Anthro

Restricting Presidential war powers is merely a cosmetic alteration that ramps up the species war ongoing against the nonhuman other.
Kochi 9
Tarik Kochi. Sussex Law School. 2009. Species War: Law, Violence and Ani als!. Law, "ul#ure and #he $u ani#ies. Volu e %. &u 'er (. )a*es (%(+(,9.
edia, poli#icians, pro#es#ors, soldiers and dissiden#s, the language of war is linked to and intimately bound up with the language of law. That a war might be said to be legal or illegal, just or unjust, or that an act might be called war rather than terror or crime, displays aspects of reference, connection, and constitution in which the social meaning of the concepts we use to talk about and unders#and war and law are or*anised in par#icular wa/s. The anner in which specific terms 1i.e. war, terror, murder, slaughter, and genocide2 are defined and #heir eanin*s ordered has power0ul and bloody conse uences for those who feel the force and 'run# o0 #hese words in the realm of human action. -n #his paper - ar*ue #ha# the juridical language of war contains a hidden foundation ! species war. Tha# is, at the foundation of the "aw of war resides a species war carried out by humans against non#human animals . -n e.er/da/ speech, in #he words o0 #he A# 0irs# *lance such a clai a/ sound like i# has li##le #o do wi#h law and war. -n con#e porar/ pu'lic de'a#es #he laws o0 war! are #/picall/ unders#ood as re0errin* #o #he rules se# ou# '/ #he con.en#ions and cus#o s #ha# de0ine #he le*ali#/ o0 a s#a#e3s ri*h# #o *o #o war under in#erna#ional law. $owe.er, such a perspec#i.e is onl/ a narrow and li i#ed .iew o0 wha# cons#i#u#es #he Law o0 war and o0 #he rela#ionship 'e#ween law and war ore 44*enerall/. $ere the

"aw of the

"aw of war needs to be understood as

in.ol.in* something more than #he li i#ed sense o0 positi$e law. The Law o0 war deno#es a 'roader ca#e*or/ #ha# includes di00erin* his#orical senses o0 posi#i.e law as well as .arious e#hical concep#ions o0 5us#ice, ri*h# and ri*h#s. This dis#inc#ion is clearer in 6er an #han i# is in 7n*lish where'/ #he #er 8ech# deno#es a 'roader e#hical and 5uris#ic ca#e*or/ #han #ha# o0 6ese#9 which re0ers ore closel/ #o posi#i.e or 'lack le##er laws.: To 0ocus upon #he 'roader ca#e*or/ o0 #he Law o0 war is #o pu# speci0ic 1posi#i.e law2 0or ula#ions o0 #he laws o0 war in#o a his#orical, concep#ual con#ex#.

The

"aw of war contains at its heart ar*u en#s a'ou# and mechanisms for determining what constitutes legitimate $iolence. The ;ues#ion o0 wha# cons#i#u#es le*i#i a#e .iolence lies a# #he cen#re o0 #he rela#ionship 'e#ween war and law, and, #he specific historical laws of war are merely different juridical ways of setting#out %positing& a particular answer to this uestion. -n #his respect the "aw of war %and thus its particular laws of war& in$ol$es a practice of normati$e thinking and rule making concerned with determining answers to such uestions as' what types of coercion, $iolence and killing may be included within the definition of war, who may legitimately use coercion, $iolence and killing, and for what reasons, under what circumstances and to what e(tent may particular actors use coercion, $iolence and killing understood as war) When we consider #he rela#ionship 'e#ween war and law in #his 'roader sense #hen i# is no# unreasona'le #o en#er#ain #he su**es#ion #ha# at the foundation of the "aw of war resides species war .4

Civil society marks civil war. The 1acs politics becomes nothing more than species war pursued by other means. Wadiwel !!" Dinesh, Adj researcher at Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies Social Policy Research
Group, he !ar A"ainst Ani#als$ Do#ination, %aw and So&erei"nty' Griffith %aw Re&iew ()*+

we are at war with animals* his is a protracted war, a war that ar"uably "rows in intensity, a war that has no foreseeable end* his is a war that operates under the "uise of peace, constructed #ore often than not within the rule of law* his is a war that does not appear to be a war, yet , as the casualties de#onstrate , it bears the un#istakable hall#arks of continuin" warlike do#ination* #t is a war that absolutely$ perhaps irrevocably$ ruptures the possibility o% companionship*(+ In this
In other words, if we take this bleak su##ary into consideration, it would be fair to say that article, I seek to understand hu#an do#ination of non-hu#an ani#al life within the fra#ework of a le"alised war* he ai# of the article is to use this fra#ework to challen"e traditional approaches to the proble# of hu#an &iolence towards ani#al life and their so#atechnic effects, and to propose an alternati&e econo#y of relations throu"h ar"uin"

somatechnics/ as a way to capture the peculiar intersection o% the body within the simultaneously violent and enabling codi%ication o% sovereign power* In
for reco"nition of so&erei"nty ri"hts* I refer here to .

somatechnics might use%ully describe the a%%ective and e%%ective dynamics o% war between human and non&human animal li%e$ played out through %orms o% apparent civility* he 0irst !ar In #any respects, the %oundation o% modern political theory is marked by a concern in relation to the distinction between the political sphere and the space o% war* ho#as Hobbes, for e1a#ple, pro&ides a &ision of a unifyin" so&erei"n power that is counterposed to a chaotic state of nature
particular, as will beco#e apparent in the discussion that follows, described as a war of .all a"ainst all/* So&erei"nty for Hobbes therefore beco#es our sal&ation fro# a life that he fa#ously describes as .nasty brutish and short/* In a si#ilar &ein, 2achia&elli considers the ci&il political sphere as a site for the continuation of war like tactics, of strate"y wei"hin" the judicial application of force, and the #anipulation of consent* It is for this reason that both he Prince and he Discourses are de&oted to e&aluatin" the use of &iolent as opposed to the use of non-&iolent #eans,(3 and the &alue of winnin" the trust and loyalty of the #ass is wei"hed a"ainst the e1pedience of rulin" by fear*(4 2ore recently, we find the relationship between war and politics considered carefully by theorists di&erse as 5ac6ues Derrida, who reads the relationship between war, politics and friendship,(7 Achille 2be#be, who locates !estern so&erei"nty and .bare life/ within a "lobalised conte1t of colonisation and racialised terror,(8 and Aileen 2oreton-Robertson, who su""ests that race war is the key to understandin" the e&olution of ri"hts discourse and the refra#in" of the 6uestion of indi"enous so&erei"nty*(9 !e #i"ht ar"ue that the relationship between war and politics is located #ost pro#inently by 2ichel 0oucault, encapsulated in his state#ent that . * It should be noted that war certainly did not define 0oucault/s thinkin" on politics throu"hout his career, but was clearly influential durin" a period of transition in his thinkin" between the publication of Discipline and Punish, and his later works on se1uality and "o&ern#ent, and #ade a&ailable in a (:97;98 series of lectures, published in <n"lish under the title Society 2ust =e Defended*()

