Abstract:

This commentary on the dialogue between Sunaura Taylor and Sara Orning seeks to understand the connections they draw among pandemic conditions, the treatment of animal life, disability, and the requirement for new networks of care. Along the way, it becomes clear that certain ideals of human existence that disavow its constitutive animality are responsible for notions of anthropocentric autonomy with clearly destructive consequences. Their argument that animal studies is linked with disability studies rests upon the premise that normative versions of the human deny interdependency that is central to care networks. The idea that diasbled people somehow fail the human norm is one instance of the cruelty that also denies the value of animal life. Animality, which links humans to animals, is misrepresented by the idea of “bestialization.” The problem is not that humans are treated as animals (they are animals), but that “bestialization” names the mistreatment of animals that becomes then a term for the mistreatment of humans. Pandemic practices bring out those relations of interdependency that counter false and destructive distinctions, offering a way to think about the communities of the living.

摘要：

这篇关于Sunaura Taylor和Sara Orning之间对话的评论旨在了解他们在大流行病，动物生命，残疾以及对新护理网络的需求之间的联系。一路走来，很明显，某些人类生存的理想剥夺了人类的本构动物性，这导致了以人类为中心的自治概念的产生，具有明显的破坏性后果。他们认为动物研究与残疾研究联系在一起的论点是基于这样的前提，即人类的规范版本否认相互依存是护理网络的核心。使人流离失所的想法某种程度上破坏了人类规范的想法是残酷的一个实例，这种残酷也否定了动物生命的价值。将人与动物联系起来的动物性被“愚蠢化”的概念所歪曲。问题不在于人类被当作动物对待（他们就是动物），而是“天性化”将对动物的虐待命名为虐待动物的术语。大流行病的做法带出了相互依存的关系，可以消除虚假和破坏性的区别，从而提供了一种思考生活社区的方式。