Skip to main content
  • 72 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers the ontological status of roadkill, which is to say, its basic nature and significance. It is suggested that traditional substance ontologies, as well as more contemporary relational ontologies and ethical frameworks, are inadequate for disclosing the nature of roadkill. In order to address this limit, Calvin Warren’s analysis of ontological terror is employed to analyze the lives and deaths of beings who are understood to fall outside the orbit of the human. The chapter concludes with the idea that thinking and attending to roadkill as inhabiting such an outside requires relating to it as an event.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Desmond (2016, 143–144) for a general overview of roadkill from this more definitional perspective.

  2. 2.

    On this point, see also Lulka (2008).

  3. 3.

    When pressed on the question of whether an animal might have a face, Levinas suggests that a “more specific analysis is needed” to answer the question (Levinas 1988, 172).

  4. 4.

    It is important to note that Blanchot’s reflections on the corpse make sense only within the context of a world that is (to use Levinasian terminology) “right side up”—which is to say, a world that accords human bodies some semblance of meaning and value and in which corpses do not pile up unattended on the side of the road. As should be clear, there are situations in which such worlds break down and in which human corpses do pile up, unattended and unmourned. How might consideration of the fate of human bodies in such broken worlds help to illuminate the status of roadkill in worlds that we might otherwise consider to be right side up? This is a question to which I return in the following section in examining Calvin Warren’s work.

  5. 5.

    Roadkill removal services are not uncommon in larger cities, but their primary charge is to ensure the smooth and safe flow of automobile traffic—and not to ensure a fitting or respectful burial for dead animals.

  6. 6.

    Warren typically refers to “blacks” in the lower case; I follow his practice here when referring to his work.

  7. 7.

    I should underscore here at the outset of my discussion that marking this adjacency of blacks and animals (which Warren himself also underscores) is by no means intended to denote a simple identity of these groups, either in terms of ontological status or ethico-political standing. The connections here are considerably more fraught and complex, as I hope the following analysis demonstrates.

  8. 8.

    Plumwood discusses this attack in several publications; I draw here primarily from Plumwood (2000). I have examined this piece in more detail in Calarco (2022).

  9. 9.

    The concept of event has a wide circulation in contemporary theory and philosophy. It plays a significant role in the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Emmanuel Levinas, Gilles Deleuze, and Alain Badiou, to name a few of the more prominent figures. In proposing that roadkill be conceived of as an event, this body of work will certainly be relevant to my concerns, but I depart from the standard uses of this term in ways that will be apparent in the pages that follow.

  10. 10.

    I use the term solicit here in the etymological sense emphasized in Derrida’s work, in which to solicit means to make something “shake as a whole, to make [it] tremble in [its] entirety” (Derrida 1982, 21).

References

  • Agamben, Giorgio. 2004. The Open: Man and Animal. Translated by Kevin Attell. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1987. Categories. In A New Aristotle Reader, ed. J.L. Ackrill. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, Joshua. 2020. Being Property Once Myself: Blackness and the End of Man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchot, Maurice. 1982. The Space of Literature. Translated by Ann Smock. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruns, Gerald L. 1997. Maurice Blanchot: The Refusal of Philosophy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calarco, Matthew. 2022. The Boundaries of Human Nature: The Philosophical Animal from Plato to Haraway. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1982. Margins of Philosophy. Translated by Alan Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desmond, Jane. 2016. Displaying Death and Animating Life: Human-Animal Relations in Art, Science, and Everyday Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, Martin. 2014. Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by Gregory Fried and Richard Polt. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Aph. 2019. Racism as Zoological Witchcraft: A Guide for Getting Out. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Translated by Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1974. Philosophy and the Idea of Infinity. In Collected Philosophical Papers, 47–60. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1988. The Paradox of Morality: An Interview with Emmanuel Levinas. In The Provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the Other, ed. Robert Bernasconi and David Wood, 168–180. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lulka, David. 2008. The Intimate Hybridity of Roadkill: A Beckettian View of Dismay and Persistence. Emotion, Space and Society 1 (1): 38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 1997. Sophist. In Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, Val. 2000. Being Prey. Utne Reader 100: 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Mick. 2009. Road Kill: Remembering What Is Left in Our Encounters with Animals. In Emotion, Place and Culture, ed. Mick Smith, Joyce Davidson, Laura Cameron, and Liz Bondi, 21–34. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vannini, Phillip. 2014. Slowness and Deceleration. In The Routledge Handbook of Mobilities, ed. Peter Adey, Mimi Sheller, David Bissell, Kevin Hannam, and Peter Merriman, 116–124. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, Calvin L. 2018. Ontological Terror: Blackness, Nihilism, and Emancipation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Calarco, M. (2023). What Is Roadkill?. In: Reflections on Roadkill between Mobility Studies and Animal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30578-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics