1 Research in Phenomenology Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 www.brill.nl/rp Derrida’s Cat (Who Am I?) Gerald L. Bruns University of Notre Dame Abstract rst of What is it to be seen (naked) by one’s cat? In “L’animal que donc je suis” (2006), the fi several lectures that he presented at a conference on the “autobiographical animal,” Jacques Der- rida tells of his discomfort when, emerging from his shower one day, he found himself being looked at by his cat. Th e experience leads him, by way of refl ections on the question of the ani- mal, to what is arguably the question of his philosophy: Who am I ? It is not so much that Derrida wants to answer this question as to be free of it. His task here is to determine the sense of it— erence between himself and where it leads, for example, when it comes to the nature of the diff his cat. Unlike animal rights activists (and unlike philosophers Martha Nussbaum and Cora Diamond, who have recently addressed this issue), Derrida does not want to erase this diff erence but wants to multiply it in order (among other things) to affi rm the absolute alterity or singular- ity of his cat, which cannot be subsumed by any category (such as the animal). His cat is an Other in a way that no human being (supposing there to be such a thing, which Derrida is not prepared to grant) could ever be. And here is where “the question who ?” leads as well, namely, to A Taste for the a path of escape from absorption into any identity-machine. As Derrida puts it in : Who am I when I am not one of you? In a hospitable world one would be free not to Secret answer. Keywords animal, who, autobiography, nonidentity, freedom, Derrida who . Call it biographical, I would say that for me the great question is always the question autobiographical or existential, the form of the question who is what matters to me, be it in, say, its Kierkegaardian, Nietzschean, or Heideggerian form. Who? Who asks the question who? Where? How? When? Who arrives? cult question, the irreduc- It is always the most diffi ibility of who to what , or the place where between who and what the limit trembles, in some way. It is clear that the who withdraws from or provokes the displacement of the categories in which biography, autobiography, and memoirs are thought. A Taste for the Secret Derrida, DOI: 10.1163/156916408X336765 © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008
2 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 405 e Naked Animal 1. Th ,” and what does who How exactly does Jacques Derrida address “the question is is what I would like to determine in this essay. My concern he make of it? Th here is with a late but characteristically exorbitant and playful text, “L’animal que donc je suis” ( rst of several lectures LAN 15–79/ANT 369–418), the fi that Derrida presented at a conference on the “autobiographical animal” held at Cérisy-la-Salle in 1997, in which he tells of his discomfort when, emerging 1 What from his shower one day, he found himself being looked at by his cat. sort of event is this? We’ve been told what it is to be seen by someone else— this, says Sartre, is how we know there are other subjects , and it is also how we know what it is to be an object, which means feeling the debasement of being a mere thing. More precisely (says Sartre), it means that suddenly my con- sciousness, which so far had been intentional and unrefl ective—that is, of the But becoming a self in world and of things in it—is now inhabited by a . self this way is, paradoxically, a form of alienation. Being seen by another, I fall out of the world that heretofore had been mine: “If there is an Other, whatever or whoever he may be, whatever may be his relations with me, and without his acting upon me in any way except by the pure upsurge of his being—then I nature have an outside, I have a . My original fall is the existence of the Other. Shame—like pride—is the apprehension of myself as a nature although that very nature escapes me and is unknowable as such” ( BN 344–53). So what am I? Or, more exactly, since my nature “escapes me and is unknowable as such,” Who am I? Th is is the regulating question of “L’animal que donc je suis” and of my eff ort at a commentary on this text. Th e interesting question, as we shall see, is whether, for Derrida, the question “Who am I?” has any sort of answer. I will try to settle this problem in the last section of this essay. But before that we need to know what “L’animal que donc je suis” is about. LD 100), Derrida’s experience of the gaze As Herman Rapaport has suggested ( of his cat is a kind of parody of Sartre’s story of the look. Derrida writes: 1) Papers for the entire conference were published under the title, L’animal autobiographique: autour de Jacques Derrida (Paris: Galilée; 1999). Derrida’s lectures (nearly ten hours’ worth) con- sist of, among other things, close readings of philosophical texts on “the animal” from Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant to Heidegger, Levinas, and Lacan. See Cary Wolfe’s discussion of Derrida on the animal in Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Th eory , 44–97. See appended lists for complete citations of referenced works and abbreviations.
3 406 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 who I am [qui je suis]—and who I am (following) at the I often ask myself, just to see, ] when, caught naked, in silence, by the gaze of an moment [ et qui je suis au moment animal, for example the eyes of a cat, I have trouble, yes, a bad time overcoming my embarrassment. Whence this malaise [ ce mal ]? I have trouble repressing a refl ex dictated by immodesty. Trouble keeping silent within nding oneself me a protest against the indecency. Against the impropriety that comes of fi naked, one’s sex exposed, stark naked before a cat that looks at you without moving, just to see. Th e impropriety [ malséance ] of a certain animal nude before the other animal, from animalséance that point on one might call it a kind of : the single, incomparable and origi- nal experience of the impropriety that would come from appearing in truth naked, in front of the insistent gaze of the animal, a benevolent or pitiless gaze, surprised or cogni- zant. Th e gaze of a seer, visionary, or extra-lucid blind person. It is as if I were ashamed, therefore, naked in front of this cat, but also ashamed for being ashamed. A refl ected shame, the mirror of a shame ashamed of itself, a shame that is at the same time specular, unjustifi able, and unable to be admitted to. At the optical center of this refl ection would appear this thing—and in my eyes the focus of this incomparable experience—that is called nudity. And about which it is believed that it is proper to man, that is to say, foreign to the animals, naked as they are, or so it is thought, without the slightest inkling of being so. ( LAN 18/ANT 372–73) Derrida in this moment is caught by surprise—surprised, not just by his cat, but by his embarrassment, the unexpected shame of his nudity before the cat (as if the cat could care!). Someone, not wanting to embarrass a naked human being, would perhaps look away, pretending not to see; a lover, for whom nudity could have its attractions, might look him or her in the eye, or up and down. But what can a cat know—or, for all of that, what can we know about a cat? Anyway Derrida’s sense of shame is doubled: imagine anyone, much less guardian of rationality), being embarrassed by a a philosopher (that sealed-off Who am I at this moment? Who cat. Hence Derrida’s question: am I that I should experience myself (and my cat) in this way? Of course, what Derrida experiences is, fi rst of all, just his own fl esh, being in the fl esh, “naked as an animal [ bête ]” ( LAN 19/ANT 373), but also more naked, since an animal cannot (or so we are told) experience its own nudity, or animality: “In principle [but not in fact?], with the exception of man, no animal has ever thought to dress itself. Clothing would be proper to man, one of the ‘properties’ of man. Dressing oneself would be inseparable from all the other forms of what is proper to man, even if one talks about it less than speech or reason, the logos , history, laughing, mourning, burial, the gift, and so on” ( LAN 19/ANT 373). To which Derrida adds a parentheses: (“Th e list of properties unique to man always forms a confi guration, from the fi rst moment. For that reason, it can never be limited to a single trait and it is never
