Sadie Inman
September 15, 2020
Critical Geography
Response Paper 3 - Bioproperty
The introduction of The History of the World in 7 Cheap Things begins explaining how the increased production levels of capitalism are justified through this “cheapening” of the things around us. The capitalistic mindset is one that can own anything and use it how you see fit. The concept of bioproperty (such as OncoMouse and GloFish) is a perfect example of this and is discussed in Harti and Negri’s book Multitude. Bioproperty is being able to own a life form and not just an individual animal but it’s genetic coding. This is how we view animals and others. Bioproperty doesn’t only mean you own something it takes it away from others. The human perspective is one that is self-centered and striving for its own betterment at the cost of everything else. The concept of private property is central to America and other western cultures. Everyone wants to own something because if you own it you can a) use it however you like b) profit off of it. The Supreme Court says if it comes from your labors it is yours and you can patent it.
It is this self-centered view that is at the heart of a lot of scientific communities. These people see themselves as working toward the greater good of mankind and therefore they can leave a path of destruction behind them. Wolfgang Köhler’s experiment with apes is told in J.M. Coetzee’s book The Lives of Animals in a way to tug on your ethical side. Köhler was attempting to find out how intelligent apes were by having them solve problems to be able to eat. But through his process, he was reducing these apes from sentient beings to beings of reason. His experiments were cruel, as most animal experiments are and the knowledge gained was minimal. Köhler saw the apes as cheap and as an instrument he could use to get ahead.
There is an acceptable justification for animal cruelty that has been used worldwide since the 1800s. Knowledge. The Adelaide Zoo, as described by Kay Anderson in “Culture and Nature at the Adelaide Zoo: At the Frontiers of ‘Human’ Geography”, was a pitiful place to keep animals and it only did so for the enjoyment of the people. Although, it claimed that it was there for education and the plaques next to the cages spouted facts about the animals luckier cousins. Despite this claim about education, the main attraction was an overworked and anxious elephant that would give children rides. The people didn’t need much justification to enjoy themselves but throughout the decades the people’s outcry grew and there were large changes made. The animals dying and refusing to mate (due to stress) did nothing to convince the board that the conditions were horrendous. It was the masses, and it still is today, that have to keep these organizations in check. Animals have no voice, we have taken it from them, therefore we must be the voice to call out the injustices for not just animals but all of those that capitalism has decided are only a part of the unfortunate side effect of moving forward.
It is true that capitalism has many problems with humans and non-human animals alike. When the world decides to stop revolving around money perhaps it will become easier for us to help others. In modern times I would say that a lot of people are starting to see the mistreatment of non-human animals and are trying to find ways to solve the problems.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of both the 'Adelaide Zoo' and 'Life on the Market' made me think of how often we still endorse popularizing caged animals like Miss Siam.
ReplyDeleteI was specifically thinking of Fiona the premature hippo at the Cincinnati Zoo, where the zoo basically created an internet sensation where fans would check in (and still do) to support Fiona's weight gain on social media or on the zoos website. I have really conflicting feelings on it because her caretakers are so knowledgeable, they seem to have genuine affection for her, and yet she has her own space carved out on internet as a cash cow (cash hippo?). In the context of Life on the Market, specifically page 182, do you think that Fiona belongs to nature or is she a a hybrid result of human labor?
(I realize this probably isn't an exact connection to what I think Hardt/Negri are getting at, but it was something I thought was relevant and on my mind).
Great connection in the first paragraph and it reminds me, as well, of Massey's point about the bus. When people choose not to use it--by driving--they are also limiting its use as a resource for those who depend upon it. The privilege of mobility is not neutral, it also works to remove that privilege from others. It is the same about bioproperty as you note above and very interesting to think of Massey's politics of mobility at work in Hardt and Negri's argument.
ReplyDeleteYour post also does a great job identifying what can be another keyword of these early reading of the semester: the production of knowledge. Foucault is the most explicit about this with the concept of discipline and power/knowledge. But keep it in mind with Gramsci, Marx, Harvey, Coetzee and others. How exactly can we begin to articulate the relationship between the production of space and knowledge production?