dc.contributor.author | de Villiers, Jan-Harm | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-05-28T08:33:22Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-05-28T08:33:22Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.identifier.citation | De 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/v21i0a5320 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1727-3781 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10394/32449 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a5320 | |
dc.description.abstract | This 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.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | PER/PELJ | en_US |
dc.subject | Animal | en_US |
dc.subject | Animal rights theory | en_US |
dc.subject | animal ethics | en_US |
dc.subject | anthropocentrism | en_US |
dc.subject | deconstruction | en_US |
dc.subject | law and rights | en_US |
dc.subject | limitrophy | en_US |
dc.subject | metaphysics of subjectivity | en_US |
dc.title | Metaphysical Anthropocentrism, Limitrophy, and Responsibility: An Explication of the Subject of Animal Rights | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |