Abstract

Performed not only within the interdisciplinary field of gender studies, feminist pedagogy since the 1980s has drawn attention to the significance of power differentials (gender, race, class, etc.), one’s location, and diversity of personal experience as crucial factors weaved into the practices of teaching, education, and knowledge production in general. Contemporary feminist theory has put a special emphasis on the redefinition of matter as agential, non-inert, and always already entangled with meaning1 on the one hand, and on the importance of doing away with the central position of the human subject while simultaneously focusing on the relations between human and nonhuman (both organic and inorganic), on the other. This repudiation of anthropocentrism constitutes one of the main premises of feminist posthumanism, where the emergence of subjects and objects is always already intertwined with meaning and knowledge production as well as their ethical implications.3 In this regard, it is worth asking what potentials may arise through thinking the course of life (implied in the idea of currere), the subject of which is not only nonhuman, but also forms the imploded knot of the living and non-living. Despite a great volume of feminist scholarship dealing with the question of non-anthropocentric ethics and the nonhuman, one may still be tempted to ask how all of this theorizing matters for nonhumans who are also “big like us” (Hird, 2009, p. 21); how it may affect the situation of actual nonhuman animals, the lives of whom, more often than not, appear today as “bare life” in the Agambenian sense? The inquiry is neither new nor easy to respond to.