Post-Humanism and the Politics of Animal Representation

Call for Papers

2006 Northeastern Modern Language Association (NEMLA) Convention
Philadelphia, PA, 2 – 5 March 2006

Following the Second World War, a re-examination of the animal as a
category of ontological being by Heidegger, Levinas and Derrida pushed
this question of philosophical theory out of its academic margin.
Moreover, North America’s ecocritical movement has produced an
increasingly visible body of work. Nevertheless, the politics of animal
representation remains quite underdeveloped in both literary theory and
criticism. This panel will take submissions on literary works that
reconsider how representations of animals function in terms of their
politics, how different types of representations may not work to
encourage or resist appropriation as metaphors, and in particular, how
these works might rearticulate other questions of race, gender and
transnationlism along the lines of species.

For consideration, please e-mail 250-word abstracts by 15 September
2005 to vjguihan@connect.carleton.ca or mail print copies to:

Vincent Guihan
Carleton University
1125 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6
Canada

That eBay auction of a human kidney

The recent moral outrage surrounding the sale of Live8 tickets on eBay reminded me of the 1999 eBay organ trafficking scandal. The details of this are quite well-known now, though I am not sure the key questions have really been addressed. To recap, in 1999 a human kidney appeared on the internet auction website eBay. Perhaps it is needless to say that the auction was terminated by eBay, though not before the highest bid reached extraordinary figures.

The problems of organ trafficking seem to be exacerbated through the Internet, if only because it is much harder to control. However, control is not the only problem. Perhaps the bigger question relates to the degree of control that online companies have over the moral culture surrounding medicine and health. In this case – and in relation to the Live8 tickets – we see an immense institution being able to dictate what people are permitted to do. While the auctioning of human organs certainly has a considerably more complicated legal and moral context than Live8 tickets, each of them raises questions about how morality is constructed in society. In the case of the Live8 tickets, the pressure came from celebrities, particularly Bob Geldof and there was no legal reason to forbid people from selling these tickets. Yet, eBay took the moral high-ground, so to speak.

For many, the auctioning of human organs is unequivocally immoral. At the very least, it creates a messy debate about whether organs should be sold at all, though this is a more difficult issue. Offering a financial compensation for a body part is, for many, a reasonable exchange and, given the lack of organs, a necessary one. The difficulty, however, is that anybody who would want to auction an organ would clearly be someone in a vulnerable position and it is unreasonable to take advantage of that vulnerability, even if they might gain financially through it.

I’m an academic, get me out of here

While programming the conference, we have thought about whether there should be a panel on academic celebrity. Perhaps Germaine Greer’s brief appearance in UK Celebrity Big Brother is really at the furthest end of at least one scale and there is surely a lot to discuss about her alone. However, there are other questions, perhaps closer to serious issues for academics that are worthy of debate.

For example, does increased stardom for an academic lead to alienation from the academy and colleagues? I have spoken to some colleagues concerned about perceived jealousy from other colleagues, as their ’star’ ascends, not that they put it quite like that! For me, it begs the question as to what relationship academics have with the media/public. A lot of my work is about science dissemination and these questions arise a lot. In this area, there seems to be a renewed interest to think through these matters and address public engagment through the media, perhaps as science questions seem more and more serious for the public. Institutions such as The Wellcome Trust and the British Association for the Advancement of Science seem keen to address the public-scientist divide.

The recent RAE statements on broader dissemination, perhaps, urges academics to think about how they relate to the media and communicate their work. Equally, scientists have been criticised for approaching the media, before their findings have been peer reviewed. It seems to me that media scholars play a crucial role in these discussions.

It does not seem satisfactory for academics to remain within their ivory towers, dismissive of wider dissemination. However, I doubt their are few academics in the humanities and, perhaps, the social sciences, who write a press release each time they have a new article published. Admittedly, I am not convinced that they should have to either. Writing press releases can be incredibly dull and is better done by those who have the skills for this sort of task.

Clearly, academics are perhaps not celebrities in a broader sense, though scientists such as Robert Winston, Susan Greenfield and others are certainly in the public eye a great deal.

Murderball & Cyborgs

I tread very carefully when discussing the use of technology by people with disabilities. I am skeptical of progressive transhumanist arguments associated with reparative technologies. However, this documentary seems to demand that very progressive argument. I am not sure that it lends itself to a cyborgian or posthuman discourse, unless we deal with those terms as simply the broadening of what it means to be human or, indeed, disabled.

I have only seen a trailer for the movie, but the director and actor/athletes talk about transforming the way in which athletes/people with a disability are perceived. In this sense, they are entering into a process of re-definition. I wonder whether they would see themselves as constitutiely technological as athletes. The chairs they use are quite different vehicles/ prosthetics to any that I have seen in other sports and their attitudes come across as deliberately and unapologetically aggresssive.

There is surely a paper waiting to be written about this both within sport studies and cultural studies of technology.

Olympic 2012 Celebrity line-up

I was just reading an article in The Telegraph, which mentions that Aboriginal-Australian athlete Cathy Freeman is going to be a major ambassador for the London 2012 Olympic team. The Telegraph reports that she was a big hit in Singapore during the final bid presentation where “It was noticeable during the build-up to the vote how many IOC members approached Freeman to be photographed with her.” (Hazel, 2005, Jul 18, Daily Telegraph, London)

I didn’t really see much of the final day presentation broadcasts leading up to the International Olympic Committeee decision on 6 July, but I do recall seeing a press conference where journalists were surprised by the lack of celebrities in the Paris bid team. Something along the lines of ‘but,where are your celebrities?’. I was told by some colleagues that there were, in fact, some celebs there for Paris, but, nevertheless, one might wonder how much the celebs really nailed it for London. To London’s advantage, there seemed particular merit in having David Beckham alongside, specifically because he self-identified as a native of the east London region that would benefit from the regeneration the Olympics would bring.

(image, Cathy Freeman in Athens media centre during the Olympics)

SportsGeneTest.com and ACTN3

I have just returned from Belgrade, where I presented a paper in an invited symposium at the 10th European College of Sport Science meeting. The title of the paper was 'Ban Drugs, Permit Gene Transfer'. Upon my return, I was updating the GMathletes website and discovered the SportsGeneTest website.

To my knowledge, this is the first site to indicate commercial tests for athletic performance. I noticed they have a policy statement, but it is only in German. If anyone can read German, perhaps you would tell me if it is an interesting statement or not!

More information is available through the Australian site 'Genetic Technologies'. In fact, at this page, the 'ethical tell' is a little clearer from their advice for coaches. I quote:

"It is important to note:

• this test is primarily aimed at elite athletes, serious competitors and teenagers already involved in sport and considering the next steps in terms of professional sports development;
• this test provides a complementary insight into a person's natural sport gearing and should only be considered as one aspect of a range of elements that go into being a champion, such as determination and the desire to win, enjoyment of the sport, coaching, nutrition, ability and level of fitness;
• the test may only be beneficial for those children already involved in and enjoying their sport who desire some direction as to their optimum sport or event if considering sport as a career or serious hobby;
• Genetic Technologies does not recommend or condone using the results of this test to pressure children into any sport or event. Children should only participate in sports that they enjoy for the purpose of fun and exercise."

So, it would seem they are concerned about:

1. These tests being used too early in a competitors life. Perhaps parents might wish to try them on their kids first, as a means of deciding whether it is worthwhile for them to play sport.
2. Genetic determinism – coaches/parents might conclude that the test result is the dominant predictor of performance capacity.
3. Tests might be imposed upon (young) athletes – though notably, they do not demonstrate a concern for adults being tested.

Well, I cover some of these issues in GMA, so perhaps no need to go over old ground. Still, genetic testing has yet to really hit home in the world of sport. It seems to be seen as merely an extension of talent identification, though I am not convinced that the principles are the same.