"Political Criticism" wants to liberate animals, but is afraid. 
made another appearance in accordance with the Declaration on the animal in the 15 block of text issue of "Political Criticism." The block has a title of "non-human politics" and not entirely "animal." Its theme is the right of all types of entities, or any such objects, which can be thought of as entities. From this perspective, the authors consider a number of reports human-animal, human-nature, man-machine interface, human-human fetus (fetus, a not-yet-man). (To all Przemyslaw Czaplinski adds an essay on "conformation" Brach-Czajny and "Lubiewo" Witkowski, but honestly I have no idea how it relates to the theme of the block. Maybe there was simply no better place in the current issue of this piece.)
whole has an interesting visual interlude:
Sanja Ivekovic presents the work of "Faces of the language," which consists of pairs of photographs, depicting a woman with traces of violence were made on them, and females of different species. Pair of images linked by common title-descriptions. They are simply presented the names of species of animals, which - as somehow culturally made - in the world of interpersonal relationships also serve as a tool for bullying. Goose, goat, cow, hen, bitch, mare. The artist brings to the surface mechanism of deeply concealed in the catacombs of our culture: to possess the ability to "innocent" use of violence against another, it must first and foremost odczłowieczyć. Man - what he knows, each child brought up on the respect of the Pentateuch (the estimate does not mean, of course, knowledge) - is the highest earthly perfection. All other filth-ranked below the human level, like God himself skleconego, majesty. Hazing non-human animals is a daily bread
homo sapiens, it is an old tradition and the old philosophy. Names of animals is therefore perfectly suited to the justification of violence carried out on the other, not just women, "Polish pigs", "German pigs," "Jewish pigs", "gay pigs." These pigs are a whole bunch of everyday language. Interestingly, as far as their status as creatures to be permanently stigmatized as-is to the biblical origins, and how much comes from the constant practice of treatment of these common animals in the food economy.
animal-political and starts reading from
Kinga Dunin , which in the text Fri "Is empathy a leftist?" corresponds to the titular question, that is. You obviously read the political consequences of such a settlement, even without having to look to the text, if empathy is a leftist, a right-wing does not know what is empathy. What is empathy (and altruism - in the text Dunin also appears that the concept) does not know or (neo) liberal laissez-faire. Since the right hand of ethology is chosen with empathy, in which it finds its biological basis? The "hate and stadności!
"On these emotions builds its strength right-wing conservative. However, the liberals of the variety available to us to elect an individual to feel selfish." (p. 62)
Well, the manifestation of genetic fajności salary niefajności left and birth defects in the political opponents is impressive, impressive bio-political scandal. However, there is concern that, despite the willingness of the left most (including, perhaps especially the environment, "Political Criticism"), or she so sympathetic, as she seemed (especially interesting to me here in the sphere of relations of human-subhuman), nor the Right Such insensitive. Examples of the inaccuracy nieempatyczności right: (1) the involvement of staff of "Diary" on issues related to environmental protection, (2) below gossiped about the number of Znak, (3) Lech Kaczynski's happening with the release of Christmas carp into the wild (though the other men do not have sure if it's not a simple decal hypocritical crib with life dziękczynnemu turkey pardon by the President of the U.S. I hope that Kaczynski was somewhat honest), (4) performance in the previous mentioned book by Tomasz Pietrzykowski
dispute over animal rights Katowice 2007, which the motto no quote from Isaac B. Singer: "For animals all people are Nazis, and the world an endless Treblinka," and in the introduction, which we read inter alia:
Reliable description of the facts, real ways to treat animals in their daily practice by using them in enough industries for this to realize that the issue of "liberation" of animals is not only inverts wydumanym pseudoproblemem attention away from really serious social issues, but elementary moral challenge with which everyone must deal fairly and treating seriously the value declared by them man, whose silence and lack of interest in an agreement in practice (if not complicity) to support this "endless Treblinka." (Pp. 13-14)
Pietrzykowski Or so he did not know that it is lewakiem, or empathy is not a leftist, and most left-wing sometimes (okay, the truth that much more often than right), empathic.
To naturalistic agenda of this blog I also noted that empathy, stadność, altruism, selfishness is not a metaphysical machetes, which may be the wave of political struggle, but the concept of a body of science. And if nevertheless cultivates their ideology, it is worth keeping in mind their obosieczność. Neither selfishness is not as scary as it seems a metaphysical moralists, nor snow, and empathy as given by the creator. All these adaptations and chasing for replication.
Tokarczuk pomieszczonych is the author followed by "Animal Masks." The text begins with a paragraph calling for absolutizing animal suffering: the suffering and death
easier for me to bear than the suffering of the animal. Man has its own extensive, rozgłoszony all and sundry ontological status, which makes it a species privileged. It has culture and religion to support him in suffering. It has its rationalizations, and sublimation. He has a God who will save it in the end. Human suffering is meaningful. For the animal there is neither comfort nor relief, because there is no salvation awaits him. There is also no sense. The animal's body does not belong to him. The soul does not exist. Animal suffering is absolute, total. (P. 63) It puts
made the same sharp jerk cuglami social reflexivity. Until then, the movement built on an ethic of animal liberation has a lot of trouble in the dissemination of the thesis of the equivalence of human and animal suffering (although there is on this strong and day by day strengthening scientific knowledge.) Meanwhile Tokarczuk radically, 180 degrees, reversing the situation, and proclaims the superiority of animals in art pain and suffering. The thesis as much fun as controversial. Granted, that animals suffer when it (most likely) suffer more, because (most likely) do not know the cause of his pain. Nothing is so greatly enhances not suffering, as the fear flowing from ignorance and powerlessness, which directly follows this ignorance. (By the way remind concerned that fear as a component of animal suffering is good posted Wajrak discussed below in the 'Mark'.) But the shape, What matter is Tokarczuk, is worrying for the same reasons, with which I had a problem before with Kinga Dunin: made absolute animal suffering may lead to bring the whole matter of metaphysical astray. Cause animal suffering writer wears at the start of a mythical figure. I am not sure whether the tactic is the happiest idea. On the other hand I understand that Tokarczuk esteem can have strategic considerations, not to be a writer to dwell on battle plans.
Then followed a few paragraphs by way of introduction to the history of ideas on the status of the animal throughout history, from "przedsokratejskiej Greece" by St. Thomas, Descartes, Kant, Bentham. Then Tokarczuk longer stops at peterz Singer - the most radical contemporary
etyku known
dazzlingly logical chain of arguments in favor of animal rights (p. 65) - mainly to, strongly rationalistic konstatując his insight into human-animal relationships , confront him with prozwierzęcą literature
John Maxwell Coetzee'go , with "the lives of animals." When Singer to change the paradigm recommends tenacious, analytical the work of reason, Coetzee suggests work on the level of emotions and an overall ideological change through what he calls "insight."
Costello [fictional heroine of "Lives of Animals" - Reb.] Seems to belong to the people who saw, realized, or perhaps better to say they saw some basic, frightening nature of the world, because the word "see" one-off implies, the act of perception singleness . The fact that it can not see every day that we're missing, it does not freezes in terror, is amazing. Is that strongly defense mechanisms work - all these colloquialisms, pragmatic arguments, but also those that are found for example in the writings of Descartes and Thomas Aquinas? Can this simple human fear of the shock, perceptual habit of laziness, lack of reflection, the comfort of ignorance? Enough for us simply that the world is concerned, that is what it is. But our perceptual passivity is moral significance because it perpetuates the evil. Not wanting to see, we become partakers of evil and accomplices. The effort is moral and in essence, cognitive effort - we have C l see a new, painful way. (Pp. 1968-1970)
Finally, Singer and the next Coetzee'go - Costello, Tokarczuk points to Jane Goodall as a figure representing a third alternative way to replace the present paradigm antyzwierzęcego prozwierzęcy in the future.
Singer goes wide treaty - a way for everyone. We all have the ability to reflect and know how to use reason. His reasoning can be applied so that it became accessible to people of different cultures and ages. I can imagine a version for children who are in school ethics classes [especially since it is now available in Polish appropriate literature, in which This role is the first chapter of the first volume of "Tour of philosophical Stephen Lava - Reb.].
Costello Road is narrower, which she herself is fully aware of it. Why is it, what for some seems to be repulsive and scary, the other brand does not move? Maybe we're mentally differently built, can experience the world at different levels, maybe our sensibility is innate and can not be trained. Why did not everyone has the capacity to empathize, and many people simply do not understand what he says the older writer and eventually non-existent.
And finally, Jane Goodall - it's very narrow path reserved for those who have the sensitivity, the senses, intellect and integrity to penetrate prejudices and illusions. Look through these strange masks [animal masks - Reb.] And see where other, incomprehensible, and being close to us, such as animals. (P. 76) Thus ends
Tokarczuk essay, and the ending is perhaps has a cognitive value, even though I'm not sure about this. If, however, has this so that explains why Peter Singer, and no one else (no one else from the list Tokarczuk anyway) under the patronage of the liberation movement of animals. Notwithstanding the fact that they każden us no salary mental aim of the movement is political, and revolutionary. A policy should be cultivated by plowing berets greatest possible air raid carpet.
Slawomir Masłoń publish the text Fri "Reason and its antipodes: Coetzee, Singer and animal rights." So, roughly, on the same subject as its predecessor. It is a pity that the editors had committed to such double wins, though the text Masłonia (prepared by the author of the Guide on KP
Coetzee'go ) anything more than Tokarczuk breaks away from the titular names and positions, combining reflective in its own way. These combinations are formally at times difficult to digest, and even merits tend to be annoying. Here's how Masłoń
defines the core problem with Animal Liberation Movement :
Contrary to what Singer says that this is a political movement and vegetarianism and veganism is the best method of boycott today of power, which is the market, it is the ideology of the status quo, which is seeking to change our eating habits, hopes that everything else is business as usual. (...) The animals are treated as objects not primarily because people are stupid (irrational) habits, but because they are privately owned (and remember that it is a holiday), and the highest form of rationality of capitalism is profit. (...) It is therefore not in the Singer case, it is consumption (change of diet) is replaced by a policy - we are dealing with the movement, which pre-market subordinated to reason, whose consumption is at the heart and solemn duty, because "there is no alternative" . (Pp. 85-86)
(With quotes cut the lengthy piece, with the assumption of an example to wander skrytokapitalistycznego Singer as a reactionary. The example concerns the general weakness of the argument for vegetarianism from hunger in the world, resulting from waste plant food resources for the production of less energy efficient on balance of meat and dairy products. Same objection to this argument seems to be accurate, but what has that to do
the heart of the problem with the Animal Liberation Movement not quite understand.)
So says Masłoń, animal liberation movement is not a political movement, because it strikes at the base prevailing economic regime. It is Traffic
status quo ideology. Rather than put up with capitalism, seeking to change within the system. Therefore, as a pisło, this is not a political movement.
Cisna numerous allegations.
first I note the above reasoning as a grotesque example of the inaccuracy of intuition Kinga Dunin empatyczności on the left. For Masłonia problem is not unnecessarily (but profitable, and therefore) reproduced the suffering of millions of animals. His problem is to push an ideology. Has the audacity to assess the animal liberation movement as a movement to defend the status quo
and deny its political role, precisely because it does not fit within the framework adopted by Masłonia ideological borders. Where is the supposedly typical leftist, combine the empathy in Masłoniowym? She's not an ounce.
second Masłoń, which after all is to judge the movement of pro-animals
as "politically" because no anti-capitalist, it seems not to understand completely, nay, not even to know something about what peroruje. Because animal liberation movement is not just, and (even today) is not primarily Singerowska "pro-animalsiarza bible." This grass-roots resistance movement, fighting against the very
(and not according to
) market principle, declaring that animals are property. That is why this movement - whose most famous radical arm of the network of local groups
direct action: Animal Liberation Front - called liberation movement
animals, not ruchem ich
wykradania . Jak pisze
tutaj Steven Best,
Animal liberation is the culmination of a vast historical learning process whereby human beings gradually realize that arguments justifying hierarchy, inequality, and discrimination of any kind are arbitrary, baseless, and fallacious. Moral progress occurs in the process of demystifying and deconstructing all myths - from ancient patriarchy and the divine right of kings to Social Darwinism and speciesism - that attempt to legitimate the domination of one group over another. Moral progress advances through the dynamic of replacing hierarchical visions with egalitarian visions and developing a broader and more inclusive community Ethical. Having Recognised the Illogical and unjustifiable rationales used to oppress blacks, women, and other disadvantaged groups, society is beginning to grasp That speciesism is another unsubstantiated forms of Oppression and Discrimination.