politics is war pursued by other means/

the understandin" of politics as war under a different "uise , but offers a challen"e to a whole tradition of political theory that would see the ci&il political space as offerin" a sal&ation fro# the ra&a"es of open hostility between warrin" parties' War is the motor behind institutions and order. #n the smallest o% its cogs$ peace is waging a secret war. To put it another way$ we ha&e to interpret the war that is "oin" on beneath peace( peace itsel% is a coded war* !e are therefore at war with one another@ a battlefront runs throu"h the whole of society, continuously and per#anently, and it is this battlefront that puts us all on one side or the other* here is no such thin" as a neutral subject. We are all inevitably someones adversary.1" #% civil peacable relations are the means by which war is en%olded within a new set o% relations$ then law becomes a means by which continuing domination is encoded' the methodology by which it is possible to continue %orms o% domination that otherwise would be e)pressed openly in war* 0oucault notes that so&erei"nty is founded upon &ery real &ictory in war, and establishes the ri"ht to death that acco#panies this &ictory. #% a sovereign nation is de%eated by another$ *oucault observes' The van+uished are at the disposal o% the victors. #n other words the victors can kill them. #% they kill them$ the problem obviously goes away' the ,overeignty o% the ,tate disappears simply because the individuals who make up that ,tate are dead. -ut what happens i% the victors spare the lives o% the van+uished. #% they spare their lives / are granted the temporary privilege o% li%e / 0they1 / agree to work %or and obey the others$ to surrender their land to the victors$ to pay them ta)es. #t is there%ore not the de%eat that leads to the brutal establishment o% a society based upon domination$ slavery$ and servitude / #t is %ear$ the renunciation o% %ear$ and the renunciation o% the risk o% death. The will to pre%er li%e to death( that is what %ounds sovereignty / ! 2aw$ %rom this perspective$ becomes a means to en%orce %orms o% domination that emanate %rom the right o% death held by the sovereign$ and the avoidance o% death by those who submit to the violence o% law' 3the will to pre%er li%e to death( that is what %ounds sovereignty . #t is %or this reason that *oucault avoids any sense that law has a %oundation in natural right' War obviously presided over the birth o% ,tates' right$ peace$ and laws were born in the mud o% battles / The law is not born o% nature$ and it was not born near the %ountains that the %irst shepards %re+uented' the law is born o% real battles$ victories$ massacres$ and con+uests / the law born in burning towns and ravaged %ields. 1 he law beco#es an e1pression of a perpetual for# of &ictory, which "uarantees a continuin" free hand for the &ictors* 0reedo#$ in this sense$ is not connected to e6uality@ on the contrary, it con&eys the opposite sense 4 in *oucaults words$ 3freedo# is the ability to depri&e others of their freedo#/*++ This in turn enshrines a %orm o% law that guarantees a continual pleasure %or the victors 4 a %reedom o% unending satis%action' the %reedom en5oyed / was essentially the %reedom o% egoism$ o% greed 4 a taste %or battle$ con+uest and plunder. The %reedom o% these warriors is not the %reedom o% tolerance and e+uality %or all( it is the %reedom that can be e)ercised only through domination*+3 In other words, law guarantees an unending %low o% pleasures$ laying in place an economy o% greed that can only have been secured through
Here 0oucault/s startin" point is >laus >lausewit?/s aphoris# .war is policy pursued by other #eans/* 0oucault not only in&erts >lausewit? , throu"h

the li%e and death domination o% total de%eat that de%ines the continuing legacy o% sovereignty in the !est* It is easy to appreciate how this perspective on sovereignty$ law and power o%%ers us a radical way to reinterpret the civil political space* Aet it re#ains unclear how ani#als #i"ht fit into this picture, and it is
certainly true that 0oucault does not pro&ide any "uidance on how non-hu#an life #i"ht be rendered within this econo#y of relations* Howe&er, another thinker on so&erei"nty, Gior"io A"a#ben, offers so#e insi"hts on how we #i"ht consider this relationship* A"a#ben, in his now-fa#ous study Ho#o Sacer, draws attention to the foundational relationship between the 0oucauldian concept of biopower and political so&erei"nty$ in A"a#ben/s words, .!estern politics is a biopolitics fro# the &ery be"innin"*/+4 =ut it is in a later book, he Bpen,+7 that A"a#ben offers an account for the relationship of non-hu#an ani#al life to biopower and political so&erei"nty* Drawin" on Aristotle, A"a#ben

the human is an e)pression %or an animal that has gone beyond its mere animal sel%. The human is constantly reminded o% its close pro)imity to animal li%e through the continual bleeding and erasure o% borders between the human and the animal*+8 0or e1a#ple,
obser&es that the . A"a#ben draws attention to >arolus %inneaus who, writin" in the (9CCs, can only chart #ar"inal differences between the hu#an and the ape and conse6uently assi"ns to hu#ans the "enus .pri#ate/, a cate"ory shared with other ani#als* A"a#ben further obser&es that the cate"orisation sapiens Ddefined as .wise/ or .possessin" knowled"e/E that distin"uishes the hu#an fro# the .#ere/ ape is a .ta1ono#ic ano#aly/*+9 A"a#ben also finds resonances in the inseparable connections between hu#ans and ani#als in the wolf-children that would co#e to capti&ate popular sciences, as well as in the .#issin" link/ ; both fi"ures that #ark the i##utable intersection of hu#an and ani#al*+) Aet what

that this continual ree)pression o% the %u66y distinction between human and animal de%ines biopower$ inso%ar as biopolitics is not merely politics attuned to +uestions o% li%e and population$ but in essence , at least in A"a#ben/s readin" , politics itsel% becomes concerned with the articulation o% the borders between the human and the animal* In A"a#ben/s words, .the decisive political con%lict$ which "o&erns e&ery other conflict$ is that between the animality and the humanity of #an* hat is to say, in its ori"in !estern politics is also biopolitics*/+: !estern politics, in other words, e1presses the fact of war between hu#an and ani#al life* Pullin" to"ether the threads that 0oucault and A"a#ben ha&e pro&ided, we #i"ht be"in to construct a fra#ework within which to co#prehend the war a"ainst ani#als* 0irst, we #i"ht note that i% the civil political space is %ounded upon the e)clusion o% the animal$ that this same space is a historical reminder o% the continuing victory o% the %irst war , that is, the ori"inary conflict between hu#ans and ani#als* his is the first war fro# which !estern politics #ay be said to ha&e ori"inated, a con%lict that correlates with the distinction between civilisation and nature$ bios and 6o7( a war that is also %oundationally rooted in the mythology o% !estern sovereignty. Second, the civil political space re+uires the sublimation o% warlike aggression into %orms o% apparent civil peace&ability$ where war is carried out by other means. In other words, the ci&il political space hides for#s of intense do#ination of ani#al life throu"h apparatuses that do not, at least on the outside, betray the for# of war* !e #i"ht find e&idence for this, for e1a#ple, in the le"alised so#atechnic controls that are inherent to pet ownership* In Few South !ales, as in
is #ost i#portant for our discussion here is other Australian states, a >o#panion Ani#als Act (::) pro&ides re"ulation on how do#estic pets are to be kept, offerin" a ran"e of le"al #easures fro# the co#pulsory i#plantation of so#atic sur&eillance technolo"ies, to controls o&er #o&e#ent, to the cate"orisation and se"re"ation of certain classified do"s, to reproducti&e controls and death for other do"s*3C In this for#, the law functions to enable &iolent for#s of subjection and control under the "uise of a certain co#panionship , that is, this le"islation enables

