@article{oai:nagoya.repo.nii.ac.jp:00029279,
 author = {リピット水田, 堯 and Lippit, Mizuta Akira and 大崎, 晴美 and Ōsaki, Harumi},
 journal = {JunCture : 超域的日本文化研究},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {In 1997, Cerisy-la-Salle in Normandy, France hosted a "décade," a ten-day conference around the work of Jacques Derrida. Derrida attended and spoke, providing the title for this gathering, "L’animal autobiographique," the autobiographical animal. The combination of terms suggests a paradoxical erasure of each individual term in the phrase; what do animals have to do with autobiographies, what animals have written (or would care to write) an "autobiography"? And what is an autobiography; does it have any meaning outside of the ways in which human beings use it? Which is to say, can an animal or any other non-human being write or produce an autobiography? One would think the practice of autobiography, the very notion of autobiography is reserved for human beings. It is, one could say, the very essence of what makes one human, what makes an animal human--the capacity for autobiography. If so, if indeed the capacity not only to write but to write oneself--to write of and about, upon oneself--is reserved for human beings, then isn't the "autobiographical animal" merely another name for the human animal or human being? Isn't then the autobiographical animal a euphemism or pseudonym for human beings? Like, as Derrida later says, a "political animal"? For human beings that have become human on the occasion of an autobiographical act, on the completion of a task one would call autobiographical?, 大崎晴美（訳）},
 pages = {36--52},
 title = {Therefore、デリダを視た動物},
 volume = {2},
 year = {2011}
}