Opus They – Reflections
by Dr Raphael Vella
Anthropocentrism and the arts
Opus They was founded on the principle that anthropocentrism and related challenges throughout human history like extractivism are deeply problematic because they view the world as a resource stockpile, deny the intrinsic value of other species and ecosystems and typically exploit marginalised communities. Historically, the idea that humans are the central entities in the universe has justified the destruction of complex ecological relationships and the suffering of various human communities too. Opus They is a research project that explores how the arts can challenge anthropocentrism by giving voice to different perspectives, including non-human perspectives, in order to understand the inherent worth of living and non-living things, acknowledge different knowledge systems and develop innovative and interdisciplinary forms of research. The arts expose us to new viewpoints, helping us to move away from predetermined anthropocentric worldviews that are ultimately self-defeating, as they destroy the very systems that sustain human wellbeing.
A shared moral community
In “Justice for Animals: Our Collective Responsibility” (2023), philosopher Martha C. Nussbaum writes that human beings cannot excuse themselves any longer for past mistakes by citing a lack of knowledge about other species. Scientific research has developed in ways that help us understand that drawing clear boundaries between humans and non-humans can be challenged quite easily: “We know — not just by observation, but by carefully designed experimental work — that all vertebrates and many invertebrates feel pain subjectively, and have, more generally, a subjectively felt view of the world: the world looks like something to them. We know that all of these animals experience at least some emotions (fear being the most ubiquitous), and that many experience emotions like compassion and grief that involve more complex ‘takes’ on a situation. We know that animals as different as dolphins and crows can solve complicated problems and learn to use tools to solve them.” For Nussbaum, this knowledge has ethical and legal implications. Animals are not simply worthy of human compassion; they are entitled to justice. For Nussbaum, this means that animals ought to be allowed to flourish by living lives that are worthy of their species-specific capabilities, whatever these capabilities are. Caring about other animals is not simply a case of avoiding unnecessary suffering; it is about appreciating the flourishing of life in a shared moral community.
More-than-Human Rights
The movement for more-than-human rights challenges anthropocentric legal frameworks by seeking to extend legal personhood to non-human entities such as rivers, forests, ecosystems, and even species. This effort aims to recognise different ecosystems not as resources, but as rights-bearing subjects with intrinsic value. Scientific research can contribute to this process by teaming up with legal experts, NGOs, indigenous groups, artists and others in order to understand how more-than-human beings are worthy of moral consideration. Ecuador’s 2008 constitution was the first in the world to enshrine the Rights of Nature, granting ecosystems the legal right to exist and flourish. In 2014 and 2017 respectively, Te Urewera forest the Whanganui River in New Zealand were recognised as legal persons, in part due to the advocacy of Māori communities and a desire to address historical injustices.
In recent years, the MOTH (More than Human) programme based at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law has researched more-than-human rights and has sought to build intercultural and interdisciplinary connections to develop more holistic approaches to ecological challenges. Research like this not only protects the environment but reconfigures human obligations, challenging the foundational assumption that law and justice exist solely to regulate human matters. In the book “More Than Human Rights: An Ecology of Law, Thought and Narrative for Earthly Flourishing” (2024), editor and founding director of MOTH César Rodríguez-Garavito asks: “If human disconnection from nature is at the root of our individual and collective malaise, what type of institutions and narratives might become imaginable if we push the boundaries of legal imagination to include the breathing Earth? What would happen if the ecological turn that is evident in other fields took root in law and human rights?“ Different forms of listening and dialogue are necessary in order to tackle those questions.
Different perspectives
Opus They exposed us to the exciting challenges of interdisciplinarity. Different academic fields operate like unique lenses through which reality can be examined. These perceptual and mental paradigms affect the way people understand the world or explain it to others. They affect the things we notice, look out for as well as the things we value and consider relevant. Disciplinary fields like fine art, architecture, archaeology and so on are constructed around distinct and evolving bodies of knowledge yet they also reflect specific ways of thinking, researching and making sense of various kinds of phenomena. They rely on depth and expertise, often achieved during years or even decades of exposure to a specific field. And this makes the idea of stepping outside one’s disciplinary comfort zone into a more unfamiliar discipline challenging and somewhat unnerving.
Interdisciplinary thinking, however, offers the possibility of studying real-world challenges from different perspectives and modifying one’s field on the basis of these other perspectives. The research Opus They members conducted brought us into contact with experts in philosophy, anthropology, art history and curation, and other fields. This helped to make our understanding of things more nuanced and less focused on the things we already knew or took for granted. We began to value the importance of translation: translating ideas that are key to one specific discipline to the requirements and epistemological frameworks of another. Of course, intellectual or artistic flexibility also carries risks. It is usually more difficult to evaluate success in interdisciplinary work, for instance. But Opus They has also taught us valuable lessons about unpredictable connections and research in the blurry margins of one’s field of expertise. Importantly, these broader horizons challenge intellectual preconceptions and help us to paint more complete pictures of the world around us.