This article suggests that humanism is a decisionism in contemporary critical political theory. Despite obvious and multiple differences, leading critical theorists like Giorgio Agamben, Slavoj Žižek, Eric Santner, and Jürgen Habermas, among others, share an investment in stabilizing the human being as a ground of the political. This stabilization of the human should concern political theorists, as this article argues, because it uncritically reproduces conceptual affinities between the notion of the human being and sovereign authority. By investing in the stability (...) and centrality of the human being, these theorists perform what will be called, paraphrasing an often neglected argument by Carl Schmitt, a decision to be human. Contrary to conventional wisdom, I argue that Schmitt’s decisionism is not merely circumscribed to sovereignty’s juridico-political dimension, but that it also includes a peculiar commitment to God’s decision to become human in Christ. Against this decisionism as humanism, the article draws on Walter Benjamin, Roberto Esposito, and Jacques Derrida to propose an alternative politics that destabilizes humanity and sovereignty through the emergence of the animal, or what will be called melancholic lycanthropy. (shrink)

Human dignity is making a comeback. The essay focuses on the story that this comeback of human dignity presupposes and recasts. In that story, the “human family” is portrayed in terms of aristocratic dignitas. The consequences are twofold: human dignity is co-implicated with the de-animalization of the human being; once de-animalization is introduced, the story of human dignity cultivates an aristocratic sense of elevation of the human over other species, or what I will call “species aristocratism.” The fact that a (...) new kind of aristocratism based on species emerges from the story of human dignity should concern us, I suggest, because it not only confronts us with unintended consequences of relying on human dignity as the foundation of human rights but also invites us to rethink our contemporary egalitarian, democratic ethos, understood as aristocracy for all. (shrink)

This article puts Arendt’s conception of non-human animal appearance into a productive dialogue with recent developments in critical animal studies and animal rights theory within which notions such as agency, zoopolis, and animal agora play an important role. By reinterpreting the animal condition in Arendt’s account of the human condition, it demonstrates her potential contribution to political theory in a world where non-human-animals and nature are seen as making claims of entry into the political community. By emphasizing Arendt’s later work, (...) in which she expresses an openness towards the possibility that non-human animals are drawn to appear, the article indicates how Arendt might help us, both to rethink the boundaries of the political community beyond the human species, and to recognize the political agency of non-human animals. (shrink)

El presente trabajo discute el concepto de comunidad en la obra del teórico italiano Roberto Esposito y su relación con literatura reciente en la teoría de los derechos de los animales. Se argumenta que la communitas teorizada por Esposito constituye un aporte a la configuración de una comunidad más allá de lo humano, de un modo que al mismo tiempo enriquece y problematiza la idea de comunidad presupuesta, pero no teorizada explícitamente, por Sue Donaldson y Will Kymlicka en la noción (...) de zoopolis. (shrink)

RESUMEN ¿Es el animal es un tema de interés para Carl Schmitt? El sentido común académico presupone que la cuestión del animal es ajena tanto a los intereses intelectuales de Schmitt como a su concepción de lo político, de lo teológico y de la relación que ambos mantienen entre sí. En este trabajo sugerimos que esta impresión debe ser revisada a la luz de evidencia textual que revela el interés de Schmitt por la cuestión del animal y de intérpretes de (...) su obra que, aunque de manera tangencial, participan de la discusión. ABSTRACT Is the animal a subject of interest to Carl Schmitt? Academic common sense presupposes that the question of the animal is alien both to Schmitt's intellectual interests and to his conception of the political, the theological, and the relationship between the two. In this paper we suggest that this impression should be revised in the light of textual evidence that reveals Schmitt's interest in the animal question and of interpreters of his work who, albeit tangentially, discuss the animal question. (shrink)