Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorde Villiers, Jan-Harm
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-28T08:33:22Z
dc.date.available2019-05-28T08:33:22Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationDe Villiers, J-H. 2018. Metaphysical Anthropocentrism, Limitrophy, and Responsibility: An Explication of the Subject of Animal Rights. PER / PELJ 2018(21) - DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a5320en_US
dc.identifier.issn1727-3781
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/32449
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a5320
dc.description.abstractThis article undertakes a critical analysis of subjectivity and exposes the metaphysical and anthropocentric quasi-transcendental conditions that give rise to the construct(ion) of the Subject. I locate a critical moment for the metaphysical Subject in the work of Martin Heidegger which, whilst sadly not sustained in his later writings, provides a point of departure for an examination of the significance that animality plays in the metaphysical tradition and its constitutive relation to the construct of subjectivity. I discern this relation to be violent and sacrificial and draw on Jacques Derrida's nonanthropocentric ethics against the background of Drucilla Cornell's ethical reading of deconstruction to construct a critique of approaches that assimilate animals to the traditional model of subjectivity in order to represent their identity and interests in the legal paradigm. The main argument that I seek to advance is that such an approach paradoxically re-constructs the classical humanist subject of metaphysics and re-establishes the subject-centred system that silences the call of the animal Other, thereby solidifying and extending the legitimacy of a discourse and mode of social regulation that is fundamentally anthropocentric. I examine how we can address, incapacitate and move beyond this schemata of power through a rigorous deconstruction of the partitions that institute the Subject and how deconstruction clears a space for a de novo determination of the animal "subject" that can proceed from different sites of nonanthropocentric interruption. What follows is a call to refuse the mechanical utilisation of traditional legal constructs and I argue in favour of an approach to the question of the animal (in law) that identifies and challenges anthropocentrism as its critical target. I ultimately propose a critical engagement with the underlying metaphysical support of animal rights at a conceptual level, rather than simply utilising the law pragmatically as an instrument of immediate resolution.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPER/PELJen_US
dc.subjectAnimalen_US
dc.subjectAnimal rights theoryen_US
dc.subjectanimal ethicsen_US
dc.subjectanthropocentrismen_US
dc.subjectdeconstructionen_US
dc.subjectlaw and rightsen_US
dc.subjectlimitrophyen_US
dc.subjectmetaphysics of subjectivityen_US
dc.titleMetaphysical Anthropocentrism, Limitrophy, and Responsibility: An Explication of the Subject of Animal Rightsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record