Husserl’s Hesitant Attempts to Extend Personhood to Animals

Abstract

The question of the animal is one of the most intensely debated in the contemporary philosophical arena. The present article makes the case that Husserl’s phenomenological approach offers a stimulating and open-ended perspective on this discussion. The animal, indeed, is an instance of extreme otherness, which pushes phenomenology to its limits. The paper opens with an outline of the methodological issues raised by the question of the animal (Sect. 1). It then examines what the animal—at this point, taken as a whole—and the human being have in common and what Husserl sees as the main differences between them. A critical aspect here is the question of personhood (Sect. 2). Finally, Sect. 3 traces Husserl’s progression from a general concept of animality to detailed and nuanced phenomenological descriptions of different animals and their intra- and inter-specific relationships. Husserl understands that the threshold that joins and divides human beings and animals is difficult to pin down, because there is more than one threshold: it is plural.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf. Heidegger (1977, p. 73): “Die Abgrenzung der Daseinsanalytik gegen Anthropologie, Psychologie und Biologie”. Heidegger was certainly familiar with Ideen II. In his 1932 lecture on Phänomenologie und Anthropologie, Husserl set out to dispel a series of misunderstandings: anthropologism and psychologism stand in opposition to the other school of modern subjectivism, represented by transcendentalism, and later by phenomenology itself. Yet, at the end of the lecture, he himself suggested that “Psychologie, und wenn man will Anthropologie, nicht eine positive Wissenschaft neben den anderen, neben den naturwissenschaftlichen Disziplinen ist, sondern zur Philosophie, der transzendentalen, eine innere Affinität hat” (Hua XXVII, p. 181).

  2. 2.

    On the methodological problems raised by Husserl’s approach to transcendental animality in Ideen II, see Cabestan (1995, pp. 41–47); see also San Martin (1995). For in-depth analysis of the overall theoretical structure of Ideen II, and its dual attempt to distinguish between the naturalistic and personalistic attitudes, see the key work of Ricoeur (1986). On zoology, see also Hua VI, p. 297; finally, concerning the relationship between phenomenology and biology, see Beilage XXIII, Hua VI, pp. 482–484.

  3. 3.

    See Steinbock (1995). On the animal with respect to generative phenomenology, see esp. pp. 225–230. On the paradoxes of normality/anomality in Husserl’s thinking about animals, see Ciocan (2017).

  4. 4.

    Beilage I (1912) is a copy of a manuscript outlining the first part of Husserl’s original plan for Ideen II.

  5. 5.

    Di Martino in particular lays strong emphasis on the role of differential experiences of temporality in shaping the differences between the human and animal worlds. Di Martino (2014, 2017, pp. 38–82).

  6. 6.

    While Bayley suggests that Husserl puts forward two different notions of the person, applying one to the human being and the other to the animal (Bayley 2013, p. 226), and Painter claims that for Husserl animals are persons, with crucial ethical implications (Painter 2007), in Di Martino’s (2014 and 2017) view, Husserl’s distinction between the human being as a person and the animal as a non-person is entirely rigid. For Lotz (2006) too, later manuscripts in which Husserl takes an intersubjective approach to the problem of animality do not substantially change the framework proposed in Ideen II, that is to say, the idea that animal consciousness is psychic but not personal. I myself would argue that, on the basis of Husserl’s writings, it is preferable to adopt a more prudent position, speaking in terms of hesitant attempts to extend personhood to animals.

  7. 7.

    Toulemont (1962) was the first to propose a catalogue of these: see, especially, “Les animaux”, pp. 79–82 and “La sociabilité animale”, pp. 192–198.

  8. 8.

    On this point, see Ferencz-Flatz (2017) for a reflection on the co-existence, in the world, of both humanization and animalization processes, and the crucial ethical implications of this.

  9. 9.

    As is well known, Husserl lumps animals in the category of threshold problems together with very young children, the insane, and primitives (Tieren, frühe Kindheit, Wahnsinnnigen, Primitiven (Hua XV, p. 167). With respect to primitives, Husserl was certainly influenced by Lévy-Bruhl’s work, La mythologie primitive. Le monde mythique des Australiens et des Papous (1935). Husserl met Lévi-Bruhl in Paris in 1929, and Lévi-Bruhl sent him a copy of his book in 1935. Cf. “Husserl an Lévy-Bruhl, 11.III.1935” (HuaDok 1994, pp. 161–164).

  10. 10.

    This is even more so in the case of embryos (Embryonen) (Hua XV, p. 178). Concerning the problem of Vor-personen, see Heinämaa (2013).

  11. 11.

    Husserl’s main sources of reference material in the field of ethology were W. Köhler (The mentality of apes, 1927) and J. von Uexküll. In his private library, Husserl held two of von Uexküll’s books: Umwelt und Innenwelt der Tiere (1921) and “Das Organismus und die Umwelt” in Das Lebensprobleme in Lichte der modernen Forschung (1931). See Ferencz-Flatz (2017, p. 222).

