Summary Of When Species Meet By Haraway
In this essay, I will argue that although Haraway (2008) fails to delve further into some key ideas, she convincingly argues for the importance of trans-species relationships through discussing the key role of inequality in lab experiments. In chapter 3 of When Species Meet, Haraway (2008) explores the idea of shared suffering under points such as caring, killing, non-mimetic suffering and inequality in the context of animal lab experiments. This essay will discuss Haraway’s (2008) argument for reconsidering the categorisation of animals, focusing on inequality. Haraway (2008) takes a rather political approach, exploring ideas such as the logic of sacrifice and cosmopolitics, using a range of evidence from anecdotes to emails. However, Haraway
…show more content…
Haraway (2008) uses a range of different anecdotes, spreading from novels to personal emails, to show the full depth of the inequality and its importance in trans-species relationships. This is done by highlighting how it appears across various forms (Haraway 2008). Each example seems to represent the diversity of animals, with guinea-pigs, dogs and insects all being discussed (Haraway 2008). However, Haraway (2008:85) fails to acknowledge the impact of this diversity on her argument, especially in her tendency to focus back on dogs throughout her discussion. As De Boever (2006:232) argues, this is a major limit of Haraway’s (2008) writing. De Boever (2006:232) states that “clearly, the animal persists as an ontological, ethical, and political question that although it may be “about”—or better “with”—the animal is never entirely “of” the animal.” Therefore, Haraway (2008), by arguing for the entanglement of humans and animals, has simplified the idea of the animal, in which human interaction with all types of animals becomes, or is treated, the same (De Boever 2006:232). Therefore, perhaps her evidence may not completely support her argument when looked if the complexity of animals themselves is considered. Nonetheless, Haraway’s (2008:91) main claim to reconsider the categorisation of animals is specifically in relation to humans, and therefore this simplification may have allowed for stronger exploration of key ideas that underlie trans-species relationships, such as cosmopolitics, rather than delving into the impact of particular animals on this (Haraway
Haraway (2008) uses a range of different anecdotes, spreading from novels to personal emails, to show the full depth of the inequality and its importance in trans-species relationships. This is done by highlighting how it appears across various forms (Haraway 2008). Each example seems to represent the diversity of animals, with guinea-pigs, dogs and insects all being discussed (Haraway 2008). However, Haraway (2008:85) fails to acknowledge the impact of this diversity on her argument, especially in her tendency to focus back on dogs throughout her discussion. As De Boever (2006:232) argues, this is a major limit of Haraway’s (2008) writing. De Boever (2006:232) states that “clearly, the animal persists as an ontological, ethical, and political question that although it may be “about”—or better “with”—the animal is never entirely “of” the animal.” Therefore, Haraway (2008), by arguing for the entanglement of humans and animals, has simplified the idea of the animal, in which human interaction with all types of animals becomes, or is treated, the same (De Boever 2006:232). Therefore, perhaps her evidence may not completely support her argument when looked if the complexity of animals themselves is considered. Nonetheless, Haraway’s (2008:91) main claim to reconsider the categorisation of animals is specifically in relation to humans, and therefore this simplification may have allowed for stronger exploration of key ideas that underlie trans-species relationships, such as cosmopolitics, rather than delving into the impact of particular animals on this (Haraway