If our construction of imaginary animals in the past was to clearly delineate between the human and the not human, then biomedical technologies, which obscure the established boundary between human and animal solicit apprehension about our uniqueness in the face of this change. But our history shows that we have been dependant upon not human animals and this has helped define our humanity. Even though we acknowledge our dependence upon animals - ingestion of their flesh, use of their cells and organs, our genetic similarity to them and their role as companions, it appears, in the context of zoonosis, that we may be more concerned by upholding and preserving human morphology and traditional perceptions of the human as distinctly different to the animal, even though those perceptions are continually eroded. What then is human and animal? Ralph R Acampora maintains 'there are no generic animals roaming the earth, and "pure/perfect" animalness' (2006:9). Might this also mean that there is no such thing as pure/perfect humaness? Are we all just eukarya?
© Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to [Julie Joy Clarke] and [Anything But Human] with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. Unless otherwise stated all images are Copyright to Julie Clarke (c)
No comments:
Post a Comment