References

  1. Agamben, G. (2012). L’aperto. L’uomo e l’animale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bayley, C. (2013). Le partage du monde: Husserl et la constitution des animaux comme “autres moi”. Chiasmi International,15, 219–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cabestan, P. (1995). La constitution de l’animal dans les Ideen. Alter. Revue de phénoménologie,3, 39–79.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Calarco, M. (2008). Zoographies: The question of the animal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ciocan, C. (2017). Husserl’s phenomenology of animality and the paradoxes of normality. Human Studies,40, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Depraz, N. (1995). Y a-t-il une animalité transcendantale? Alter. Revue de phénoménologie,3, 81–114.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Derrida, J. (2006). L’animal que donc je suis. Paris: Galilée.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Di Martino, C. (2014). Husserl and the question of animality. Research in Phenomenology,44(1), 50–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Di Martino, C. (2017). Per una fenomenologia dei viventi. In Viventi umani e non umani. Tecnica, linguaggio, memoria. Milano: Cortina.

  10. Ferencz-Flatz, C. (2017). Humanizing the animal, animalizing the human: Husserl on pets. Human Studies,40, 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Heidegger, M. (1977). Sein und Zeit. Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Heinämaa, S. (2013). Transcendental intersubjectivity and normality: Constitution by mortals. In R. T. Jensen & D. Moran (Eds.), The phenomenology of embodied subjectivity (pp. 83–104). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hua I. Husserl, E. (1950). Cartesianische Meditationen und Pariser Vorträge. S. Strasser (Ed.). Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.

  15. Hua II. Husserl, E. (1950). Die Idee der Phänomenologie: Fünf Vorlesungen. W. Biemel (Ed.). Den Haag.

  16. Hua IV. Husserl, E. (1952). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Zweites Buch. Phänomenologische Untersuchungen zur Konstitution. M. Biemel (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.

  17. Hua V. Husserl, E. (1952). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Drittes Buch. Die Phänomenologie und die Fundamente der Wissenschaften. M. Biemel (Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhof.

  18. Hua VI. Husserl, E. (1954). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. W. Biemel (Ed.). Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.

  19. Hua XIV. Husserl, E. (1973). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Zweiter Teil 1921–1928. I. Kern (Ed.). Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.

  20. Hua XV. Husserl, E. (1973). Zur Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität. Texte aus dem Nachlass. Dritter Teil 1929–1935. I. Kern (Ed.). Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.

  21. Hua XXV. Husserl, E. (1987). Aufsätze und Vorträge 1911–1921. H. R. Sepp und T. Nenon (Eds.). Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff.

  22. Hua XXVII. Husserl, E. (1989). Aufsätze und Vorträge 1922–1937. T. Nenon und H. R. Sepp (Eds.). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.

  23. Hua XXXIX. Husserl, E. (2008). Die Lebenswelt. Auslegungen der vorgegebenen Welt und ihrer Konstitution. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1916–1937). R. Sowa (Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.

  24. Hua XLII. Husserl, E. (2014). Grenzprobleme der Phänomenologie (1908–1937). R. Sowa und T. Vongehr (Ed.). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer.

  25. HuaDok VIII. Husserl, E. (1994). Briefwechsel. K. Schuhmann und E. Schuhmann (Eds.). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.

  26. HuaMat VIII. Husserl, E. (2006). Späte Texte über Zeitkonstitution (1929–1934). Die C-Manuskripten. D. Lohmar (Ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.

  27. Lotz, C. (2006). Psyche or person? Husserl’s phenomenology of animals. In D. Lohmar & D. Fonfara (Eds.), Interdisziplinäre perspektiven der phänomenologie (pp. 190–202). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Painter, C. (2007). Appropriating the philosophies of Edmund Husserl and Edith Stein: Animal psyche, empathy. In C. Painter & C. Lotz (Eds.), Phenomenology and the non-human animal. At the limits of experience (pp. 97–115). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ricoeur, P. (1986). Analyses et problèmes dans Ideen II de Husserl. À l’école de la phénoménologie (pp. 87–140). Paris: Vrin.

    Google Scholar 

  31. San Martin, J. (1995). La subjetividad trascendental animal. Alter. Revue de phénoménologie,3, 383–406.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Steinbock, J. (1995). Home and beyond. Generative phenomenology after Husserl. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Toulemont, R. (1962). L’essence de la société selon Husserl. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Van der Veer, D. (1983). Interspecific justice and animal slaughter. In H. B. Miller & W. H. Williams (Eds.), Ethics and animals (pp. 147–162). New York: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zamir, T. (2007). Ethics and the beast: Speciesist argument for animal liberation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Vergani.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vergani, M. Husserl’s Hesitant Attempts to Extend Personhood to Animals. Husserl Stud (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-020-09263-w

Download citation