Theorizing Animals

(1)

(2)

(3)

Human-Animal Studies

Editor

Kenneth Shapiro

Animals & Society Institute

Editorial Board

Ralph Acampora

Hofstra University

Clifton Flynn

University of South Carolina

Hilda Kean

Ruskin College, Oxford

Randy Malamud

Georgia State University

Gail Melson

Purdue University

VOLUME 11

(4)

Theorizing Animals

Re-thinking Humanimal Relations

Edited by

Nik Taylor Tania Signal

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

(5)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Theorizing animals : re-thinking humanimal relations / edited by Nik Taylor, Tania Signal.

p. cm. — (Human-animal studies ; 11) Includes index.

ISBN 978-90-04-20242-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Human-animal relationships. 2. Human-animal relationships—Philosophy. I. Taylor, Nik. II. Signal, Tania. III. Title. IV. Series.

QL85.T46 2011 304.2’7—dc22

2011001410

ISSN 1573-4226 ISBN 978 90 04 202429

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.

Fees are subject to change.

(6)

For the furry folk in both our lives, past and present, who have inspired—and continue to inspire—our interest in all things human- animal. Here’s hoping they get as much out of our relationships as we do.

(7)

(8)

Contents

Foreword ix Acknowledgments xi List of Contributors xiii Preface: In Hope of Change: Rethinking Human-Animal

Relations?

Lynda Birke xvii Introduction

Nik Taylor 1

PARt one

KnottY PRoBLeMs: to tHeoRIse oR not?

1 Mapping Human Animal Relations

Peter Beatson 21 2 Theorizing ‘others’

Lisa Kemmerer 59

PARt two

AnIMALs AnD MoDeRnItY

3 The Underdog in History: serfdom, slavery and species in the Creation and Development of Capitalism

Mary Murray 87 4 Dangerous Dogs and The Construction of Risk

Claire Molloy 107 5 Ritual, Reason and Animals

Gavin Kendall 129

(9)

PARt tHRee

AnIMAL PeRFoRMeRs

6 The Representation of Animal Actors: Theorizing Performance and Performativity in the Animal Kingdom Gregory S. Szarycz 149 7 The Gaze of Animals

Philip Armstrong 175

PARt FoUR

FoRwARD tHInKInG

8 Can sociology Contribute to the emancipation of Animals?

Nik Taylor 203 9 Theorising Rider-Horse Relations: An ethnographic

Illustration of the Centaur Metaphor in the spanish Bullfight

Kirrilly Thompson 221 10 Ciliated sense

Eva Hayward 255 Concluding Remarks: From Theory to Action: An ethologist’s Perspective

Jonathan Balcombe 281 Index 291

(10)

FoRewoRD

This volume takes on one of the important challenges facing the emerging field of Human-Animal studies: the development of theory It begins with the meta-theoretical question: Does the field need theory? what are the pitfalls of theory? Is a macro-theory, one that provides a framework for this multi-disciplinary field, possible; is it desirable? Can the field thrive with theory that is simply extension- ist—that takes existing social theories and modifies them to include nonhuman animals? what are the prospects for “hybridized theory?”

Finally, can the field develop sui generis theory—theory peculiar to this inter-species, relationship-centered field? whether or not the editors, taylor and signal, have succeeded in meeting these tall orders in this slim volume, I think you will agree the questions are now clear and on the table

Kenneth shapiro, series editor Animals and society Institute, Inc , washington Grove MD

(11)

(12)

ACKnowLeDGMents

Thanks to Ken shapiro for recognising the potential of this collection and for his advice throughout the process A big thanks to the authors for their patience throughout and thanks also to those who helped behind the scenes with the various skills needed to pull a manuscript like this together It was somewhat of a steep learning curve for the editors so we appreciate your input Thanks must also go to Lynda Birke and Jonathan Balcombe for agreeing to write the Preface and Concluding Remarks, respectively Final thanks are also due to Chris Pearce from Liquid nature who generously provided the photo- graphs for the cover

(13)

(14)

LIst oF ContRIBUtoRs

Nik Taylor (editor) received her Ph D in sociology from Manchester Metropolitan University in 1999 where she addressed the sociology of human-animal interaction she argued that sociology could, and should, take account of human-animal interactions in a thesis entitled ‘Human-Animal Relations: A sociological Respecification’ now a senior Lecturer in sociology at Flinders University, Dr taylor currently researches human-animal interactions and is an Associate editor of Society & Animals and an editorial board member of Anthrozoos, Sociology, and Sociological Research Online. she has pub- lished numerous articles on human-animal relations and is currently working on a book concerning animal identity and work

Tania Signal (editor)

tania received her DPhil from waikato University (new Zealand) studying within the Animal Behaviour & welfare Research Centre she is currently a senior Lecturer in Psychology at Central Queensland University (CQU) Her research interest is human-animal studies, in particular, the human animal violence connection from a psycho- logical perspective she is an associate editor for Society & Animals and regularly reviews for Anthrozoos

Peter Beatson

Peter Beatson has doctorates in english literature from Cambridge University (1974) and in sociology from the University of Provence (1978) Formerly an associate professor of sociology at Massey University, Palmerston north, new Zealand, he is now retired, but remains an honorary research fellow at that institution In the past, his two major areas of academic and personal interest were literature and the arts on the one hand, disability on the other However, in 2005 he co-founded an inter-disciplinary undergraduate course at Massey University on animals and human society to which he still contributes Although a comparative newcomer to the field of human-animal studies, he has developed a strong passion, both intellectual and humanitarian, for the subject He feels his major potential contribution at this stage is the devising of an over-arching

(15)

analytical framework for the study of human-animal interactions—a heuristic model that can be applied across historical, cultural and disciplinary boundaries This is the subject of his chapter in the present book His other nascent interest is in the representation of animals in world literature, with a particular focus for the moment on the depiction of animals in the fiction of the new Zealand writer Maurice Gee, about whom Peter is writing a book

Lisa Kemmerer

Lisa Kemmerer earned a BA in International studies from Reed College, a Masters in Theology from Harvard Divinity school, and a PhD in Philosophy from University of Glasgow, scotland she has taught philosophy and religion courses in Alaska, washington, and scotland, and currently teaches at Montana state University, Billings Lisa’s reviews and articles have been published in journals, maga- zines, and newspapers; she has written, directed, and produced two documentaries on Buddhism, and has most recently completed a book on ethics and animals titled In search of Consistency (Brill Academic, 2005)

Mary Murray

Born in england of Irish parentage and ancestry, Mary came to new Zealand in 1991 Before coming to Massey she taught at universities in england, scotland and Ireland she has researched and published in the areas of historical sociology and feminist theory, including a book for Routledge, The Law of the Father (1995) Her research and teaching interest now lie in the areas of sociology of death and dying, emotions, sociological and feminist theory, sociology of dreams, and the relationship between humans and animals she is currently working on a book to be published with MacMillian on the sociology of death and dying

Claire Molloy

Dr Molloy is a senior Lecturer in the Department of Media at edge Hill University Her PhD, ‘Discourses of anthropomorphism’, was a critical history of anthropomorphism since the eighteenth century she has published on the subjects of anthropomorphism and the relationship between animals and national identity and is the guest editor for a special edition of the journal Diegesis on the subject of

(16)

anthropomorphism in 2008 Her book Memento was published in 2010 by edinburgh University Press

Gavin Kendall

Gavin Kendall is Professor of sociology at Queensland University of technology, Brisbane, Australia His books include The State, Democracy and Globalization (Palgrave, 2004, with Roger King), Understanding Culture (sage, 2001, with Gary wickham) and Using Foucault’s Methods (sage, 1999, with Gary wickham) His latest book, The Sociology of Cosmopolitanism (with Zlatko skrbis and Ian woodward), will be published by Palgrave He is on the editorial advisory boards of the journals New Zealand Sociology, Foucault Studies and Athenea Digital.

Gregory S. Szarycz

Greg szarycz holds a PhD from the University of otago, new Zealand, where he was also a contributing lecturer He has subse- quently held teaching positions at the University of Guelph, the University of waterloo, and wilfrid Laurier University He is a reg- ular presenter at international conferences, including at the British Association for Canadian studies (BACs), the University of oxford, and the society for Cross-Cultural Research (sCCR)

Philip Armstrong

Philip Armstrong (MA, PhD) is the co-director (with Annie Potts) of the new Zealand Centre for Human-Animal studies (www nzchas canterbury ac nz), and he teaches english and Human-Animal studies at the University of Canterbury He is the editor (with Laurence simmons) of Knowing Animals (Brill 2007), a collection of essays on “the animal turn” in philosophy, literary criticism, film and cultural studies; and he has just completed a monograph entitled What Animals Mean in the Fiction of Modernity (Routledge, 2008), which surveys the representation of human-animal relationships in novels written in english from the 18th to the 21st centuries In addition, Philip is one of three scholars collaborating on a three-year project funded by the Royal society of new Zealand, which entails researching and writing a book entitled Kararehe: Animals in Art, Literature and Everyday Culture in Aotearoa New Zealand (under contract with Auckland University Press)

(17)

Kirrilly Thompson

Kirrilly Thompson is an anthropologist who carried out doctoral research in Andalusia looking at the human-animal relations of the corrida de rejones (the bullfight from horseback) Her academic inter- ests in sport, performance, embodiment, human-animal relations and the human-animal boundary arise from her involvement in the equestrian discipline of dressage she has also researched sports fan culture in a public health context through research into the role of alcohol in south Australian football fan subculture

Eva Hayward

eva Hayward is a guest researcher in the Centre for Gender Research at Uppsala University, sweden, and an assistant professor in the Department of Cinematic Arts, University of new Mexico she has lectured and published widely on animal studies, experimental film, and embodiment Her recently published essays, “Lessons From A starfish: Prefixial Flesh and transspeciated selves” and “spider City self,” explore intimacy, transsexuality, and animality

(18)

PReFACe

In Hope of Change: Rethinking human-animal relations?

Lynda Birke¹

writing this while the world’s humans busily debate how badly we have affected the climate, I think about the interconnectedness of life on earth Humans, nonhumans, ecosystems—all are profoundly entwined, and interdependent Just maybe, out of all this intense debate, we might wake up to the fact that we humans are not alone, that we inhabit this world with an astonishing array of others, whose lives we affect by our actions

It is that interconnection with other animals that fascinates so many of us, and which forms the basis for the newly emerging schol- arship in human-animal studies wherever and however we live, we are always relating to animals—from companions by our firesides, to the animals whose flesh some eat, to the animals who are used in scientific research, in zoos, as transport, and to the parasites living in or on us But these interspecies minglings have been absent from many areas of academic inquiry—especially in the social sciences and humanities, which have focused on what we humans are up to and ignored our co-travellers At last, however, these omissions are being recognised, and nonhuman animals are (slowly) creeping and crawl- ing into the ivory towers

The study of animals is, of course, traditionally a concern of the sciences, especially biology That is the sense of theorizing animals that I am most familiar with, framed within the discourses of evolution and animal behaviour Here, we can learn about the behaviour of wild animals and how they adapt to their particular environments But that is only part of the story, and the flourishing field of human- animal studies testifies to how we can think about other animals and their relationship to us, in many different ways slowly, we have begun to acknowledge the importance of other species of animals in the creation of our societies, our cultures and our histories—as well

1 Biological sciences, University of Chester, Parkgate Road, Chester, UK

(19)

as our roles in creating, and sometimes destroying, theirs to think about our relationships with other animals is to engage in a serious intellectual challenge, for we must range widely and across academic disciplines

My own approach to human-animal studies derives partly from my background as a biologist specialized in the study of animal behaviour It emerges, too, out of interest in our social relatings with other species, and how such relatings work within, and produce, what we understand as culture But it is also founded in politics while human-animal studies within the academy runs in parallel to broader cultural attitudes toward nonhuman animals, it has roots in animal advocacy politics as well As such, it can both chart how we think about animals and help to create further change But to do that effectively, it needs critical theory as well as activism; it needs the people prepared to do things (often radical things) which challenge the status quo, and at the same time it needs theories which challenge and develop our ideas Perhaps it is my own history of working in the women’s and environmental movements which makes me always want both the practices and the theories to underpin political and social change