4 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 407 LAN 19/ANT 373]). Th closed” [ at is, there is no one thing that sets us apart , just as there is no bestiality from animals, unless perhaps it is our occasional animal as such : this is one of Derrida’s major theses in this such thing as the text—as it has been elsewhere, in diff erent forms, as in the various elucidations érance , where the idea is not so much to clarify (or obscure) diff erences diff of e many (you and me, for example) are others of each as to diversify them. Th other, but not of any One. To be sure: “Th LAN 19/ANT 374). Th ere is ere is no nudity ‘in nature’” ( esh and the experience of fl fl esh (cold, pain, hunger, desire) but not embarrass- ment or shame, that is (presumably), no experience of being naked. If so, of course, the joke is that if the cat had not looked at the naked Derrida, he (Der- e gaze of rida) would have remained (like) an animal, unaware of his nudity. Th the cat is what makes him human—a point on which Derrida ruminates (and to which he will implicitly return later in this text in his reading of Genesis): “Before the cat that looks at me naked, would I be ashamed like an animal that no longer has the sense of nudity? Or on the contrary, like a man who retains the sense of his nudity? Who am I therefore? [ Qui suis-je alors? ] Who is it that Qui est-ce que je suis? LAN 20/ANT 374). I am (following)? [ ]” ( Who am I ? What is the sense of this question? Derrida does not say (here), the but for him, “autobiographical animal,” obsessed (as he confesses) with memory, “Who am I?” is perhaps the question of his philosophy or at all events of his elusive way of thinking—or of his elusive way of thinking of himself, as when he says, in A Taste for the Secret , “I am not one of the family”: “‘I am not one of the family’ means: do not consider me ‘one of you,’ ‘don’t count me in,’ I want to keep my freedom, always: this, for me, is the condition not only for being singular and other, but also for entering into relation with the singular- ity and alterity of others” ( TS 27). Perhaps even the singularity and alterity of his cat. 2. Th e Other Cat ( l’autre absolu ) Who am I (if I am not one of you, whoever you are)? Framed this way, it appears that, at the very least, the question who aims to overturn the rule of identity or the rule of the concept. Derrida’s wide-ranging (digressive) refl ec- tions on his cat, on his relation with the animal-other, and on the way this relation alters his self-relation (including the whole business of being called “human,” or of being an “I”) are his way of allowing this question to do its unsettling work. For a start we should notice that Derrida asks pointedly
5 408 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 who , not a (EW 96–119). In the same spirit he says: “I must about a what make it clear from the start, the cat I am talking about is a real cat, truly, little fi believe me, a of a cat. It doesn’t silently enter the gure cat. It isn’t the room as an allegory for all the cats on earth, the felines that traverse myths and ere are so many of them. Th e cat I am talking religions, literature and fables. Th about does not belong to Kafka’s vast zoopoetics, something that nevertheless LAN 20/ANT solicits attention, endlessly and from a novel perspective” ( e cat in question is a 374). No beast-fable homonizations. Th cat, singular Derrida’s cat, not a stand-in and interpreter from a philosopher’s point of view, not a cat like one of Baudelaire’s or Rilke’s—although, by way of com- literary parison or contrast, Rilke’s famous “Schwarz Katze” would have been worth a ection. Recall how she lies there, indiff erent to your look, until: moment’s refl —auf einmal kehrt sie, wie geweckt, ihr Gesicht und mitten in das deine: und da triff st du deinen Blick im geelen Amber ihrer runden Augenstein unerwartet wieder: eingeschlossen wie ein ausgestorbenes Insekt. [—all at once as if awakened, she turns her face to yours; and with a shock, you see yourself, tiny, inside the golden amber of her eyeballs SP 64–65) suspended, like a prehistoric insect.] ( But there is no metaphor in the look of Derrida’s cat, no embodiment of sinis- ter felinity. Derrida’s cat, like the naked philosopher himself, is a , not a who what —one wonders why Derrida does not tell us his cat’s name, but only that it is a little cat. Perhaps the reason is that they encounter one another at the level of the singular and irreducible, not as man and animal, nor even at the level of the proper name, but face-to-face. But can one’s cat (any cat) really enter into such a relation? “How can an LAN 24/ANT 377). After all, animal look you in the face?” Derrida asks ( according to psychoanalytic theory, an animal cannot even look itself in the face, since when it looks in a mirror (presumably we know this from experi- ence), there is no experience of recognition, which is to say no formation of a 2 Likewise Heidegger in says: “man is the What is Called Th inking? subject. 2) See Jacques Lacan, “Th e Mirror Phase as Formative of the Function of the I,” in Ecrits: A Selec- tion , 1. In contrast to the human infant, a monkey, according to Lacan, takes no interest in its
6 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 409 animal that confronts face-to-face. A mere animal, such as a dog, never con- fronts anything, it can never confront anything to do so, the animal to its face ; 3 As if, like Dracula, an animal were ” ( 61). itself WI would have to perceive Th e orthodox thesis is, as Derrida says, that the animal is invisible to mirrors. react , but not to able to , to what it sees. But it is just this thesis that, respond by way of the “unsubstitutable singularity” of his cat ( 26/ANT 378), LAN Derrida wants to contest, and he does so by mapping onto his cat-encounter (something like) the ethical relation described by Emmanuel Levinas. (I say, , because, as Matthew Calarco reminds us [DI 182], Levinas something like does not really think animals have faces, either.) No doubt, says Derrida, I am in advance of my cat, following or succeeding it on the scale of creation or evolution, superior to it in every respect (except perhaps its imperturbability), but here and now my relation to this cat is one proximity , which is what the term face-to-face means: not an objective rela- of tion of cognition and representation, but a relation of touching and being- touched, a relation of responsiveness and responsibility, which for Levinas is very much a relation of skin-to-skin. So one can say that Derrida, standing there naked, is in a Levinasian (that is, accusative) situation vis-à-vis his cat. As he says, “[my cat] can look at me. It has its point of view regarding me. Th e point of view of the absolute other, and nothing will have ever done more to make me think through this absolute alterity of the neighbor than these LAN 28/ moments when I see myself seen naked under the gaze of a cat” ( image, which is to say no self-image ever forms. In other words, an animal cannot become a subject—cannot traverse the boundary between the imaginary and symbolic order, and therefore cannot dissemble, which would mean taking an other into account. Th e animal cannot respond to (or as) an other (see 86). In “And Say the Animal Responded?”, Derrida calls attention to EC the “fragility” of the oppositions on which this thesis depends, “beginning with that between the symbolic and imaginary which underwrites fi nally this whole anthropocentric reinstitution of the superiority of the human order over the animal order” ( LAN 186/AS 138). 