Donna Dog

Harraway's book is divided into three sections, by subject and style.  The middle and final sections are the most accessible, and they were the most interesting for me.  Harraway is a biologist at UCSC  (the loveliest university in the county).  The book is not so much about when and how species interact, but rather about interactions between human beings and dogs (with some side stories and thoughts).  That is why I bought it.  When not being a theorist, she has interesting things to say; when talking biology theory she has interesting to things to say.  Philosophy, not so articulate.  I think one of the key messages is that species meet, interact.  In other words, there is somebody, albeit rather different, on the other side.  Dogs are intelligent and interesting creatures, as are lots and lots of other creatures.  (I think bees are in the category, too.)  So how to interact in ways that respect the conscious fellow over there?  She has things to say about that which consider the dog without anthropomorphizing the monsters.  A good and proper balance, respecting the drives different sorts of dogs experience.  That comes through much more clearly in the last two sections.  The second is mostly about her experiences with her dog in agility competitions.  (Basically, running obstacle courses -- a sport virtually designed for Australian shepherds.)  A bit much about the place in Sonoma -- clearly someone is getting paid well -- but that is envy (Sonoma is gorgeous).  That part of the book should be of interest to all sorts of dog nuts, like me.  The last section is more personal reminiscence about her family and career and so on.  I found the discussions of family touching.  The career story was different.  Touching in a different way because, in the middle of a discussion of some (in my view, not hers) remarkably silly people, she discusses Gary Lease, who recently died and from whom I took some classes long ago.  That discussion reminded me of that time.  But it also included a very kind discussion of contrasting misunderstanding.  One discussion starts out with meeting some graduate students who are soon off to a celebration of a birth, the celebration involving, inter alia, eating the placenta (cooked, apparently -- gourmet cannibals I guess), followed shortly by a dinner hosted by Lease who served freshly killed wild boar (my that would have been great) and the hostility of some to such meat (and maybe to meat tout court).  I guess mass destruction of insects does not matter.  Cannibalism is okay but eating the wild is not.  Not clear what theory moved these people. 

The first section is a discussion of theory informed by Foucault and Freud.  Fraud and fake.  It does provide an opaque apparatus that looks smart.  But neither should be taken that seriously.  Freud was a failure as a scientist, and largely a fraud.  Foucault is no better -- an archeology without historical accuracy.  With some Lacan thrown in.  If you spend the time, the ideas in this section match well enough to the other, and there is a theory of sorts.  But the language is not only an obstacle, the theoretical apparatus is a mess, and, ultimately, wrongheaded.