Abstract
The author uses critical theorizations of empathy, compassion, and epistemology in order to draw out the limits of appeals to respond to nonhuman animal gazes in religious studies. Taking Aaron S. Gross’s and Donovan O. Schaefer’s recent works as exemplary, the author argues that empathetic postures towards vulnerability deny the potential violences of empathy and inadvertently reproduce the scholar as an ethical, conscious, and knowing subject. Instead, noninnocent framings of the relation of a scholar to her objects of study might allow religious studies to think more critically about the affective motivations of our desires to recognize the nonhuman animal and our epistemic limitations—especially in ways that do not presuppose the human/animal binary as a master binary whose collapse will entail the demise of racism, sexism, and colonialism.
Subject
Religious studies,Ecology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics,Cultural Studies
Reference52 articles.
1. Ahmed, Sara. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion (New York: Routledge).
2. ———. 2008. ‘Open Forum Imaginary Prohibitions: Some Preliminary Remarks on the Founding Gestures of the “New Materialism”’, European Journal of Women’s Studies 15.1: 23-39. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506807084854.
3. Bekoff, Marc. 2007. The Emotional Life of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Empathy—and Why They Matter (Novato, CA: New World Library).
4. Bekoff, Marc, and Jessica Pierce. 2017. The Animals’ Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (Boston: Beacon Press).
5. Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394716.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献