3) See also WI 16: “Th e hand is a peculiar thing. In the common view, the hand is part of our bodily organism. But the hand’s essence can never be determined, or explained, by its being an e organ which can grasp. Apes, too, have organs that can grasp, but they do not have hands. Th hand is infi nitely diff erent from all grasping organs—paws, claws, or fangs—diff erent by an abyss of essence. Only a being who can speak, that is, think, can have hands and can be handy in achieving works of handicraft.” See Derrida, GII 161–96. See Stuart Elden, HA 273–91, esp. 278: “Th e animal is diff erent from the human, who is the zoon logon échon . It is for [this reason] that animals do not dwell or abide; neither do they look [ blicken ], but rather they peer, glare, gawk or gape, because there is not a ‘self-disclosure of being,’ nothing is disclosed to it . . .; equally the pet dog does not really ‘eat,’ and does not really comport itself to the table it lies under or the stairs it runs up.”
7 410 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 l’autre absolu —transcendent ANT 180). Derrida’s cat is an other like no other: with respect to his (Derrida’s) superior powers of speech and reason, and above all imposing on Derrida a philosophical and, more strictly, an ethical demand (“nothing will have ever done more to make me think through this absolute alterity of the neighbor . . .”). Interestingly, Derrida does not introduce the to identify his cat, but he does ascribe to the cat “a point of view,” term Autrui which means that between himself and his cat there is a reversal of subjectivity in which Derrida is no longer himself (that is, no longer self-possessed, able to say “I” without malséance ). Other ? Levinas says that “it is only man who could But how can a cat be an be absolutely foreign to me—refractory to every typology, to every genus, to every characterology, to every classifi DF 73). To which Maurice Blan- cation” ( chot responded by saying that, if this is what alterity means (namely, outside every horizon), then “the Other man who is ‘ ’ also risks being always autrui Other than man, close to what cannot be close to me: close to death, close to the night, and certainly as repulsive as anything that comes to me from these regions without a horizon” ( IC 72). In “And Say the Animal Responded?”, Derrida sides with Blanchot by proposing the hypothesis of the “animal- other ” in order to locate “a place of alterity that is radical enough to break with every identifi cation of an image of self, with every fellow living creature, and so with LAN every fraternity or human proximity, with all humanity” ( 181/AS 134). We are always on the plane of resemblance with respect to other human beings. other alone compels the question, For Derrida (as radical as ever) the animal- Who am I ? What response is there to this question? Or, more exactly, what meaning or consequence does Derrida’s response entail? 3. Th e “Abyssal Limit” of the Human Of course, on Levinas’ theory, the alterity of Derrida’s cat entails his responsi- bility for it, that is, his responsibility for the good of his cat (who no doubt just wants to be let out), but also his ability to respond to it as in fact he does respond when he experiences his nakedness in his cat’s (unfathomable) eyes. is is not an experience of himself as a subject, a cogito ; it is an experience of Th his passivity (his fl esh), which Derrida immediately names or renames “ the passion of the animal ”: “seeing oneself seen naked under a gaze that is vacant to the extent of being bottomless, at the same time innocent and cruel per- haps, perhaps sensitive and impassive, good and bad, uninterpretable, unread- able, undecidable, abyssal and secret” ( LAN 29/ANT 381). In which case
8 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 411 Derrida’s experience is not just an ethical event in Levinas’ sense but is also, at the same time, what Maurice Blanchot (following Georges Bataille) calls a “limit-experience,” that is, the limit of subjectivity, as in an experience of 4 Here fatigue, waiting, affl iction, dying, but also of the passivity of the child. is how Derrida describes it: As with every bottomless gaze, as with the eyes of the other, the gaze called animal off ers to my sight the abyssal limit of the human: the inhuman or the ahuman, the ends of man, that is to say the bordercrossing from which vantage man dares to announce himself to himself, thereby calling himself by the name that he believes he gives himself. And in these moments of nakedness, under the gaze of the animal, everything can happen to me, I am like a child I am (following) the apocalypse itself [je suis l’apocalypse même], ready for the apocalypse, that is to say the ultimate and fi rst event of the end, the unveiling and the verdict. LAN ( 31/ANT 381) So here we are at a bordercrossing : the anomalous space-between in which no a human, that is, without one is anything, neither human nor nonhuman but horizons or markers of any kind. Recall Giorgio Agamben’s region of “bare life,” the “zone of indistinction,” in which the outcast is neither one thing nor another, like a werewolf ( HS 104–11). Th e border is in any case aporetic, a limit that leaves him (Derrida) like a child on the brink, “ready for the apoca- lypse” or whatever is to come, rather like Bataille’s ecstatic child in Inner Expe- rience , left alone at night, “naked in the depths of the woods,” enjoying or ering an ecstasy of anguish ( 54); or like Blanchot’s child in Th e Writing suff IE , exposed to the “primal scene” of an absolute exteriority that fi lls of the Disaster him with “devastation and joy,” leaving him henceforward “to live withdrawn from any interest in [him]self, disinterested, thinned out to a state of utter calmness, expecting nothing” (in short, a kind of Blanchot [ WD 114–46]). Th e presence of the child at these extreme limits is worth a moment’s atten- tion. Th e child, like the animal, is a fi gure of bare life, inevitably invisible behind the well-fed subject of whom philosophers christen enunciation Man as such . Meanwhile for Giorgio Agamben infancy is the “Ur-limit” of 4) See Blanchot, IC 202–11, esp. 207: [It] must be understood that possibility is not the sole dimension of our experience, and it is perhaps given to us to “live” each of the events that is ours by way of a double relation. We live it one time as something we comprehend, grasp, bear, and master . . .; we live it another time as something that escapes all employ and all end, and more, as that which escapes our very capacity to undergo it, but whose trial we cannot escape.
9 412 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 language, that is, the source or condition of its possibility insofar as it is a pure experience of language (an use of language experimentum linguae ), that is, not a but a submersion in the materiality that makes voice (and, indeed, writing) IH e infant is, like the animal, within possible ( langue ) but 4–7). Th language ( ), in the semiotic or protosemantic world parole on the hither side of speech ( of babble (or Babel): It is not language in general that marks out the human form from other living beings— according to the Western metaphysical tradition that sees man as a (an zoon logon échon animal endowed with speech)—but the split between language and speech, between semi- otic and semantic (in Benveniste’s sense), between sign system and discourse. Animals are not in fact denied language; on the contrary, they are always and totally language. In them (the sacred voice of the unknowing earth)—which Mal- la voix sacrée de la terre ingénue larmé, hearing the chirp of a cricket, sets against the human voice as une and non-décompo- sée (one and indivisible)—knows no breaks or interruptions. Animals do not enter language, they are already inside it. Man, instead, by having an infancy, by preceding speech, splits this single language and, in order to speak, has to constitute itself as the subject of lan- guage—he has to say I . Th us, if language is truly man’s nature . . . then man’s nature is split at its source, for infancy brings it discontinuity and the diff erence between language and 5 discourse. ( IH 59) So, on this theory, Derrida’s cat is not without language (its sounds and voices), but like the child, it splits the diff erence between the brute materiality of lan- guage and the intentionality of speech—and in the bargain it restores the nondiscursive region of language that philosophers of Derrida’s generation were anxious to explore, often in the name of poetry or literature, as well as by way 6 of their own baroque experiments in writing. Perhaps no one’s writing is as baroque as Derrida’s, which has never pro- ceeded (and can never be followed) in a straightforward manner but moves unpredictably through amplifi cations and digressions punctuated by puns and neologisms without ever really terminating in a position. Arguably, this “style” 5) See Derrida’s discussion of the conundrum of the child who “speaks before knowing how to speak” in Of Grammatology , 247–48. 6) OT 65: in literature “language . . . exists in its raw and primitive being See Michel Foucault, [ être brut et primitive ], in the simple, material form of writing, a stigma upon things, a mark imprinted across the world which is part of its most ineff aceable forms.” Foucault’s idea is that in the nineteenth century (that is, with the beginning of modernism) literature “ceased to belong to the order of discourse and became the manifestation of language in its thickness” (from an interview with Raymond Bellours [ AME 65]). See also, in this same volume, “A Preface to Trans- gression,” on “the extreme forms of language in which Bataille, Maurice Blanchot, and Pierre Klossowski have made their home” ( AME 76). See also Jean-Jacques Lecercle, PTL 80.
10 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 413 is not just obscurantism but is a protosemantic exploration of language on the 7 In his interview hither side of the propositional style of discursive reason. with Jean-Luc Nancy, “Eating Well,” Derrida writes: if one defi nes language in such a way that it is reserved for man, what is there to say? But if one reinscribes language in a network of possibilities that do not merely encompass it but mark it irreducibly from the inside, everything changes. I am thinking in particular of the diff érance . Th ese possibilities or necessities, mark in general, of the trace, of iterability, of are themselves not only human . It is not a ques- without which there would be no language, tion of covering up ruptures and heterogeneities. I would simply contest that they give rise to a single, linear, indivisible, oppositional limit, to a binary opposition between the human and the infrahuman. And what I am proposing here should allow us to take into account scientifi c information about the complexity of “animal languages,” genetic coding, all forms of marking within which so-called human language, as original as it might be, does not allow us to “cut” once and for all where we would in general like to cut. As you can see, in spite of appearances, I am speaking here of very “concrete” and very “current” problems: the ethics and the politics of the living. (EW 116–17) ere is no one thing that can be called language, nor any one thing that can Th be called speech—which means no one thing of which animals, for example, can be said to be deprived, or humans endowed: no one line, in other words, 8 that can separate ourselves from the other. 4. L’Animot Regarding the rule of the concept, we should take care not to miss the critical intervention that Derrida undertakes in “L’animal que donc je suis.” His com- plaint here is that philosophers and poets have traditionally engaged animals dogmatically by way of appellations from above rather than on the basis of being with animals in an extended and ethological evidence that comes from 7) In A Taste for the Secret Derrida writes: “my own experience of writing leads me to think that one does not always write with a desire to be understood—that there is a paradoxical desire not to be understood. It’s not simple, but there is a certain ‘I hope that not everyone understands everything about this text,’ because if such a transparency of intelligibility were ensured it would destroy the text” ( 30). TS 8) Here it would be useful to consult the texts gathered together in Th e Great Apes Project: Equal- ity Beyond Humanity , especially Francine Patterson and Wendy Gordon, “Th e Case for the Per- sonhood of Gorillas” ( GAP 58–77), with its description of Koko, who uses sign language to initiate conversations with humans, who recognizes herself in the mirror and enjoys making faces at herself, who can lie, and who understands what it is to die.
11 414 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 systematic way. Already in Genesis the aboriginal encounter with other living things gets covered over or elided by a narrative of naming, which is itself aporetic, however, since it is (as Derrida reads it) about the contingency of a God who allows man to name the animals simply “in order to see” what he will call them, what names will be chosen, as if the genesis of being and time were a kind of animal experiment ( LAN 35–36/ANT 386). Derrida writes: is powerful yet deprived ‘in order to see’ that is God’s, the fi rst stroke of “Th time, before time, God’s exposure to surprise, to the event of what is going to occur between man and animal, this time before time has always made me LAN 36/ANT 387). As does the gaze of his cat. dizzy” ( What would it be for man and animal to encounter one another on the hither side of speech, as if before the naming of the animal and all that this has implied in terms of the long-sanctioned, unquestioned subjection of animals to human authority and control? Certainly this is the import of Derrida’s encounter with his erence without defi nition or corresponding identity that cat (an experience of diff “Who am I provokes the question, being-with ? ”). For Derrida, the question of animals is not just hypothetical, given the fate of “the animal” since the begin- nings of modernity, with its unprecedented “reduction of the animal not only to production and overproduction (hormones, genetic crossbreeding, cloning, and so on) of meat for the consumption but also of all sorts of other end products, and all of that in the service of a certain being and the so-called well-being of man” ( 46/ANT 394). Derrida does not hesitate to speak of genocide: “No one can LAN deny seriously, or for very long, that men do all they can in order to dissimulate this cruelty or hide it from themselves, in order to organize on a global scale the forgetting or misunderstanding of this violence that some would compare to the worst cases of genocide (there are also animal genocides: the number of species endangered because of man takes one’s breath away)” ( LAN 46/ANT 394). Here is the context in which utilitarians cite, as Derrida does, Jeremy Bentham’s famous line: the question of the animal is not whether it can think or speak but whether it can suff er ( LAN 50/ANT 396). It is in the context of this subjection of the animal to the violence of moder- rst nity, Derrida says, that we need to consider (or maybe discover for the fi time) the animal that looks at us (and so makes a claim on us). In part this means starting philosophy (or even Genesis) all over again, rethinking how we fi gure the border that separates us from other living creatures, which means inventing new words to use when we speak about animals, not to say how we comport ourselves with respect to them. Here perhaps is where many will grow impatient with Derrida, who seems (at fi rst sight) more interested in how to think than in how to act. For exam-
12 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 415 ple, in contrast to so many animal rights activists, Derrida’s idea is not to erase the line that separates us from other living things (as if there were no such erences ) but rather to multiply its dimensions—“ Limitrophy ” Der- things as diff “is my subject” ( LAN 51/ANT 397): literally, the growth or plural- rida says, of limits, as well as of the creatures that are contained in them. Th ization e question of the animal, Derrida says, “becomes interesting once, instead of asking whether or not there is a discontinuous limit, one attempts to think what a limit becomes once it is abyssal, once the frontier no longer forms a single indivisible line but more than one internally divided line, once, as a result, it can no longer be traced, objectifi ed, or counted as single and indivis- LAN 52–53/ANT 399). Th e border is not fi ible” ( xed; it is not formal or logical. Above all, it is not generic but historical, local, and variable and there- fore open to exploration and experimentation, which is basically what the word “abyssal” implies. And this means, fi rst of all (for Derrida at any rate), breaking with the word “Animal,” that is, breaking with the philosophical tradition from Aristotle to Lacan that speaks of the animal in general as a category meant to include “all the living things that man does not recognize as his fellows, his neighbors, or his brothers” ( LAN 56/ANT 402). As a way of crossing out the “Animal” (the way he had once crossed out “Being,” which is what he has always wanted to do with “Man”), Derrida coins the term (with its pun on l’animaux )— l’animot “a chimerical word that sounded as though it contravened the laws of the LAN French language” ( 65/ANT 409). In the spirit of this neologism Derrida refers us to his “ zootobiography ,” recalling all the many and varied animals that have appeared in his writings, including the lowly silkworm (“I . . . admit to my old obsession with a personal and somewhat paradisaic bestiary. It came to the fore very early on: the crazy project of constituting everything I have thought or written within a zoosphere, the dream of an absolute hospitality and an infi nite appropriation. How to welcome or liberate so many animal- 9 Derrida’s work is nothing words ( ) chez moi ?” [ LAN 60/ANT 405]). animots if not chimerical in the multiplicity of its animals, and this multiplicity—this invocation of his philosophical bestiary to replace a general category—is one of the principal themes of his address (cf. SO 3–65): [It] is a matter of taking into account a multiplicity of structures and limits. Among non- humans and separate from nonhumans there is an immense multiplicity of other living things that cannot in any way be homogenized, except by means of violence and willful 9) See, for example, SO 3–65.
13 416 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 ignorance, within the category of the animal or animality in general. From the outset there are animals and, let’s say, e confusion of all nonhuman living creatures within l’animot . Th the general and common category of the animal is not simply a sin against rigorous think- ing, vigilance, lucidity, or empirical authority; it is also a crime. Not a crime against animal- ity precisely, but a crime of the fi LAN rst order against the animals, against animals. ( 73/ANT 416) A “multiplicity of structures and limits”: recall that in “Th e Ends of Man” Derrida says that, when it comes to man , “one must speak several languages and produce several texts at once” (EM 135). Th e same principle holds when it comes to animals. What Derrida wants is an approach that would preserve other the animal- from its incorporation into an anthropocentric homogeneity, but even more particularly, one that would protect it from a reduction to the “animal machine” that Descartes constructed and that continues to inhabit (or to operate in) the writings of Kant and Heidegger, Levinas and Lacan, for ned by its each of whom the animal (in general) is consistently defi incapaci- ties —its inability to do what humans do (speak, reason, mourn, laugh, cry, deceive). Th e animal, Lacan says, can react (like a computer) but not respond (as a subject). But what does it mean to respond? Here it is worth noticing how Derrida diff ers from Martha Nussbaum and her “capabilities approach” to the question of the animal. Aristotle had argued that human beings are endowed with capacities that should be allowed to ourish; it is wrong to prevent people from living lives of which they are fl e same principle, Nussbaum argues, should be applied to ani- capable. Th mals: “if [like Aristotle] we feel wonder looking at a complex organism, that wonder at least suggests the idea that it is good for that being to fl ourish as the kind of thing it is. And this idea is next door to the ethical judgment that ourishing of a creature is blocked by the harmful it is wrong when the fl agency of another” (BC 306; an expanded version of this essay appears in FJ 325–405). But this leaves open the question of how we are with these creatures. In an essay on “Eating Meat and Eating People,” the philosopher Cora Diamond wonders whether it is enough to fi gure our relations with other living things in terms of their capacities, whether for suff ourishing. Instead, she ering or fl asks (in a way that seems symmetrical with Derrida’s inquiry) what it is for us to single out living things as “fellow creatures.” A “fellow creature,” Diamond emphasizes, is not a biological concept, that is, it cannot be clarifi ed by appeal- ing to what a creature is or how it resembles or diff ers from us, but only by attending to the multifarious ways in which we interact with other creatures, human and otherwise, in our various forms of life ( RS 328–30). Feeding birds
14 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 417 and squirrels in winter is a recognition of birds and squirrels as fellow crea- tures; the fattening of turkeys is another matter. Th e deer hunter who gives his quarry a sporting chance rather than simply poisoning or trapping it like a mouse relates to it as a fellow creature, whatever we may think about hunting. Th e complexity of the relation appears when we realize that, like the hunter (as do frequently eat our fellow creatures, opposed to the pest exterminator), we although we usually do not eat those with whom we live as companions, which is perhaps also the reason we do not, except perhaps under ritual experiences, eat other people. A cow is for eating in a way that a pet dog is not, even as a calf raised by a member of a 4-H club is a diff erent creature from the calf in the stockyard, however biologically the same they may well be. Whatever its ultimate fate, a calf is not regarded as something to eat when it is addressed by name. It seems to me that Derrida is trying to get at this sort plurality and complexity of diff erences inaccessible to concepts and categories) erences (diff when he rejects the idea that we are separated from “the animal” by “a single, indivisible, linear, oppositional limit.” In fact we are most concretely joined to animals on occasions that defeat our concepts—occasions on which animals are most uniquely themselves, like Derrida’s “unsubstitutable cat.” And this brings us back to our regulating question. 5. “Who?” At one point in ”L’animal que donc je suis,” Derrida recalls the famous anec- dote of the dog in one of the essays in Emmanuel Levinas’ cult Freedom— Diffi the one that concerns the dogs in various texts of Exodus, particularly those dogs of Egypt in 11:7 who, “with neither ethics nor ,” refuse to growl or logos bark, and so permit the escape of the Israelites from slavery ( DF 152). As a gloss on this text, Levinas remembers his time in a prisoner-of-war camp dur- ing World War II: ere were seventy of us in a forestry commando unit for Jewish prisoners of war in Nazi Th Germany. An extraordinary coincidence was the fact that the camp bore the number 1492, the year of the expulsion of Jews from Spain under the Catholic Ferdinand V. Th e French uniform still protected us from Hitlerian violence. But the other men, called free, who had dealings with us or gave us work or orders or even a smile—and the children and women who passed by and sometimes raised their eyes—stripped us of our human skin. We were subhuman, a gang of apes. A small inner murmur, the strength and wretchedness of perse- cuted people, reminded us of our essence as thinking creatures, but we were no longer part of the world. Our comings and goings, our sorrow and laughter, illnesses and distractions, the work of our hands and the anguish of our eyes, the letters we received from France and
15 418 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 those accepted for our families—all that passed in parentheses. We were beings entrapped in their species, despite all their vocabulary, beings without language. Racism is not a bio- logical concept; anti-Semitism is the archetype of all internment. Social aggression, itself, merely imitates this model. It shuts people away in a class, deprives them of expression and ers without a signifi condemns them to being “signifi ed” and from there to violence and fi ghting. How can we deliver a message about our humanity which, from behind the bars of quotation marks, will come across as anything other than monkey talk? And then, about halfway through our long captivity, for a few short weeks before sentinels chased him away, a wandering dog entered our lives. One day he came to meet this rabble as we returned under guard from work. He survived in some wild patch in the region of the camp. But we called him Bobby, an exotic name, as one does with a cherished dog. He would appear at morning assembly and was waiting for us as we returned, jumping up and down DF 152–53) and barking with delight. For him, there was no doubt that we were human. ( reaction How could one distinguish between response in Bobby’s barking? and What Derrida likes about this anecdote is that it subverts the fact that Levinas describes Bobby in terms of his deprivations ( 159–60). “Th is dog was,” LAN Levinas says, “the last Kantian in Nazi Germany, without the brain needed to DF 153), that is, someone who, not knowing universalize maxims and drives” ( any better, is ethical in spite of himself (let us say “himself,” since he has been given a proper name). But on what could one base this judgment of the short- fall of Bobby’s brain, his lack of “ethics and logos ,” especially since, after all, the point of the anecdote is to show how Bobby is more responsive, more humane —more ethical if not more human—than the nearby population for whom the prisoners are only so many apes? Here is the problem Derrida wants us to consider: It is less a matter of asking whether one has the right to refuse the animal such and such a power (speech, reason, experience of death, mourning, culture, institution, technics, cloth- ing, lie, pretense of pretense, covering of tracks, gift, laughter, tears, respect, and so on—the list is necessarily without limit, and the most powerful philosophical tradition within which we live has refused the “animal” all those things) than of asking whether what calls itself human has the right to rigorously attribute to man, which means therefore to attribute to himself, what he refuses the animal, and whether he can ever possess the pure, rigorous, indivisible concept, as such, of that attribute. ( LAN 185–86/ANT 137–38) In other words, Levinas’ anecdote of the dog, like Derrida’s story of his cat, who I am in the moment of my raises the question, not of “the animal,” but of encounter with the animal- other (or, for all of that, with myself ). Who am I , under these circumstances, to attribute abilities (much less an identity) to myself that I refuse to animal- other ? Indeed, by what right, that is, on what basis do I attribute to myself this or that capacity at all, whether I deny them
16 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 419 pure, rigor- to others or not? Can I give a philosophical account—develop a “ any of the capabilities, strengths, virtues, or dis- ous, indivisible concept”—of tinctively human features (or identity) that I confer upon myself ? (Can I say man what is?) Here, of course, we recognize the Derrida who spent his philo- sophical career questioning and often satirizing the very idea of “pure, rigor- ous, indivisible” concepts, categories, distinctions, or substances of any kind. How else did he become (as indeed he posthumously remains) the Beelzebub that visits analytic philosophers whenever they hear his name? nally the sense of the question, But, more to the point at hand, what fi is Who am I ? Recall Blanchot on “the unknown and slippery being of an indefi - 10 Th e pronoun: it presupposes a is, after all, an who interrogative nite ‘Who?’ ” ciency, an absence of defi Who is it ? Who are you ? Who, me ? In con- defi nition. cogito ), the mode trast to the “givenness” of the “I” (the indubitably intrepid who of existence of the is just that of being in doubt or in question, being e who addressed, accused, or called to account. Th is at the farthest remove from the grammar and context of the assertion, except perhaps to call it into question ( Who says that animals have no language ?). Likewise, in contrast to the “I,” the who is precisely what cannot be conceptualized, that is, made the sub- ject of a theory of the subject. Th e is the elusive biographic quarry, as if who conceptually irreducible (without identity: I=I) could be captured in what were a narrative (although in practice mostly under a type: here is what I am like). e who gure (as in the genre of the whodunit , Th is the unknown, the fugitive fi except without promise of resolution). Dumb or stuttering is how I am apt to be struck by the question, “ Who are you ere is no ready answer. A response ?” Th t the circumstances of the demand, not to would have to be improvised to fi mention the various emphases and implications that each word of the demand 10) See Blanchot’s L’amitie (on the peculiar “personless presence” of Bataille’s use of the personal pronoun “I”): “And when we ask ourselves the question, ‘Who was the subject of this experi- ence?’ this question is perhaps already an answer if, even to him who lived it, the experience asserted itself in this interrogative form, by substituting the openness of a ‘Who?’ without answer for the closed and singular ‘I’; not that this means that he had simply to ask himself ‘What is this I that I am?’ but much more radically to recover himself without reprieve, no longer as ‘I’ but as a ‘Who?,’ the unknown and slippery being of an indefi is is taken from the essay, nite ‘Who?’” Th FR “Friendship” in e question “Who?” is “without answer,” Blanchot says, and in his 291. Th comment on this line in “Eating Well,” Derrida adds that it should remain so: “Something of the call of the other must remain nonreappropriable, nonsubjectivable, and in a certain way non- identifi other , a singular call to response or responsibility. able, a sheer supposition, so as to remain Th is is why the determination of the singular “Who?”—or at least its determination as sub- ject—still remains problematic. And it should remain so. Th is obligation to protect the other’s otherness is not merely a theoretical imperative” (EW 110–11).
17 420 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 Who are you ?” “ are you, anyway ?” “Who do you think you can support: “ Who ?” It is not surprising that question of ? is often (frequently) charged are who with hostility. Not for nothing, Blanchot thought that being forced to speak— to answer—is worse than being kept silent ( IC 42–43, on the relation of speech and torture). A Taste for the Secret Derrida affi Likewise in rms the absolute right not to answer, which is perhaps related to the law of hospitality, which holds that the stranger who arrives at your door is not to be treated with hostility but is to be welcomed without having to meet any conditions of identity—in other words, TS 26–27; compare Derrida, without having to answer: “Who are you?” ( ON 17). Under conditions of hospitality, the defi ciency of the “Passions,” who does not have to be made up, perhaps not even by the confession of one’s proper name ( HOS 7–8). For Derrida this defi ciency should not and, indeed, cannot be made up in any case (this seems to be the gist of the epigraph to this essay: “It is clear that the who withdraws from or provokes the displacement of the categories in which biography, autobiography, and memoirs are thought.”). To the question “Who am I?” there is no answer, for the simple reason that I am as much an other to myself as I am to my neighbor or to my host or, for all of that, to my cat. Th is in fact seems to be the regulating theme of Derrida’s Circonfession and Monolinguism of the Other autobiographical writings, , which concern his own precarious or disordered “identity” as an Algerian Jew or Franco-Maghrebian whose love of the French language cannot conceal the fact that French is not his language, that he has no language, and that he is there- fore in no position to say “I,” except perhaps by way of a complex evasion that would be impossible for anyone to follow: If, for example, I dream of writing an anamnesis of what enabled me to identify myself or say I from the depths of amnesia and aphasia, I know, by the same token, that I can do it only by opening up an impossible path, leaving the road, escaping, giving myself the slip, erent enough to disallow its own reappropriation within the norms, inventing a language diff the body, and the law of the given language—or by all the normative schemas constituted by programs of a grammar, a lexicon, a semantics, a rhetoric, speech genres or literary forms, stereotypes or cultural clichés (the most authoritarian of which remain mechanisms of avant-gardist reproducibility, and the indefatigable regeneration of the literary superego). ( MO 66) “Who am I?” Derrida asks himself this question, in the face of his cat, “just to see” if there might be an answer—or, more accurately, “just to see” what might come of it, for the question “ who ?” does not so much ask for an answer as propose the itinerary of an “impossible path,” an escape (“giving myself the
18 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 421 slip”) that would avoid absorption into an identity-machine, and so perhaps relieve that original malséance of his self-relation (an amnesia of a kind) pro- voked by the eyes or mirror of his cat. nal word on giving oneself the slip: the defi who is not a A fi ciency of the negative—not a deprivation but a kind of privacy that it is always criminal to invade or expose and whose preferred fi gure of speech would be circumlocu- ). Imagine the who as a singularity that cannot be captured circonfession tion ( by “the norms, the body, and the law of a given,” including that of the signa- ture, whose proper name is an appropriation of the sort that Derrida wants precisely to elude. Derrida has always inhabited Maurice Blanchot’s neigh- borhood, where anonymity and discretion allow one to keep one’s distance ight, (that is, maintain one’s freedom). In any event, whether in search or in fl who , including no doubt the who of one’s cat. One one is always “after” the can perhaps understand now why Derrida did not tell us his cat’s name. Abbreviations AME Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology , ed. James D. Michel Foucault, Faubion, trans. Robert Hurley et al., vol. 2 of Essential Works of Fou- cault, 1954–1984 (New York: Th e New Press, 1998). ANT Jacques Derrida, “Th e Animal Th at Th erefore I Am,” trans. David Wills, Critical Inquiry 28, no. 4 (2002 ): 369–418. ———. “And Say the Animal Responded?”, trans. David Wills in AS e Question of the Animal , ed. Cary Wolfe (Minneap- Zoontologies: Th olis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004), 121–46. BC Martha Nussbaum, “Beyond Compassion and Humanity: Justice for Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Non-Human Animals,” in , ed. Martha Nussbaum and Cass Sunstein (Oxford: Oxford Directions University Press, 2004), 299–324. BN Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness , trans. Hazel Barnes (New York: Washington Square Press, 1966. DF Emmanuel Levinas, Diffi cult Freedom: Essays on Judaism , trans. Seán Hand (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990). Matthew Calarco, “Deconstruction Is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, DI Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics,” Continental Philosophy Review 37, no. 2 (2004): 175–201. EC Jacques Lacan, Ecrits: A Selection , trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: W. W. Norton, 1977). Originally published as Ecrits I and Ecrits II (Paris: Les Editions du Seuil, 1971).