the l aw aims to establish a covenant o% continuing %reedom and plunder %or the victors o% war' an unending %low o% pleasures$ an economy o% greed* his perspecti&e on the relationship of do#ination, politics and freedo# to !estern so&erei"nty #i"ht be a way to e1plain the blatant and horrific e1cesses of our war with ani#als$ perhaps #ost &iscerally e&ident in factory far# and industrialised slau"hter processes, which ha&e enabled death on a scale that has hitherto been co#pletely uni#a"inable. 8ow else can we e)plain this( how else can we e)plain the complete impotence o% ethics$ 3humane thinking$ and the rights %ramework be%ore these horrors$ without recourse to understanding how victory in war leads to an into)ication o% power that guarantees a total and unending de%eat o% the losers through other means. #t is a victory so absolute that it becomes merely everyday$ apparently lacking any resistance$ without politics. This is violence that, to use Hannah Arendt in another conte1t, is so utterly 3banal that it is only barely perceptible*
&iolent for#s of relationality and death 6uite literally in the na#e of friendship* hird, we #i"ht obser&e that

The a%%irmatives manipulation o% legal mechanisms determining particular laws o% war obscures the %oundational species war upon which the law is %ounded
Kochi 9
Tarik Kochi. Sussex Law School. 2009. Species War: Law, Violence and Ani als!. Law, "ul#ure and #he $u ani#ies. Volu e %. &u 'er (. )a*es (%(+(,9.

edia, poli#icians, pro#es#ors, < soldiers and dissiden#s, the language of war is linked to and intimately 9 bound up with the language o% law. That a war might be said to be legal * or illegal, just or unjust, or that an act might be called war rather than * terror or crime, displays aspects of reference, connection, and constitution in which the social meaning of the concepts we use to talk about and < unders#and war and law are or*anised in par#icular wa/s. The anner in < which specific terms 1i.e. war, terror, murder, slaughter, and genocide2 < are defined and #heir eanin*s ordered has power0ul and bloody conse uences for those who feel the force and 'run# o0 #hese words in the realm * of human action. -n #his paper - ar*ue #ha# the juridical language of war * contains a hidden foundation ! species war . Tha# is, at the foundation of the * "aw of war resides a species war carried out by humans against non#human * animals . -n e.er/da/ speech, in #he words o0 #he A# 0irs# *lance such a clai a/ sound like i# has li##le #o do wi#h law < and war. -n con#e porar/ pu'lic de'a#es #he laws o0 war! are #/picall/ < unders#ood as re0errin* #o #he rules se# ou# '/ #he con.en#ions and cus#o s < #ha# de0ine #he le*ali#/ o0 a s#a#e3s ri*h# #o *o #o war under in#erna#ional law. < $owe.er, such a ore 44*enerall/. $ere the "aw of the "aw of war needs to be understood as < in.ol.in* something more than #he li i#ed sense o0 positi$e law. The Law < o0 war deno#es a 'roader ca#e*or/ #ha# includes di00erin* his#orical senses < o0 posi#i.e law as well as .arious e#hical concep#ions o0 perspec#i.e is onl/ a narrow and li i#ed .iew o0 wha# cons#i#u#es #he Law o0 war and o0 #he rela#ionship 'e#ween law and war 5us#ice, ri*h# and < ri*h#s. This dis#inc#ion is clearer in 6er an #han i# is in 7n*lish where'/ < #he #er 8ech# deno#es a 'roader e#hical and 5uris#ic ca#e*or/ #han #ha# o0 < 6ese#9 which re0ers ore closel/ #o posi#i.e or 'lack le##er laws.: < To 0ocus upon #he 'roader ca#e*or/ o0 #he Law o0 war is #o pu# speci0ic < < 1posi#i.e law2 0or ula#ions o0 #he laws o0 war in#o a his#orical, concep#ual < < con#ex#.

The "aw of war contains at its heart ar*u en#s a'ou# and mechanisms for determining what constitutes legitimate $iolence. The ;ues#ion o0 < < wha# cons#i#u#es le*i#i a#e .iolence lies a# #he cen#re o0 #he rela#ionship < < 'e#ween war and law, and, #he specific historical laws of war are merely * * different juridical ways of setting#out %positing& a particular answer to this * * uestion. -n this respect the 2aw o% war %and thus its particular laws of war& * * in$ol$es a practice of normati$e thinking and rule making concerned with * * determining answers to such uestions as' what types of coercion, $ iolence * * and killing may be included within the definition of war$: who may legitimately use coercion$ violence and killing$ and %or what reasons$ under 9 9 what circumstances and to what e)tent may particular actors use coercion, * * $iolence and killing understood as war) When we consider the relationship 9 9 between war and law in this broader sense then it is not unreasonable to 9 9 entertain the suggestion that at the %oundation o% the 2aw o% war resides 9 9 species war.;

8umanism is the root cause o% the drive %or war$ violence$ and systemic militari6ation and domination o% nature 5ohns :)
GDa&id 2* Adjunct Assistant Professor of Political Science Portland State Hni&* =*S* Political Science and Anthropolo"y (:98, Portland State Hni&ersity@ 2*A* Political Science (:9), 5*D* %aw, (:)C, >olu#bia Hni&ersity* he Rele&ance of Deep <colo"y to the hird !orld D(::CE So#e Preli#inary >o##ents in he "reat new wilderness debate =y 5* =aird >allicott, 2ichael P* FelsonI GctI GPa"eJs +79I
2I%I ARIKA IBF As with o&erconsu#ption we should ask which syste# of &alues will constrain #ilitaris# #ore$ the hu#an- or the biosphere-centeredL =y recogni6ing the valuableness o% nature and other species apart %ront their

use%ulness to humans$ a signi%icant constraint is imposed on human activity with re"ard to both the conduct of war and #ore i#portantly the econo#ic acti&ity that is essential to preparation for war*Indeed, #ore than war
itself, it is the consu#ption of MresourcesM to create and #aintain the industrial capacity "eared to ar#s production -for whate&er purpose--that is so destructi&e of the biosphere* All human centered value systems necessarily %all prey

to the easy rationali6ation o% militarism* If one is concerned only with hu#ans, with the perpetuation
and protection of particular social syste#s a"ainst internal or e1ternal threats, the constraints placed upon the consu#ption of nature are weakindeed* <&en when li#its on resources #ay te#per o&erconsu#ption "enerally, there is a real tendency in this sphere of <national security< to literally let the future take care of itself and co##it all to the current

stru""le* >ertainly aesthetic re"ard for nature falls by the wayside* If the #achine needs oil, then drill*

he So&iet Hnion, as an e1a#ple, has so#e of the strictest en&iron#ental le"islation in the hese laws also pro&ide a "iant loophole for any endea&or related to the security of the state, &irtually ne"atin" restrictionsNO 2ost countries start with weaker laws to be"in with before e#bracin" the e1ceptions* here are #any hu#an-centered &alue syste#s, reli"ious and secular, critical of #ilitari?ation,and all are lar"ely ineffecti&e* he failure co#es in part fro# the weddin" of &alues to structures of power,be they church or state,that depend upon force for their sur&i&al* Insofar as these pacifistic &alues arc taken up by those MoutsideM these structures they pro&ide

so#e check* =ut because they are hu#an-centered,the point of opposin" #ilitari?ation is to end hu#an waste and sufferin",it is easy to neutrali?e the# by appeal to other hu#an &alues and other for#s of sufferin" e&en worse than war or the costs of deterrence* he other "reat weakness is that #uch pacifistic thinkin" does not address ade6uately the roots of #ilitaris#, so#ethin" I atte#pt to do below* If one &alues nature in and for itself, then hu#an "oals and needs are placed within the

conte1t of a lar"er co##unity*

he &alue placed on the inte"rity of that co##unity #ilitates hea&ily a"ainst any hu#ancentered rationali?ation for e1ploitation* A biocentris# &iew 6uite si#ply li#its the con&ersion of ecosyste#s and bio#ass to hu#an use to any e1tensi&e de"ree* Althou"h such a &iew #ay see# utopian, because it poses a threat to the sur&i&al of particular social syste#s or the syste# of historical social syste#s, it does not pose a threat to tic sur&i&al of the species as so#e would ar"ue* Puite the opposite, the threat to both us and the planet co#es fro# this syste# of syste#s* It is here that biocentris# pro&ides understandin" which human&centered approaches cannot, for the latter accept funda#ental values which 5usti%y the &ery structures

that give rise to the outcomes they critici6e. >onsider the roots o% militarism. =ecause #odern #ilitaris# is panicularly &irulent, atte#pts to understand and critici?e this bli"ht are often li#ited to
the #odern period* >ertainly the co#bination of enli"hten#ent arro"ance, science, and technolo"y, e#bedded in the international political econo#y resultin" fro# the <uropean e1pansion, has produced a &ery dan"erous world*MO It is, howe&er, necessary to look #ore deeply into hu#an history to "rasp the underlyin" dyna#ic of #ilitaris#* !hile it #ay ha&e reached new proportions, it is not new, but rather an essential %eature o% so#ethin" &ery old$ ci&ili?ation*OIt is inseparable fro# social systems

based upon hierarchy Dclass, "ender, and ethnic=$ control o% nature$ the denial o% sel%$ and the e#otions
and bonds which constitute the self* It is an essential feature of those societies in which the state e1ists, the process by which the state atte#pts to substitute itself for authentic hu#an co##unity is well underway, and conflict between co##unities has been

Civili6ation, and the process is the story o% the human attempt to adapt through &arious strategies o% control,control o% nature and o% people throu"h technolo"y and social or"ani?ation. #t is this attempt to control nature that separates us fro# it, that constitutes the core o% our alienation
replaced by the institutionali?ed conflict of center and periphery and between co#petin" centers*M of its for#ation and e#er"ence in the neolithichic, fro# it, and that beco#es the foundation for social de&elop#ent that includes patriarchy, class do#ination, statis#, and #ilitaris#* !hile #ost, but by no #eans all hu#an centered &alue syste#s eschew #ilitaris#, ci&ili?ation is held as a crownin" achie&e#ent* So#e &alue syste#s praise the #ilitary spirit, while the #ajority that conde#n it usually do so as a necessary e&il, i*e** they si#ultaneously justify it to one de"ree or another* he point to be #ade here is that ci&ili?ation is based upon and is constituted by relationships of do#ination that in&ariably and necessarily produce the conflict and ine6uality which #ake #ilitaris# ine&itable* >ertainly so#e hu#an-centered theory reco"ni?es aspects of the roots of #ilitaris#* and it reco"ni?es the terrible price hu#ans ha&e paid, e&en if i"norin" the price nature has paid* Fe&ertheless, critics #aintain a fer&ent faith in the hu#an #ission to #ana"e, in the hu#an ability to disentan"le what is ine1tricably linked* hey speak fro# within the perspecti&e of ci&ili?ation and cannot see that they #ust transcend the precarious "round on which they DweE teeter*M >ritical theory shares #uch in co##on with liberal theory in this area* So#e 2ar1ist analysis of the "enesis of #odern 2ilitaris# is sound* he notion that #any hu#an ills would be sol&ed with due end of class society is also appealin"* =ut the end of class is not the end of the state or of do#ination, and hence not the end of social syste#s which produce #ilitaris#* DFor is the end of capitalis# the end of class*E he control of nature and the hu#an control of social and cultural e&olution are &alues deeply e#bedded in #ost 2ar1is#* Althou"h it has de&eloped useful #odels for understandin" social transfor#ation, the assu#ptions, perspecti&e, and the content of the transfor#ati&e &ision arc &ery #uch within the hu#an-centered tradition that is part of the proble#*OM So#e fe#inis# "ets #uch closer to the source of the proble# in its cri- ti6ue of hierarchy "enerally and in particular in its understandin" of the central role of patriarchy to #ilitaris# and to producin" hu#ans a#enable to do#ination* At ti#es* howe&er, fe#inist theory falls into a kind of intraspecific dualis#, i*e*, hu#an #ales are the proble# Dwhile at the sa#e ti#e clai#in" credit for the fact that fe#ales created a"riculture, which beca#e the econo#ic foundation for the e#er"ence of hierarchyE, i"norin" that syste#s adapt to and alter the en&iron#ent, and indi&iduals adapt to De&en while they resistE the roles created by the syste#Os di&ision of labor*O <&en where this dualis# is not at issue, #ost fe#inis#, like 2ar1is#, re#ains hu#an-centered* Qalues such as co##unity, spontaneity, and inte"ration of e#otion and intellect #ilitate a"ainst the worst features of #ainstrea# hu#an-centered &alues, but still fail to take account a the re-lationship with nature as funda#ental to all hierarchical syste#s* Br they re#ain anthropocentric and fail to address the separation front nature which not only #akes possible the supere1ploitation of the biosphere for the #aintenance of the #ilitary apparatus* but also underlies the social structures which produce #ilitaris#* !hile 2ar1is#, fe#inis#, and other critical social theory ha&e contributed #uch to understandin" the dyna#ic of our ci&ili?ation, they tend to #iss the point that if nonhu#an life is not &alued for itself, then life is not &alued for itself* Any syste# of &alues that does not transcend nature-as-other cannot li#it destruction of the biosphere as effecti&ely as one that e#braces nonhu#an life as intrinsically &aluable* For can such a &alue syste# help to heal the funda#ental split in the hu#an psyche which #akes possible ci&ili?ation and #ilitaris#* =iocentris# is not alone in "raspin" that the dyna#ic of hu#an e&olution o&er the last si1 or se&en thousand years #ay be at a dead end* >ertainly the hu"e "rowth in hu#an nu#bers* the displace#ent of Msi#plerM societies by #ore Mco#ple1M ones, ones with "reater capacity to e1ploit nature, capture and use ener"y, and so on su""ests that the underlyin" dyna#ic is hi"hly adapti&e, at least at first "lance* !hat is increasin"ly clear* howe&er, is that if this dyna#ic continues we stand a &ery "ood chance of killin" oursel&es alon" with a "ood portion of the rest of the planet* he latter is well under way,itOs business as usual* =iocentris# offers a direction for hu#an society based upon a thorou"hly funda#ental transfor#ation which stresses the centrality of findin" our place in nature* Such a transfor#ation is as funda#ental as the neolithic or industrial re&olutions* A life-centered or planet-centered &alue syste# re6uires that we #o&e

toward transcendin" the split with nature both within our own psyches and in our #aterial relationships$ how we consu#e and alter the biosphere* 0ar fewer hu#ans, far lower le&els of consu#ption for #any* #uch i#pro&ed le&els
for others, the recreation of authentic co##unitics that reinte"rate the hu#an into the natural, and the abandon#ent of the instru##entalities of control,these are a few of the i#plications of such an ethic* In contrast$ a human&centered

approach %ocuses on wiser if not "reater human control* In its #ore pro"ressi&e for#s we hear words like

stewardship rather than ownership@ ne&ertheless, underlyin" both is the notion that we can replace nature with our intellect* that we can #ana"e our way out of any proble#s, that !e as a species are not only uni6ue Das e&ery species and ecosyste# isE, but that our uni6ueness #eans we are "odlike, better than the others* In short, it is the same arrogance. the same split

that has brought us to the current crisis.

1! -#22#>? ?on&human animals in the @, alone are slaughtered on the altar o% anthropocentrism in %actory %arms1 A thats million by the end o% this debate. And the cruel deaths they %ace are at least a reprieve %rom a li%e o% disease$ torture$ %orced impregnation$ and dismemberment. Blobally the number o% animals killed %or is more than C T#DE, the E?T#RE human population. ,peciesism goes %ar beyond slaughterhouses. #t can only be described as a vast apparatus o% genocide and war against the non&human. #t is one rendered power%ul by its invisibility$ the backdrop to any aspect o% social or political li%e. T8#, is TR@E structural violence. The Role o% Four -allot #s 2iberatory ,cholarship as Animal ,tandpoint Theory Anthropocentrism is T8E *oundational 8ierarchy that structures all others 4Their 8umanist Politics Gooms @s To a *uture That Endlessly Repeats the >ppression o% the ,tatus Huo.
Ste&en -est, >hair of Philosophy at H -<P, +C!C G5>AS 7*+I
!hile a welco#e ad&ance o&er the anthropocentric conceit that only hu#ans shape hu#an actions, the en&iron#ental deter#inis# approach typically fails to e#phasi?e the crucial role that animals play in hu#an history, as well as how the hu#an exploitation of animals is a key cause of hierarchy, social conflict, and en&iron#ental breakdown* A core thesis of what I call ani#al

standpoint theory' is that ani#als ha&e been key dri&in" and shaping forces of hu#an thou"ht, psycholo"y, #oral and social life, and history o&erall* 2ore specifically, ani#al standpoint theory ar"ues that the oppression of human o&er hu#an has deep roots in the oppression of hu#an o&er animal* In this conte1t, >harles Patterson/s recent book, he <ternal reblinka$ Bur reat#ent of Ani#als and the Holocaust, articulates the ani#al standpoint in a powerful for# with re&olutionary i#plications* he #ain ar"u#ent of <ternal reblinka is that the hu#an do#ination of ani#als, such as it e#er"ed so#e ten thousand years a"o with the rise of a"ricultural society, was the first hierarchical do#ination and laid the "roundwork for patriarchy, sla&ery, warfare, "enocide, and other syste#s of &iolence and power* A key i#plication of Patterson/s theory is that hu#an liberation is i#plausible if disconnected fro# ani#al liberation, and thus hu#anis# -- a speciesist philosophy that constructs a hierarchal relationship pri&ile"in" superior hu#ans o&er inferior ani#als and reduces ani#als to resources for hu#an use -- collapses under the wei"ht of its lo"ical contradictions* Patterson lays out his co#ple1 holistic ar"u#ent in three parts* In Part I, he de#onstrates that ani#al e1ploitation and
speciesis# ha&e direct and profound connections to sla&ery, colonialis#, racis#, and anti-Se#itis#* In Part II, he shows how these connections e1ist not only in the real# of ideolo"y ; as conceptual syste#s of justifyin" and underpinnin" do#ination and hierarchy ; but also in syste#s of technolo"y, such that the tools and techni6ues hu#ans de&ised for the rationali?ed #ass confine#ent and slau"hter of ani#als were #obili?ed a"ainst hu#an "roups for the sa#e ends* 0inally, in the fascinatin" inter&iews and narrati&es of Part III, Patterson describes how personal e1perience with Ger#an Fa?is# pro#pted 5ewish to take antithetical paths$ whereas #ost retreated to an insular identity and do"#atic e#phasis on the sin"ularity of Fa?i e&il and its tra"ic e1perience, others reco"ni?ed the profound si#ilarities between how Fa?is treated their hu#an capti&es and how hu#anity as a whole treats other ani#als, an epiphany that led the# to adopt &e"etarianis#, to beco#e ad&ocates for the ani#als, and de&elop a far broader and #ore inclusi&e ethic infor#ed by uni&ersal co#passion for all sufferin" and oppressed bein"s* he Bri"ins of Hierarchy MAs lon" as #en #assacre ani#als, they will kill each otherM ;Pytha"oras It is little understood that the first for# of oppression, do#ination, and hierarchy in&ol&es hu#an do#ination o&er ani#als Patterson/s thesis stands in bold contrast to the 2ar1ist theory that the do#ination o&er nature is funda#ental to the do#ination o&er other hu#ans* It differs as well fro# the social ecolo"y position of 2urray =ookchin that do#ination o&er hu#ans brin"s about alienation fro# the natural world, pro&okes hierarchical #indsets and institutions, and is the root of the lon"-standin" western "oal to do#inate'

