Derrida on Animals

This posts is something I am writing outside of class. So those who are interested in my blog pertaining to Engl243, please look at the blog below.

I have great respect for Derrida, and I don't mean to undermine him in anyway (for all you hardcore Derrida fans). But Jacques Derrida made a comment about the usage of the word 'animal' that I disagree with. I have a video of Derrida's discourse posted below.

Derrida's discourse on the word 'animal' seems to be an attack on categorization. Derrida says that the use of the word 'animal' is theoretically ridiculous and a stupid gesture because the different species of animals is so vast. To put monkeys and ants in the same category doesn't make sense because they are obviously different. The act of categorizing is a violent gesture, which influences the cruelty humans exercise towards other living creatures.

I would agree to some extent, that the misuse of the word 'animal' can invite or turn a blind eye to cruel treatment towards living creatures. Any misuse of language can invite hostile treatment. However, Derrida goes on to say that he tries not to use the word 'animal' in general, which is explained by his arguments in the above paragraph. Rather than saying animal, he would say "this type of animal," or "such and such an animal."

By this logic, saying "this type of animal" like an ant can be categorical since there are different species of ants. Therefore, you would have to point out the specific species of ant. But that can be categorical too, so we have to point out a specific ant. By this logic, saying 'human' is a misuse of language as well, since we do not distinguish between male or female, different races, and different ages. We cannot even refer to a race, since there are different individuals among the race.

My point is that categorizing is practical. That doesn't justify any cruelty exercised on animals , but to say that categorizing IS a 'violent act' is something I disagree with. Yes, categorizing CAN be a 'violent act,' as any misuse of language can invite cruel treatment. The word 'animal' refers to all living organisms with voluntary movement, which includes humans. Using the word 'animal' is practical (without hostile intent) if a subject wants to refer to a general idea of living organisms with voluntary movement. Referring to the Chinese race is practical (without hostile intent) if someone is talking about homosapiens who are from 'this' part of the world and adapt 'this' kind of culture.

Categories are how we identify ourselves and things. We begin to categorize things when we are infants, as it is a natural process of thinking about things. We can identify ourselves through categories. I am aware that I am not under the category of lions, nor Africans, nor White. The misuse of these categories can lead to violence, but in a general context it is a part of identity. Therefore, saying 'animal' in general is not a stupid gesture, but the misuse of the word is a stupid gesture.