Well, whether the abolitionist movement is not inherently a political movement? Does "being political" simply means "to be anti-capitalist"? What is the status quo wants to keep the Animal Liberation movement
, since the foundation is a revolutionary movement, changing (seeking change), social relationships on a global scale? Masłoń does not understand that moving targets are simply prozwierzęcego distinct from the broader objectives of the Left. Animal liberation movement does not treat the abolition of capitalism as their promised land. Animal liberation movement - please try to imagine it yourself - seek the liberation of animals, nothing else, and consider the dispute with capitalism (which may be seen) as a more or less effective tool rozpierduchy Abolitionist, or even as a condition of possibility of the latter. From the perspective of an abolitionist prozwierzęcego Masłoń, who is not seeking the liberation of animals, but only to abolish the property is not only dangerous utopian, but it can only be apolitical apologist for the status quo.
Masłoń Singer judges as the flywheel of the capitalist ideological strategy: after all, Singer urges to consume! Consuming differently, but they consume! Regime rubbing his hands, and making fun of Masłoń Singer, that he had been caught up in the promotion of capital, the policy changed to "change the menu." This mockery apparently suggests that, according to Masłonia there life beyond consumption. If so, then even better. Let consistently follow this path, and perhaps the world proves that not only do not have to eat the pigs, but carrot: Also, I'm too! That
issue on which he writes, he knows Masłoń weak and likely did not read even the most important texts published in Polish, also comes to light here:
Animal rights are not, strictly speaking, animal rights, because they can not be a source of animals . The law is not something that objectively exists, but is formed by insisting on it, so when people ask for animal rights, they are actually right man, not animals. (P. 87)
truism for nieobiektywnego character of the law does not contradict in any way the possibility of having the rights of animals. Moreover, the conventionality of law as the foundation of the institution guarantees the animals to have them. We agreed on the fact that the basic condition for the possibility of establishing a legal entity to have its interests. Ultimately it is the violations are of interest to the institution of law. What
inability to claim the animal's own rights, without making specific findings noted here that even infants and the mentally patients are not able to claim rights for themselves, which, hopefully, in the eyes of Masłonia not prejudge anything special. The problems associated with the idea of \u200b\u200banimal rights is discussed extensively in the 18th issue of "Ethics" in 1980.
Next up for Agata Czarnecka stopped reading the text Fri "Pornowegetarianizm. Empathy that the author just can not be denied. Empathy than analytical skills. On the question of
what it means to eat meat? corresponds thus:
Series imperceptible (or rather, not perceived) of the decision prior to an order of rabbit stew, tripe and steak include: the idea that what I do well, a decision that the argument that something I do well, it entitles me to take action to obtain that thing, the distinction of species (even a man-cannibal eating another man, knows what he's doing, and This knowledge gives flavor to the dish, probably the same with each other rather faint), setting their own species above and usurpation of power over life and death of other species, the decision to use the power of this, a decision that someone should do it for me, I did not see / a a series of bloody consequences of my own krwiożerczości; granting authority over the life of the animal to someone who takes responsibility for his death. (P. 90)
Czarnecka anything bałamuci reader when constructing classification vegetarians, lists "vegetarian against chlewniom" (I understand that it is a protest against the great "animal factories" because if not that, I do not know what, but less with it) and writes about them, as follows: "this type of vegetarians usually do not have anything against the venison or fish niehodowlanym" (p. 92). Blood in man storm when reading such stories. Vegetarianism by
wiki is "the type of diet is characterized by excluding food products origin of meat and possibly eggs or dairy products from the motives of moral, ethical or health. "I can stick it up, really. For a moment it appears that everyone, without exception, we are vegetarians for a long time, but did not know it.
Apart from this flower not bad, in any event can not help but agree with the article's argument:
Popular attitudes mostly vegetarian recognize one of two forms of power - an expression of protest or in respect of torture, sentencing to death of animals, or to the livestock industry, animal sentencing prepared their lives. Veganism or a radical form of vegetarianism (eating only eggs with a "0", the consumption of products from goat's milk or sheep), applied on a large scale will require a radical transformation of food systems and with them the whole economy - without it could be disastrous from the point view the progress of social justice. However, perhaps the only chance for deconstruction of the two vectors of power over the animals, the power over death and power over their lives. (P. 94)
The last part of the work the author takes the project vegetarian consumer boycott of the problem "of industry porn, "which - like meat and dairy industry -" almost always is a powerful engine of power and violence. "Subject to a separate development, rather than trójakapitowy paragraph, which may be the main function is to justify the strong aesthetically title.
Another text :
Donna Haraway, "Laboratory animals and their people." reads the horrible, like all Americans, copying text in the manner of the French cultivation of the humanities. In short: the thing is about vivisection. The author tries to establish a new model of relations between humans and laboratory animals . According to this model the animals are to be regarded as "working parties" (p. 112). Do not use the lab animals, but their "use" and their "work." Category of work, Haraway argues, allows a new way to look at the problem of inflicting pain, suffering and death in lab animals.
suspect that a greater opportunity to build a responsibility towards other animals and gives them enhanced job categories than the category of rights, and their entanglement in the essential similarity, analogy, calculus, and honorary membership in the enlarged human abstraction. (...) Taking animals seriously as workers (...) is probably something new, and may allow us to stop killing machines. (P. 105)
trouble is that the author does not seem to look for a way to stop the "killing machine". Seeking answers to a lot less ambitious question: "how multispecies laboratory work practices may be less lethal, less painful and more saturated freedom for all employees?" (P. 109) Seeking, looking, and in my opinion does not discover anything sensible. But, most of the carnivorous habit of humanists who are concerned about the interests of animals more than vegetarians, undermines rejection of the meat / dairy from the diet:
Although we have tried to distance themselves from this fact, there is a way of life that does not entail the death of someone - not just "something." Vegans are not from the downstream than anyone else, and their efforts geared to avoid eating or dressing up in animal products sprowadziłby most of the animals to a protected heritage item muzealnie or condemn them to extinction of species and individual. (P. 112)
So: enough that prokapitalistyczny, maintaining the status quo, then this acting against the interests of animals! Eating animals as a form of concern for their "quality and individual" survival - I love it! (In the next sentence after the quoted author adds: "I do not deny that, vegetarianism, veganism, and opposition to experimentation on sentient animals can be convincing positions within feminism. I do not agree, however, to constitute a feminist dogma." I understand that consistency is a feminist identity Haraway rate much higher than the insight into the quality of life of all sentient beings.)
After Criticism provides excerpts from Giorgio Agamben
Fri "Open" in the translation Agatha pea. I'll probably book in its entirety (it is preparing to issue a universitas) and at that time about her experience, so here, just for flavor, jednen short lc:
Just because something like animal life have been separated within man, that distance and proximity animal were measured and known primarily in what is most intimate and personal, may be contrasted with a man other living beings and at the same time create a complex - and not always edifying - the economics of the relationship between humans and animals.
(...) the question of how - within the man - man has been separated from a pet nieczłowieka from the human, it is more urgent task than to take a stance in the great debates about the alleged values \u200b\u200band human rights. (P. 125-126), Edwin
Bendyk in the text Fri "Man - Titanium" writes about the expanding field of subjectivity in both parties, that is, toward the human-animal-and post-human machines. He writes about it, because I write about things that you need, because the "performance of a modern, liberal biopolitical discourse, based on scientifically based standards governing the status of the person and its wide subjectivity, collapses' (P. 140), and rightly collapses. Therefore, "time to put the question on the possibility of a political project, which would allow the articulation of interests, not only humans but also in the discourse entities having the status of a modern silent
objects" (p. 148). This is a question which has been struggling with Bruno Latour, developing a "politician of Nature project, which would be to renew the concept of democracy by its openness to the articulation of other non-human interests" (p. 148).
extension of the collective social non-human objects do not have to rely on the fact that animals, humans and robots sat at one table. He has to rely on the renewal of the idea of \u200b\u200brepresentative democracy, which enable the articulation of the collective interests of the participants by representatives who are able to stories of their stakeholders. (P. 148)
I am very curious how this plan is theoretically justified in
Latour book, which is preparing to issue a political critique.
theme raised by Bendyk Maciej Gdula then moves to the text "No-humane allies." I do not have nothing to reproach him, but nothing particularly weighty to comment, so I conclude, politely thanking all doczytującym to this place and I fall snack slice of bread with pate celery and pumpkin seeds, spreads, award-winning laurels in 2008.
Bloc texts Fri "[R] EVOLUTION Poznan Culture Time joined the relatively sparse in celebrating the Year of Poland among the Darwinian (two hundredth anniversary of the birth, one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the first edition of" The Origin of Species "). This glorious exception on a map of cultural magazines, while a clear symptom. Darwinism is still in the humanities carpet, even if here and there are calls for breaking down the barriers between natural sciences and the humanities. Did they succeed this impasse, "[r] evolution 'texts overcome? I have the impression that they do not. There are so at least two reasons. 