:=elsandia, An Ani al 8esearch 6roup, h##p:>>www.'elsandia.co >0ac#or/+0ar in*.h# l 2 =es# ?@ 7.idence

nature* In the case of 2ar1ists, anarchists, and so #any others, theorists typically don/t e&en #ention hu#an do#ination of ani#als, let alone assi"n it causal pri#acy or si"nificance* In Patterson/s #odel, howe&er, the hu#an subju"ation of ani#als is the first for# of hierarchy and it pa&es the way for all other syste#s of do#ination such as include patriarchy, racis#, colonialis#, anti-Se#itis#, and the Holocaust* As he puts it, the e1ploitation of ani#als was the #odel and inspiration for the atrocities people co##itted a"ainst each other, sla&ery and the Holocaust bein" but two of the #ore dra#atic e1a#ples*' Hierarchy e#er"ed with the rise of a"ricultural society so#e ten thousand years a"o* In the shift fro# no#adic huntin" and "atherin" bands to settled a"ricultural practices, hu#ans be"an to establish their do#inance o&er ani#als throu"h do#estication*' In

hu#ans be"an to e1ploit ani#als for purposes such as hu#ans bred the# for desired traits and controlled the# in &arious ways, such as castratin" #ales to #ake the# #ore docile* o con6uer, ensla&e, and clai# ani#als as their own property, hu#ans de&eloped nu#erous technolo"ies, such as pens, ca"es, collars, ropes, chains, and brandin" irons* he do#ination of ani#als pa&ed the way for the do#ination of hu#ans* he se1ual subju"ation of wo#en, Patterson su""ests, was #odeled after the do#estication of ani#als, such that #en be"an to control wo#en/s reproducti&e capacity, to enforce repressi&e se1ual nor#s, and to rape the# as they forced breedin" in their ani#als* Fot coincidentally, Patterson ar"ues, sla&ery e#er"ed in the sa#e re"ion of the 2iddle <ast that spawned a"riculture, and, in fact, de&eloped as an e1tension of ani#al do#estication practices* In areas like Su#er, sla&es were #ana"ed like li&estock, and #ales were castrated and forced to work alon" with fe#ales* In the fifteenth century, when <uropeans be"an the coloni?ation of Africa and Spain introduced the first international sla&e #arkets, the #etaphors, #odels, and technolo"ies used to e1ploit ani#al sla&es were applied with e6ual cruelty and force to hu#an sla&es* Stealin" Africans fro# their nati&e en&iron#ent and ho#eland, breakin" up fa#ilies who screa# in an"uish, wrappin" chains around sla&es/ bodies, shippin" the# in cra#ped 6uarters across continents for weeks or #onths with no re"ard for their needs or sufferin", brandin" their skin with a hot iron to #ark the# as property, auctionin" the# as ser&ants, breedin" the# for ser&ice and labor, e1ploitin" the# for profit, beatin" the# in ra"es of hatred and an"er, and killin" the# in &ast nu#bers ; all these horrors and countless others inflicted on black sla&es were de&eloped and perfected centuries earlier throu"h ani#al e1ploitation* As the do#estication of
ani#al do#estication Doften a euphe#is# dis"uisin" coercion and crueltyE, obtainin" food, #ilk, clothin", plowin", and transportation* As they "ained increasin" control o&er the li&es and labor power of ani#als, ani#als de&eloped in a"ricultural society, hu#ans lost the inti#ate connections they once had with ani#als* =y the ti#e of Aristotle, certainly, and with the bi"oted assistance of #edie&al theolo"ians such as St* Au"ustine and ho#as A6uinas, western hu#anity had de&eloped an e1plicitly hierarchical world&iew ; that ca#e to be known as the Great >hain of =ein"' ; used to position hu#ans as the end to which all other bein"s were #ere #eans* Patterson underscores the crucial point that the do#ination of hu#an o&er hu#an and its e1ercise throu"h sla&ery, warfare, and "enocide typically be"ins with the deni"ration of &icti#s* =ut the #eans and #ethods of dehu#ani?ation are deri&ati&e, for speciesis# pro&ided the conceptual paradi"# that encoura"ed, sustained, and justified western brutality toward other peoples* hrou"hout the history of our ascent to do#inance as the #aster species,' Patterson writes, our &icti#i?ation of ani#als has ser&ed as the #odel and foundation for our &icti#i?ation of each other* he study of hu#an history re&eals the pattern$ first, hu#ans e1ploit and slau"hter ani#als@ then, they treat other people like ani#als and do the sa#e to the#*' !hether the con6uerors are <uropean i#perialists, A#erican colonialists, or Ger#an Fa?is, western a""ressors en"a"ed in wordplay before swordplay, &ilifyin" their &icti#s ; Africans, Fati&e A#ericans, 0ilipinos, 5apanese, Qietna#ese, Ira6is, and other unfortunates ; with opprobrious ter#s

Bnce percei&ed as brute beasts or sub-hu#ans occupyin" a lower e&olutionary run" than white westerners, subju"ated peoples were treated accordin"ly@ once characteri?ed as ani#als, they could be hunted down like ani#als* he first e1iles fro# the #oral co##unity, ani#als pro&ided a con&enient discard bin for oppressors to dispose the oppressed * he connections are clear$ 0or a ci&ili?ation built on the e1ploitation and slau"hter of ani#als, the Rlower/ and #ore de"raded the hu#an &icti#s are, the easier it is to kill the#*' hus, colonialis#, as Patterson describes, was a natural e1tension of hu#an supre#acy o&er the ani#al kin"do#* 0or just as hu#ans had
such as rats,' pi"s,' swine,' #onkeys,' beasts,' and filthy ani#als*' subdued ani#als with their superior intelli"ence and technolo"ies, so #any <uropeans belie&ed that the white race had pro&en its superiority by brin"in" the lower races' under its co##and* here are i#portant parallels between speciesis# and se1is# and racis# in the ele&ation of white #ale rationality to the touchstone of #oral worth* he ar"u#ents <uropean colonialists used to le"iti#ate e1ploitin" Africans ; that they were less than hu#an and inferior to white <uropeans in ability to reason ; are the &ery sa#e justifications hu#ans use to trap, hunt, confine, and kill ani#als*

