You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The animal is regarded as an old or lower layer within the human psyche in some approaches when considering the distinction between the human and the animal. In that perspective, animality is viewed as a continuum of the human psyche, and primarily it represents the primitive and aggressive side of the human psyche. On the other hand, in another approach, the human and the animal souls are treated as two distinct entities that exclude each other. The most important reason for this later distinction appears to be language. Both of those different perspectives can be found in Sigmund Freud's writings. In that sense, the drive concept becomes more puzzling, and it seems like assigning the instinct to animals, and the drive to humans is not a good-enough solution. Moreover, that solution raises new questions; it is not easy to convince that animals are automatons and there is no trace of subjectivity on their part. This problem is also crucial to understanding the destructivity of humans; hence dehumanization is at the center of anthropogenic extirpation that threatens the entire planet. Cities were increasingly purged of those claimed to be non-human as humans’ ability to control nature increased. Even though, gaining control over nature and sanitated cities were among the criteria suggested by Sigmund Freud for a better civilization; it didn't help to contain human cruelty. On the contrary, that desire to purify and sanitization fueled a slew of crimes that were committed against nature, against animals, and against whoever was declared unwanted in the city life. What happened to the dogs of Istanbul in 1910 is one of the painful examples of that cruelty in history. This paper aims to use anecdotes from history and philosophy to broaden the psychoanalytic discussion over what animals are and are not.