Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida

by Matthew Calarco

Zoographies challenges the anthropocentrism of the Continental philosophical tradition and advances the position that, while some distinctions are valid, humans and animals are best viewed as part of an ontological whole. Matthew Calarco draws on ethological and evolutionary evidence and the work of Heidegger, who called for a radicalized responsibility toward all forms of life. He also turns to Levinas, who raised questions about the nature and scope of ethics; Agamben, who held the "anthropological machine" responsible for the horrors of the twentieth century; and Derrida, who initiated a nonanthropocentric ethics. Calarco concludes with a call for the abolition of classical versions of the human-animal distinction and asks that we devise new ways of thinking about and living with animals.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Animals, Ebooks, Theory, Essays, Science

169 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Matthew Calarco is Associate Professor of Philosophy at California State University Fullerton, USA.

Reviews

[Karl Steel]

Been a few months since I finished it, but I remember enough to highly recommend it for anyone doing work in animal theory. Unlike Acampora's Corporeal Compassion, Calarco really gets Agamben; unlike Leonard Lawlor's This is Not Sufficient, Calarco is not so deep into the questions that he's impossible to follow without the appropriate preparation (hint for Lawlor: Derrida's "There Is No One Narcissism (Autobiophotographies)" is essential reading); unlike Haraway's When Species Meet, Calarco is very, very efficient; unlike the various critical animal theory anthologies--Killing Animals, Zoontologies, Representing Animals, Philosophy & Animal Life--it's consistently of high quality; and unlike various special journal issues--I'm looking at you, PhaenEx Phenomenology and Animals issue--Calarco is more than willing to meet the reader halfway.

I've read no one who explains and engages better with Agamben's work on animals, and absolutely no one who does so in light of Agamben's whole philosophical career. That chapter alone is worth the book, but if you want a good treatment of Derrida, Levinas, and Heidegger--who have been treated time and time again, but in disparate places and intermixed with, say, American Cultural Studies (see: Cary Wolfe)--this is THE place to go.

[Barbara]

Last pages are disappointing, but it's a really good book.
PS Polski przekład niebawem :)

[Martin Rowe]

Calarco's book is a mercifully clear and thoughtfully compiled series of essays on the ways Heidegger Levinas, Agamben, and Derrida approach "the question of the animal". I especially appreciated Calarco's thorough and well-considered essay on Derrida, and how he asked the kinds of questions of this and other philosophers that analytic philosophy and those demanding a more obviously directive ethic sometimes feel that such philosophy frustrates: viz.: what do we DO then?! It helps to have a grasp of the lingo, but of the recent books I've read, this one is the clearest. It takes its time to unfurl its arguments and isn't concerned to show you just how clever it is at playing with language. Recommended.

[Khitkhite Buri]

Secondary literature is often such a bad guide, especially when they come from big name presses like these. The university really produces, huh? On that note, this is a "woke" book, tactical enough to think Nietzsche readings are 'strategic essentialisms' and standpoint enough to ask what 'position' Derrida takes.

[Rellac]

2.5/5
This book was assigned by a prof for a post human/animal course.
It definitely needed an editor. I got bogged down by trying to figure out the run on sentences and how many hands the writer had due to the use of "on the other hand" three times in one sentence.
There's philosophy and then there's overuse of philosophical terminology.
I think I finished it out of spite.

[John]

A handy survey filtered through broadly disgruntled, sieved tissue.

[Mattomic]

I'll never read this, but I had to add it after last year's hermeneutics class I took. This book should provide some good fodder on the phenomenologists' take on animals.

[Asher Woodworth]

Very interesting take on what the tradition could mean by "rational animal". This book is about the meanings that we make.