Bnce western nor#s of rationality were defined as the essence of hu#anity and social nor#ality, by first usin" nonhu#an ani#als as the #easure of alterity, it was a short step to be"in &iewin" odd, different, e1otic, and eccentric peoples and types as non- or sub-hu#an* hus, the sa#e criterion created to e1clude ani#als fro# hu#ans was also used to ostraci?e blacks, wo#en, and nu#erous other "roups fro# hu#anity*' he oppression of blacks, wo#en, and ani#als alike was "rounded in an ar"u#ent that biolo"ical inferiority predestined the# for ser&itude* In the #ajor strain of western thou"ht, alle"ed rational bein"s Di*e*, elite, white, western #alesE pronounce that the Bther Di*e*, wo#en, people of color, ani#alsE is deficient in rationality in ways crucial to their nature and status, and therefore are dee#ed and treated as inferior, subhu#an, or nonhu#an* !hereas the racist #indset creates a hierarchy of superiorJinferior on the basis of skin color, and the se1ist #entality splits #en and wo#en into "reater and lower classes of bein"s, the speciesist outlook de#eans and objectifies ani#als by dichoto#i?in" the biolo"ical continuu# into the antipodes of hu#ans and ani#als* As racis#
ste#s fro# a hateful white supre#acis#, and se1is# is the product of a bi"oted #ale supre#acis#, so speciesis# ste#s fro# and infor#s a &iolent hu#an supre#acis# -- na#ely, the arro"ant belief that hu#ans ha&e a natural or God-"i&en ri"ht to use ani#als for any purpose they de&ise or, #ore "enerously, within the #oral boundaries of welfaris# and stewardship, which howe&er was 5udaic #oral ba""a"e official >histianithy left behind*

oo #any people with pretences to ethics, co#passion, decency, justice, lo&e, and other stellar &alues of hu#anity at its finest resist the profound analo"ies between ani#al and hu#an sla&ery and ani#al and hu#an

holocausts, in order to de&alue or tri&iali?e ani#al sufferin" and a&oid the responsibility of the wei"hty #oral issues confrontin" the#* he moral myopia of hu#anis# is blatantly e&ident when people who ha&e been &icti#i?ed by &iolence and oppression decry the fact that they were treated like ani#als' ; as if it is acceptable to brutali?e ani#al, but not hu#ans* If there is a
salient disanalo"y or discontinuity between the tyrannical po"ro#s launched a"ainst ani#als and hu#ans, it lies not in the fallacious assu#ption that ani#als do not suffer physical and #ental pain si#ilar to hu#ans, but rather that ani#als suffer #ore than

hu#ans, both 6uantitati&ely Dthe intensity of their torture, such as they endure in fur far#s, factory far#s, and e1peri#ental laboratoriesE and 6ualitati&ely Dthe nu#ber of those who suffer and dieE* And while few oppressed hu#an "roups lack #oral backin", so#eti#es on an international scale, one finds not #ass solidarity with ani#als but rather #ass consu#ption of the#* As another Fobel Pri?e writer in %iterature, South African no&elist writer 5* 2* >oet?ee, forcefully stated$ %et #e say it
openly$ we are surrounded by an enterprise of de"radation, cruelty, and killin" which ri&als anythin" the hird Reich was capable of, indeed dwarfs it, in that ours is an enterprise without end, self-re"eneratin", brin"in" rabbits, rats, poultry, li&estock ceaselessly into the world for the purpose of killin" the#*'39 <&ery year, throu"hout the world, o&er 47 billion far#ed ani#als

currently are killed for food consu#ption*3) his sta""erin" nu#ber is nearly eight times the present human population* In the HS alone, o&er (C billion ani#als are killed each year for food consu#ption ; +9 #illion each day,
nearly (:,CCC per #inute* Bf the (C billion land ani#als killed each year in the HS, o&er : billion are chickens@ e&ery day in the HS, +3 #illion chickens are killed for hu#an consu#ption, +8: per second* In addition to the billions of land ani#als consu#ed, hu#ans also kill and consu#e )7 billion #arine ani#als D(9 billion in the HSE*3: =illions #ore ani#als die in the na#e of science, entertain#ent, sport, or fashion Di*e*, the leather, fur, and wool industriesE, or on hi"hways as &icti#s of cars and trucks* 2oreo&er,

e&er #ore ani#al species &anish fro# the earth as we enter the si1th "reat e1tinction crisis in the planet/s history, this one caused by hu#an not natural e&ents, the last one occurrin" 87 #illion years a"o
with the de#ise of the dinosaurs and :CS of all species on the planet* It is thus appropriate to recall the sayin" by <n"lish cler"y#an and writer, !illia# Ralph In"e, to the effect that$ M!e ha&e ensla&ed the rest of the ani#al creation, and ha&e treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to for#ulate a reli"ion, they would depict the De&il in hu#an for#*M >o##onalities of Bppression >o#passion, in which all ethics #ust take root, can only attain its full breadth and depth if it e#braces all li&in" creatures and does not li#it itself to hu#ankind*' Albert Schweit?er he ani#als of the world e1ist for their own reasons* hey were not #ade for hu#ans any #ore than black people were #ade for white, or wo#en created for #en*' Alice !alker he construction of industrial stockyards, the total objectification of nonhu#an ani#als, and the #echani?ed #urder of innocent bein"s should ha&e sounded a loud warnin" to hu#anity that such a process #i"ht one day be applied to the#, as it was in Fa?i Ger#any* If hu#ans had not e1ploited ani#als, #oreo&er, they #i"ht not ha&e e1ploited hu#ans, or, at the &ery least, they would not ha&e had handy conceptual #odels and technolo"ies for enforcin" do#ination o&er others* A better understandin" of these connections,' Patterson states, should help #ake our planet a #ore hu#ane and li&able place for all of us ; people and ani#als alike, A new awareness is essential for the sur&i&al of our endan"ered planet*'4C he #ost i#portant objecti&e of the book, indeed, is to pro#ote a new ethics and #ode of perception* <ternal reblinka affects a radical shift in the way we

understand oppression, do#ination, power, and hierarchy* It is both an effect of these chan"es, and, hopefully, a catalyst to deepen political resistance to corporate do#ination and hierarchy in all for#s* Gi&en its broad fra#in" that hi"hli"hts the crucial i#portance of hu#an do#ination o&er ani#als for sla&ery, racis#, colonialis#, and anti-Se#itis#, <ternal reblinka could and should re&olutioni?e fields such as Holocaust studies, colonial and postcolonial studies, and African A#erican studies* =ut this can happen only if, to be blunt, hu#anists, radicals,' and pro"ressi&es' in acade#ia and society in "eneral re#o&e their speciesist blinders in order to "rasp the enor#ity of ani#al sufferin", its #onu#ental #oral wron" in needless and unjustifiable e1ploitation of ani#als, and the lar"er structural #atri1 in which hu#an-o&er-hu#an do#ination and hu#an-o&er-ani#al do#ination e#er"e fro# the sa#e prejudiced, power-oriented, and patholo"ical &iolent #indset* Political resistance in western nations, abo&e all,
will ad&ance a 6uantu# leap when enou"h people reco"ni?e that the #o&e#ents for hu#an liberation, ani#al liberation, and earth liberation are so deeply interconnected that no one objecti&e is possible without the reali?ation of the others* A truly

re&olutionary social theory and #o&e#ent seeks to e#ancipate #e#bers of one species fro# oppression, but rather all species and the earth itself fro# the "rip of hu#an do#ination and coloni?ation* A future re&olutionary #o&e#ent' worthy of the na#e will "rasp the ancient roots of hierarchy, such as took shape with the e#er"ence of a"ricultural societies, and incorporate a new ethics of nature that o&erco#es instru#entalis# and hierarchies of all for#s*4( Hu#anis# is a
for# of prejudice, bias, bi"otry, and destructi&e supre#acis#@ it is a stale, anti6uated, i##ature, and dysfunction do"#a@ it is a for# of funda#entalis#, deri&ed fro# the >hurch of Reason' and, in co#parison with the &ast li&in" web of life still hu##in" and interactin", howe&er tattered and da#a"ed, it is, writ lar"e, a tribal #orality ; in which killin" a #e#ber of your own tribe' is wron" but any barbarity unleashed on another tribe is acceptable if not laudable* Hlti#ately, hu#anis# is pseudo-uni&ersalis#, a

