Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

Thesis Format

Integrated Article

Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Program

Theory and Criticism

Supervisor

Joshua Schuster

Abstract

This dissertation is an investigation of the ontological position of the nonhuman animal within the Marxist tradition and as it concerns both the language of value production and the slaughterhouse. The premise of my study is an engagement with Marx’s oeuvre and influences, as well those who respond to his work. Within this context, I propose that the nonhuman animal’s ontological position—as it concerns labour, language, and intellect—is subject to a gesture of erasure which marks their being as performing the action of interest in the absence of the possibility to claim either determination, or fluency of capability. This paradoxical presence shores up theoretical characterizations of the nonhuman animal as a creature who labours, but is not a labourer, who speaks but lacks language, and who thinks but has no thought. My first chapter investigates the way Marx—uninterested in the animal—allows such creatures to creep into his work, mostly through references to ecology. Responding to contemporary discourse within Marxist animal studies, I argue that the animal remains a problem in Marx—something which complicates the boundary of the definition of value production. As such, I offer a novel analysis of the nonhuman animal’s labour in the slaughterhouse. I then turn to Aristotle as the source from whom Marx derives the definition of value. Unlike Marx, Aristotle, I argue, situates the nonhuman animal in a position of relevant context. As such, I reread concepts of perception, imagination, and judgement for the improbability of Man as a contained subject from whom the nonhuman animal is made a degraded Other. Finally, I relate my investigation to Fredric Jameson’s Political Unconscious. How can a text that is devoted to uncovering the essential framework of class analysis and labour exclude the nonhuman animal? To answer this, I turn to the tradition in which Jameson writes, and apply the master-bondsman dialectic to the slaughterhouse. This analysis leads me to my conclusion wherein I affirm that the force of the slaughterhouse and animal industry sets up a world in which there is only one labourer left: the nonhuman animal.

Summary for Lay Audience

This dissertation is an investigation of the way animal being—that is, the capabilities and capacities that define their existence—is represented in the Marxist tradition. My analysis specifically focuses on the question of who can and cannot be titled a labourer. With consideration to the Marxist tradition, I argue that the nonhuman animal is at once, a creature who is included and indeed, informs the definition of labour, language, and reason, but is nonetheless refused the possibility to claim that activity as a part of its being. That is, animals are present in the philosophy of language and labour as speakers and workers who do not actually have speech and cannot present as makers of value. My first chapter investigates the way Marx frequently references nonhuman animals despite his disinterest in the role they may or may not play in production. Responding to contemporary discourse within Marxist animal studies, I claim that the animal remains a problem in Marx—something which complicates the boundary of the definition of labour. I therefore offer a novel analysis of the nonhuman animal’s labour in the slaughterhouse. I then turn to Aristotle as the source from whom Marx derives his definition of value. I argue that unlike Marx, Aristotle takes time to directly address the role of animals in language with an allowance towards possibility. I therefore reread concepts of perception, imagination, and judgement for the improbability of Man as the subject from whom the nonhuman animal is made a degraded Other. Finally, I relate my investigation to Fredric Jameson’s notion of the political unconscious. How can a text that is devoted to uncovering the essential framework of class analysis and labour fail to think of the nonhuman animal? To answer this, I turn to the tradition in which Jameson writes, and analyze the slaughterhouse through Hegel’s master-bondsman dialectic. This analysis leads me to my conclusion wherein I affirm that the force of the slaughterhouse and animal industry has set up a world in which there is only one labourer left: the nonhuman animal.

Download

Share

COinS