed, and that in major respects we are designed to avoid war. Culture, particularly agriculture, changed much of that and war became common. Changing this is not to go against our nature. Naïve optimism is no more in place. There is hope of more constructive engagement between Christians and Darwinians. On the Christian side, there are alternative theologies to Augustinian Atonement theology, notable Incarnational theology, not dependent on a literal Adam and Eve. On the Darwinian side, there are fresh empirical findings and interpretations, with truer understandings of human history and nature. Perhaps now, together, we can move forward the debate on the nature and causes and possible ending of human warfare.


1987 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 228-230
Author(s):  
Paul Heyer
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document