"The anthropological machine, according to Agamben, is a description of the dichotomy between man and animals in the form of a working entity, the machine. In this defining point for the separation of man and animal, Agamben draws on several Heideggerian terms to present his point.[2] For example, man and animal are separated in their ‘openness’ to their world, because man is able to comport himself towards himself and view something as something. Whilst the animal is captivated in the world and captivated alone, which causes the animal to experience poverty in the world.

However in ‘The Open’ and in particular, chapter 9, Agamben tends to focus more so on the bridge between man and animal, ‘the missing link’ or the man-ape and how the anthropological machine works in this case. This is because he views the conception of the ‘missing link’ between animal and man as a point in which we can either humanise the animal, or animalise the man, which causes neither an animal nor human life, but merely ‘bare life’.

The anthropological machine is manifested through culture in two forms, ancient and modern. The ancient anthropological machine works by humanising the animal, including the outside and as a result, creating the man-ape. This according to Agamben, caused people to see outsiders, infidels and slaves as an animal who has taken human form with human features but without completely being a human.

The modern anthropological machine is in a sense, the opposite of the ancient machine because it works by animalising the human, rather than humanising the animal. Agamben intended to express how this works via a means of characterising the infidels with animalistic traits, despite being human-like. The modern anthropological machine is the realising of ‘Homo alalus’ or ape-man. ‘Homo alalus’ is in essence, man without language and in order to realise the consequences of this notion, it is important to realise what language gives to man, or at the very least, has given to man. Language has been perceived for much time, (as I have pointed out earlier) as the defining point that elevates man from any other animal and in the context of the anthropological machine, if this vital characteristic is taken away from an individual, they are then labelled as inferior to man.

Agamben criticises the anthropological machine because it allows people to value others as sub-human through envisioning a stage of life where animals are being humanised or man is being animalised.[3] Some notable results of this are slaves, barbarians or foreigners in the model of the ancient anthropological machine and Jewish people during Nazi Germany are an example of the modern anthropological machine. The film The Mission (1986) powerfully displays the modern anthropological machine at work, despite being set in the 18^th century. The film articulates the struggle for liberation of the native South American people from the institute of the Catholic Church. There is a scene in which a court case is held to decide on whether the native South Americans are humans or animals, which shows a very good example of what the anthropological machine was, is, will be and most importantly, what damage it does.

It is this very machine, according to Agamben, that causes people to create such a divide, that in the zone of ‘the missing link’, the value of the being is in flux and therefore ethical considerations can be easily compromised. The use of the word machine in the anthropological machine presents an impersonal and mechanical tool that is in continuous work as long as people’s mindsets are stuck in the same notion of thought, so as a result, Agamben’s aim is to stop the machine.

Stopping the anthropological machine, as Agamben puts it, is not a simple task because the machine is implemented into society and is viewed simply as just another norm. Therefore in order to stop the machine, drastic fundamental beliefs must change regarding man’s relation to the animal and this change according to Agamben is through the enactment of a “Shabbat”. Shabbat refers to the weekly day of rest in Judaic cultures, it is renowned to be a joyful day where people can forget their weekly troubles, and Shabbat has been described as the ‘bride’ or ‘queen’ in Jewish literature. What this means for Agamben’s stopping of the anthropological machine is that we should not continue in our attempts to find what separates man from animal, but to give the idea, the machine, a rest. And as this machine experiences rest or Shabbat, it will be stopped.

Agamben uses several religious terms and metaphors in ‘The Open’, which could be interpreted as a referential point to the apocalyptic and post-historical sections of the book. His use of “Shabbat” and man and animal to be “saved precisely in their being unsavable” could be seen as a reply or interpreting of Heidegger’s “only a God can save us”, which was regarding the state of humanity and how things can get better according to Heidegger. The religious metaphors also assist Agamben in setting the scene in ‘The Open’, which allow him to place the anthropological machine into context.

The anthropological machine, according to Agamben, causes human and animal life to be in an area of danger in which catastrophic events could occur. It is not only vital for man to stop the anthropological machine, but also for the sake of animals and although Agamben focuses primarily on the barbarian, slaves, foreigners and modern victims of dehumanization, the anthropological machine has a great effect on animals. Agamben is not alone in an attempt to create a definition for the relation between man and animal and the next section of the essay will explore several alternative ideas regarding this subject at hand.

A significant section of Agamben’s ‘The Open’ is in some way or another, an analysis on Heidegger’s understanding of the relationship between man and animal. In ‘The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics’, Heidegger claims that in one of the things that make Dasein exactly what it is is their being open to the closed-ness of animals.[4] This kind of thought, according to Agamben is actually a partaking of the anthropological machine because it causes humans to be the exception of the animals, which places them in an excluding inclusion. However Agamben draws to very similar conclusions regarding the differences of animal and man in their differences of ‘openness’ to the world''.

Thrownintotheworld