19 422 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 Jacques Derrida, “Th e Ends of Man,” in , trans. EM Margins of Philosophy Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982). EW ———. “‘Eating Well,’ or the Calculation of the Subject: An Inter- view with Jacques Derrida,” in , ed. Edu- Who Comes After the Subject? ardo Cadava, Peter Connor, Jean-Luc Nancy (London: Routledge, 1991), 96–119. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, and Spe- FJ Martha Nussbaum, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006). cies Membership FR Jacques Derrida, Friendship , trans. Elizabeth Rottenberg (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997). GAP Th e Great Apes Project: Equality Beyond Humanity , ed. Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer (New York: St. Martin’s Griffi n, 1993). Geschlecht GII Jacques Derrida, “ II: Heidegger’s Hand,” trans. John P. Leavey, in Deconstruction and Philosophy , ed. John Sallis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 161–96. Stuart Elden, “Heidegger’s Animals,” HA 39 Continental Philosophy Review (2006): 273–91. HOS Jacques Derrida, “Hostipitality,” trans Barry Stocker and Forbes Mor- lock, Angelaki 5, no. 3 (2000): 3–18. HS Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life , trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995). IC Th e Infi nite Conversation , trans. Susan Hanson Maurice Blanchot, (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993). IE Inner Experience , trans. Leslie Anne Boldt (Albany: Georges Bataille, SUNY Press, 1998). Giorgio Agamben, Infancy and History: Th IH , e Destruction of Experience trans. Liz Heron. (London: Verso, 1993). LAN Jacques Derrida, L’animal que donc je suis , ed. Marie-Louise Mallet (Paris: Galilée, 2006). LD Herman Rapaport, Th e Later Derrida: Reading the Recent Work (Lon- don: Routledge, 2003). Jacques Derrida, Monolinguism of the Other; Or, Th e Prosthesis of Ori- MO gin , trans. Patrick Mensah (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998). ON ———. On the Name , trans. Th omas Dutoit (Stanford: Stanford Uni- versity Press, 1995). OT Michel Foucault, Th e Order of Th ings: An Archeology of the Human Sci- ences (New York: Vintage Books, 1970).
20 G. L. Bruns / Research in Phenomenology 38 (2008) 404–423 423 Jean-Jacques Lecercle, Philosophy Th PTL rough the Looking Glass: Language, (LaSalle: Open Court Press, 1985). Nonsense, Desire RS Cora Diamond, Th (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991). e Realistic Spirit SO Jacques Derrida, “A Silkworm of One’s Own,” trans. Geoff rey Ben- Oxford Literary Review 18, nos. 1–2 (1997): 3–65. nington, SP Rainer-Maria Rilke, e Selected Poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke , trans. Th Stephen Mitchell (New York: Vintage Books, 1982). TS Jacques Derrida and Maurizio Ferraris, A Taste for the Secret , trans. Giacomo Donis (London: Polity Press, 2001). Maurice Blanchot, Th e Writing of the Disaster , trans. Ann Smock (Lin- WD coln: University of Nebraska Press, 1986). WI Martin Heidegger, What Is Called Th inking ?, trans. J. Glenn Gray (New York: Harper & Row, 1968). References A Nietzsche Bestiary: Becoming Animal Acampora, Christa Davis, and Ralph R. Acampora. Lanham: Rowan & Littlefi eld, 2004. Beyond Docile and Brutal. Bataille, Georges. Visions of Excess: Selected Writings, 1927–39 . Translated by Allan Stoekl. Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985. Of Grammatology . Translated by Gayatri Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Derrida, Jacques. University Press, 1976. ———. Of Hospitality . Translated by Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time . Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Totality and Infi nity . Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne Levinas, Emmanuel. University Press, 1969. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Untimely Meditatons . Edited by Daniel Breazeale. Translated by R. J. Hol- linsdale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Wolfe, Cary. Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, and Posthumanist Th eory . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. ———. “In the Shadow of Wittgenstein’s Lion: Language, Ethics, and the Question of the Animal.” In Zoontologies: Th e Question of the Animal , edited by Cary Wolfe, 1–57. Min- neapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004.
22 REVIEW ARTICLES
Technical Data Kinetix Motion Accessories Specifications 094, 1394, 8720MC Bulletin 2090, 2 Page Topic, continued Page Topic 91 Connector Sets 1 Summary of Changes 2 92 Kinetix Safe-off Components 209...More info »
United Nations A /HRC/13/39/Add.5 Distr.: General General Assembly 5 February 2010 English only Human Rights Council Thirteenth session Agenda item 3 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civi...More info »