Tantian 6uackery, a

hypocritical pretense to ethics, a dysfunctional hu#an identity and cos#olo"ical #ap helpin" to dri&e us e&er-deeper into an e&olutionary cul-de-sac*

The alternative is an identi%ication with species&being4disrupting the ethical e)ceptionalism o% humanism.

8udson !!I %aura, Grad student in >ultural Studies at H>-Da&is he Political Ani#al$ Species-=ein" and =are %ife' Mediations Sprin" +3*+$ http$JJwww*#ediationsjournal*or"JarticlesJthe-political-ani#al
In his discussion of reli"ion, 2ar1 ar"ues that the reco"nition of reli"ion as the alienated self-consciousness of hu#an bein"s allows hu#ans to know' the#sel&es$ I therefore know #y own self, the self-consciousness that belon"s to its &ery nature, confir#ed not in reli"ion but rather in annihilated and superseded reli"ion*'37 2ar1 ar"ues that He"el/s ne"ation of the ne"ation, which is to lead in a positi&e pro"ression toward the Absolute, is actually the ne"ation of pseudo-essence, not true essence$ A peculiar role, therefore, is played by the act of supersedin" in which denial and preser&ation , denial and affir#ation , are bound to"ether*'38 Reli"ion is the #isreco"ni?ed, abstract, and alienated for# of hu#an self-consciousness* In reco"ni?in" this, and in supersedin" it, a better understandin" of hu#an self-consciousness and potentiality is re&ealed* Rather than waitin" for reward in the ne1t life, we #ust chan"e our li&es in the #aterial world* Reli"ion is a hu#an construct, not a force fro# outside* Hu#anis# appears as the annul#ent of reli"ion, but it, too, re#ains an abstraction until brou"ht into relation with the natural world* <1trapolatin" fro# 2ar1 here, we #i"ht say that the concept of the hu#an' occupies the sa#e space in our conceptual fra#ework as reli"ion does$ he supersession of the concept of the hu#an as an essence based in a political identity, or e&en an anti-naturalis#, re6uires that we reco"ni?e that the concept is the result of the alienation of hu#an bein"s fro# their sensual, li&in" sel&es$ the concept of the hu#an' is not the thin"-in-itself* Fature as presented in He"el was only the alienated for# of the Absolute and, as such, re#ained an abstraction of thou"ht* 2ar1 ar"ues that we #ust co#e to reco"ni?e the sensual reality of nature and the supersession of the abstract thou"ht-entity* As ele#ents of nature oursel&es, we #ust #o&e beyond the abstract for#s throu"h which we reco"ni?e oursel&es and co#e to ter#s with the fact that we are natural, sensual bein"s, ani#als who #ay be capti&ated, who #ay also be processed, objectified, reified thin"s as well as transcendent bein"s* In bare life, perhaps, we find the first #o#ent of this supersession$ Hnder #odern capitalist so&erei"nty, we are all e6ually abandoned by the law we ha&e created

to free us fro# nature* !e are all e6ually reduced to #ere speci#ens of hu#an biolo"y, #ute and unco#prehendin" of the world in which we are thrown* Species-bein", or hu#anity as a species,' #ay re6uire this reco"nition to #o&e beyond the pseudo-essence of the reli"ion of hu#anis#* Reco"ni?in" that what we call the hu#an' is an abstraction that fails to fully describe what we are, we #ay co#e to find a new way of understandin" hu#anity that recuperates the natural without do#ination* he bare life that results fro# e1pulsion fro# the law re#o&es e&en the illusion of freedo#* Re"ardless of one/s location in production, the threat of losin" e&en the fiction of citi?enship and freedo#
affects e&eryone* his #ay create new #eans of or"ani?in" resistance across the particular di&isions of society* 0urther#ore, the concept of bare life allows us to "esture toward a #ore detailed, concrete idea of what species-bein" #ay look like* A"a#ben hints that in the reco"nition of this fact, that in our essence we are all ani#als, that we are all li&in"

dead, #i"ht reside the possibility of a kind of rede#ption* Rather than the #ystical hori?on of a future co##unity, the passa"e to species-bein" #ay be e1perienced as a depri&ation, a loss of identity* Species-bein" is not #erely a positi&e result of the de&elop#ent of history@ it is e6ually the absence of #any of the features of hu#anity' throu"h which we ha&e learned to #ake sense of our world* It is an absence of the kind of indi&iduality and ato#is# that structure our world under capitalis# and underlie liberal de#ocracy, and which continue to infor# the tenets of deep ecolo"y* he de&elop#ent of species-bein" re6uires the collapse of the distinction between hu#an and ani#al in order to chan"e the shape of our relationships with the natural world* A true speciesbein" depends on a sort of reconciliation between our hu#an' and ani#al' sel&es, a breakdown of the distinction between the two both within oursel&es and in nature in "eneral* =are life would then represent not only e1pulsion fro# the law but the possibility of its o&erco#in"* Positioned in the ?one of indistinction, no lon"er a subject of the law but still subjected to it throu"h absence, what we e6ui&ocally call the hu#an' in "eneral beco#es &irtually indistin"uishable fro# the ani#al or nature* =ut throu"h this e1pulsion and absence, we #ay see not only the law but the syste# of capitalis# that shapes it fro# a position no lon"er blinded or capti&ated by its spell* he structure of the law is re&ealed as always suspect in the false di&ision between natural and political life, which are ne&er truly separable* hou"h clearly the situation is not yet as dire as A"a#ben/s in&ocation of the Holocaust su""ests, we are all, as citi?ens, under the threat of the state of e1ception* !ith the decline of

with the#, the state/s pro#ise of the "ood life' Dor the "ood death'E e&en in the #ost de&eloped nations, with the weakenin" of labor as the bearer of resistance to e1ploitation, how are we to en&ision the future of politics and societyL
the nation as a for# of social or"ani?ation, the whittlin" away of ci&il liberties and,