Foucault News

News and resources on French thinker Michel Foucault (1926-1984)

Gunawan, M. Navigating human and non-human animal relations: Okja, foucault and animal welfare laws (2018) Alternative Law Journal, 43 (4), pp. 263-268.

DOI: 10.1177/1037969X18802459

Abstract
This article draws upon a Foucauldian analysis of power to conceptualise the human and non-human animal relations throughout the Netflix film Okja. The article examines how ‘super-pig’ Okja’s experiences (and subjectivities) are deeply shaped by the ‘apparatuses’ within which Okja is situated. As the power relationships and practices of ‘domination’ portrayed in Okja highlight, the legal categorisation of animals and their foundations within mainstream discourses reflect, and perpetuate, society’s understanding of the moral significance of animals. Okja’s transformation throughout the film, as well as her very existence as a hybrid ‘super-pig’, confuses the legal categorisation of non-human animals and highlights a double standard in the law. © The Author(s) 2018.

Author Keywords
Animal law; Animal rights; Art; Arts and entertainment; Arts and law; Critical legal theory

One thought on “Navigating human and non-human animal relations: Okja, foucault and animal welfare laws (2018)

  1. The leading light in the philosophy of animal rights is headed by StephenPuryear at North Carolina State University. Two papers one on #Kant’s position and another beauty on #SchopenhauersTheRightsofAnimals. I argue that Schopenhauer’s ascription of (moral) rights to animals flows
    naturally from his distinctive analysis of the concept of a right. In contrast
    to those who regard rights as fundamental and then cast wrongdoing as a
    matter of violating rights, he takes wrong (Unrecht) to be the more
    fundamental notion and defines the concept of a right (Recht) in its terms.
    He then offers an account of wrongdoing which makes it plausible to
    suppose that at least many animals can be wronged and thus, by
    extension, have rights. The result, I argue, is a perspective on the nature
    of moral rights in general, and the idea of animal rights in particular, that
    constitutes an important and plausible alternative to the more familiar
    views advanced by philosophers in recent decades. https://philarchive.org/archive/PURSOTv3 And Kant whom he argues with effectively https://stephenpuryear.wordpress.com/category/animal-ethics/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: