I have been teaching an undergraduate course called "Ethics and Animals" for almost a decade now. It counts as a core course for the ethics certificate at my university, and is housed in my home department, Women's Studies, so there is some presumption of feminist or progressive content. I have the syllabi from all these years laid out in front of me on my desk. What strikes me immediately is that the turnover of the reading list is at least 75 percent, and sometimes even 100 percent, from year to year. Early on, I see Singer (1975) and Regan (1983), Adams (1990), De-Grazi (2002), Francione (1996), Singer and Regan again, Linzey (1987), Haraway (1989), Francione again, Wolfe (2003), Derrida (2008), Waldau (2006), Agamben 2004), Deleuze (1987)-the lineup looks like I Googled "books: ethics and animals" and spread the results out over a decade. My classes usually went well, but most of the books I assigned never quite met students exactly where they were, or pushed them in the directions toward which I wanted them to head.
展开▼
机译：我一直在教授一个名为“伦理与动物”的本科课程，已有近十年的历史。它是我大学伦理学证书的核心课程，位于我的家庭系“妇女研究”中，因此有一些女性主义或进步主义内容的推定。这些年来，我的课桌上摆着我的教学大纲。立即让我感到震惊的是，阅读列表的年增长率至少为75％，有时甚至是100％。早些时候，我看到Singer（1975）和Regan（1983），Adams（1990），De-Grazi（2002），Franconie（1996），Singer and Regan，Linzey（1987），Haraway（1989）和Francione，沃尔夫（2003），德里达（2008），瓦尔道（2006），阿甘本2004），德勒兹（1987）-阵容就像我在Google上搜索了“书籍：伦理与动物”，并将结果散布了十年。我的课程通常会顺利进行，但是我分配的大多数书从未完全碰到过学生所在的地方，也没有将他们推向我希望他们前进的方向。
展开▼