That is why I welcome the challenge posed here, in Theorizing Animals: Re-thinking Humanimal Relations Theory matters It mat- ters because it helps us to understand these relations, it matters because it can inform politics, it matters because it can help drive change And change we certainly do need within western cultural traditions, there is a long history of domination, and of perceiving other animals as there solely for our use² Although attitudes toward (some) other species and some forms of cruelty have altered over the last couple of centuries (we no longer consider it acceptable to have bear-baiting in the streets of London, for instance), there is still wide- spread abuse Billions of animals suffer and die in the name of pro- viding us with meat, with drugs, with entertainment—practices which show no sign of abating³ And billions suffer daily as their world is torn apart through our destruction of the earth’s habitats

2 I am not for a moment suggesting here that non-western cultures necessarily relate to animals in non-dominating ways, simply that my concern here is with the western intellectual heritage

3 And some of which—the felling of forest to provide pasture for more cattle for meat production for instance—contribute to global ecological crises

(20)

while a separation of ‘us’ from ‘them’ is a very old habit, it was exacerbated by the modernist separation of nature from culture (and resulting separation of academic disciplines) while we are now much more aware that we inhabit hybrid naturecultures, that the dualism is deeply damaging, those old habits are hard to break Thus, we continue to abuse animals, and we continue to search for ways in which they are ‘not as good as’ us Theorizing human-animal relatings, however, has to recognize that all kinds of dualisms are inter- linked in modernist thought As several contributors to Theorizing Animals note, the justifications we use to separate ourselves work just as well if the ‘other’ is a human of different background to us, or another species It’s precisely the tenacity of dualistic thinking that means we have to keep working at new theoretical approaches Any new theory must find ways to transcend those entrenched habits There are, inevitably, many ways to theorize animals, as this book attests And we face many challenges in doing so How, for instance, do we get away from the modernist heritage that leads us to talk about ‘animals’ (as implicitly different ‘from’ us)? even though I’m a biologist, well-trained in Darwinian evolution, I still find it extremely difficult to escape such linguistic either/or traps we always slip back—why else talk about human-animal studies, as though we are not them? what else is conveyed when I speak here in this preface about humans and ‘other animals’? And what is glossed over by referring to the generic ‘animals’: which animals are we talking about, in what contexts?

we can welcome nonhuman animals into the annals of sociology and other disciplines—and doing so is leading to a great flow of fas- cinating and fruitful ideas But there’s another hurdle facing us in our theorization: where exactly are real, material animals in our theoriz- ing of them? Can we produce ideas that acknowledge other species’

abilities and integrities, or will they always be in the shadows of our anthrocentric notions? to be sure, recent work in cognitive ethology helps to emphasise the consciousness, capabilities, and sentience of all kinds of nonhumans; but how are those insights of ‘who animals are’ brought to bear on thinking in the social sciences and humani- ties, to inform how we think about relationships between us and other animals? It is extremely important that we recognize the involvement of nonhumans in the creation of cultures (human or otherwise), that we understand that they are not only ‘good to think with’, but are also crucially partners in the making of our world How

(21)

we theorize that, without marginalizing or trivializing them, contin- ues to pose the kind of challenge admirably addressed by contributors here

Yet to me, the fundamental problem facing our theories lies with the inarticulacy of human-animal relatings I often ponder this as I realize that however much we might write about what other animals do, or what they signify to us, we still cannot put into words what we feel. It is in those profound moments of connectedness, of touch or gaze between us and an individual who is of another species, that I become dumb, inarticulate, unable to express what is going on I may be in touch every day with the horses and dogs living in my domestic sphere, or in earshot of the wild birds who squabble at the bird feed- ers in my garden: but despite often feeling that sense of profound connection, I still cannot speak their language(s) And they call the others ‘dumb’ animals!

It is, however, often those inexpressible moments that make me want to work with ideas about how we relate to these myriad others Despite the intellectual challenges, theorizing how those relationships work is vitally important—for all inhabitants of this world It is through connections with/to other species that we might begin to challenge prevailing views of the world around us—and it is through those connections that change might be implemented And by that I mean radical change; as some of the contributors here have noted, tinkering about on the surface of how we think about animals will do little to change long-established practices to get to those points requires some serious work Re-theorizing animals is an important part of that effort

It is imperative that such re-theorizing takes nonhuman animals seriously, treating them as aware actors on the social stage; it must recognise their awe-inspiring abilities rather than pointing to other species’ inability to do things like write poetry or software And, in a world where these others are treated as mindless, disposable, our theories must emphasise their mindfulness Theorization is critical for change, and change there must be in how we think about, per- ceive, behave toward others, of whatever species only when we stop inhabiting spaces and practices in which animals are rendered inarticulate, can we feel the wonder of meeting other minds

(22)

IntRoDUCtIon

Thinking About Animals Nik Taylor

This is a book concerned with the way that we humans think about animals As such it is a book concerned with epistemology, i e , how we know what we know and the processes by which certain facts and beliefs come to be considered as legitimate knowledge The book is broadly post-humanist and post-structuralist in that it questions taken for granted assumptions about the human-animal divide and points to the ways in which this divide is maintained through the operation of knowledge so, for example, many of the authors are concerned with discourses about animals, i e the taken for granted ways in which humans think and talk about animals as though they are inferior to humans and how this belief then becomes entrenched culturally That this thinking and talking about animals is often the basis of academic theorizing about them is also acknowledged throughout

Animals have become the increasing focus of academic interest, an interest which spans multiple disciplines and begins to question hith- erto taken for granted assumptions about the place of animals and their relationship vis á vis humans Recent evidence regarding environmental problems and changes has led to an increased awareness of the inter-connectedness of all life which in turn has led (is leading?) to a rejection of the human-centered—anthropocentric—

assumptions which are considered to be indicative of current ways of seeing animals If humans are no longer ‘the centre of the universe’

and if our relations with animals are much more complex than previously thought, then we need to study them in new—and diverse—

ways; in ways which continue to challenge us to re-think ‘our’

relationships with ‘them’ This then serves to legitimize much of the current interest in animals from disciplines previously largely concerned only with humans (i e the social sciences and the humanities) It also serves as the basis of the current book Throughout the

(23)

book there is an overwhelming interest in epistemology and linked to this is a general critique of post-enlightenment ways of thinking

Post-enlightenment thinking here is taken to refer to traditional schools of thought where rigid binaries or dualisms (such as those between human and animal, or between nature and culture) are taken uncritically as self-evident This is also known as modernist thought as it is reflective of the period known as modernity whilst some have tried to attach concrete dates to the period known as

‘modernist’ (e g Giddens, 1991), in the current volume we are more concerned with the manifestation of modernism (and postmodernism) in intellectual culture as opposed to in concrete societal struc- tures As such, hard and fast dates are difficult to pin down suffice to say that modernism is associated with the post-enlightenment period of scientific and rationalistic dominance and discourse Postmodernism, on the other hand, refers to ways of thinking which seek to deconstruct the taken for granted assumptions which underpin the rigid binaries which dominate modernist thought Throughout the book there is concern to delineate modernist from postmodernist arguments Modernism is taken to be the period from the enlightenment onwards wherein such binaries, or dualisms, were left largely uncontested Post-modernism refers to the period of thought beyond that which deconstructs such dualisms and, in particular, points to the operation of power through their use, power that is achieved by the exclusion, or ‘othering’ of a particular group Finally, many of the scholars in the current book take a post-humanist approach This is an approach which points out that modernist thinking is humanist thinking, i e there is an assumption that humans are the ‘centre of the universe ’

In other words, most of the scholars in the current volume seek to critique standard ways of ‘thinking about’ animals and they do so from an epistemological starting point The general assumption is that knowledge is socially—contextually—produced and it is done so with the assumption that the “subject is always already human”

(wolfe 2003, 1) Moreover, this humanism, i e the belief in the importance of the human subject to the exclusion of all else, is seen as the intellectual framework which leads to a deeply embedded anthropocentrism in modern ways of thinking one of the consequences of this starting point for the scholars in the current volume is the point that knowledge is not produced in a vacuum; socio- political forces are seen as playing a large part in the production of

(24)

knowledge about animals, about their assumed place and about the ways in which they should be treated In other words, for many of the contributors to this work epistemology and ontology overlap epistemology is concerned with knowledge (what counts as legitimate knowledge and how do we know what we know) whereas ontology is concerned with the state of being in the world The link between the two in the current volume is that ideas about animals (i e epistemology) are seen to have a direct affect on their reality (i e ontology) As such this collection offers a selection of essays which are generally critical of current thinking about how we conceive of animals with the assumption that ideas and conceptions of them is inextricably linked to the treatment of them

These new approaches towards animals have necessitated, in turn, a re- think of traditional approaches towards animals and their ‘place’

in the human world Increasingly scholars of human-animal relationships are arguing that traditional social theories, based upon post- enlightenment (i e modernist) pretensions are an inadequate starting point for the study of human-animal relationships For example, the belief that there is a ‘truth out there’ which is amenable to identification, study and control is seen as linked to, and predicated upon, the belief that ‘the social’ is an entirely different realm to ‘the natural’ and thus that animals and humans are worlds apart This is an untenable base for a meaningful approach towards human-animal relationships (e g Irvine 2004; taylor 2007) because it places animals strictly outside of assumed human interests In essence, then, it writes animals out of consideration before the fact—meaning that we start with the assumption that their importance, if it does exist, is simply that of importance to humans and to society, not in their own right This is largely seen as the anthropocentric legacy of modernist, post-enlightenment, thinking This mirrors current arguments in environmental and geographical studies where it is becoming clear that anthropo- centrically based theories are no longer an adequate tool with which to theorize about increasingly complex human relationships with the natural environment (e g whatmore 2006) Given that the theoretical and conceptual tools which we currently have available to us may well be archaic and unable to account for human-animal relationships, new directions are called for

Throughout this book authors interchange the terms modernity and post-enlightenment to invoke general paradigms of thought wherein rational and scientific approaches which separate nature

(25)

from culture are the paramount ways of knowing the world traditional theories of human-animal relations operate within this firmly modernist framework, i e a framework which one which conceives of nature as something outside of, and separate to, humanity even those seeking to challenge traditional conceptions of animality and its place vis á vis humanity tend to operate within such paradigms This has led to an unending stalemate when it comes to seeking appropriate ways to treat animals For example, the various theorists which argue that rights should be given to animals find themselves arguing ceaselessly with their opponents regarding the attribution—or lack of—the given criterion of the day Thus we see endless arguments regarding the possession (or attribution) of language, culture, moral frameworks, sentience (see, for e g Regan 1984;

singer 1990) and so on in animals The debate rages on both sides with advances in ethology and the biological sciences often re-ignit- ing such arguments However, as soon as one attribute is ‘proven’ to exist in animals the bar is raised and we find ourselves faced with a new set of arguments regarding the lack of something in animals that humans are purported to possess And the merry-go-round contin- ues whilst not detracting from the findings of studies which demonstrate the rich and detailed lives of nonhuman animals there is a need to move beyond this argument one particularly obvious starting point might be the fact that humans are animals

However, our modernist (western) intellectual heritage is one which has sought to establish that humans are somehow different to animals Following classical Cartesian arguments the prevailing point of view is that close relationships can only be formed and sustained by humans (e g Arluke & sanders 1996; Cazaux, 1999; sanders 2003), and this has been further embedded in western epistemologies by the the utilitarian and/or anthropocentric ideology that animals are a means to human ends (taylor 2007a & b) This has resulted in the vast body of social thought which starts from a point wherein the social is seen as polar opposite to the natural, with the social being perceived as superior to the natural Furthermore this persistent belief pervades our very epistemological foundation For example, despite Darwin’s insistence on both the physical and mental continu- ity between humans and nonhumans, as evidenced by the ‘anthropomorphism’ which pervades his writings (Crist 1999), modern (western) ideologies of humans and animals only (tentatively) accept the physical continuity he proposed

(26)

If we truly wish to begin to study human relations with animals then we need to find ways to move past current entrenched beliefs regarding human superiority and ontological centrality and instead turn to thinking about animals in entirely new ways This entails an examination of the various epistemological practices used on a daily basis designed to obfuscate the fact that humans are indeed animals and that the divisions between human and animal and social and natural, are socially constructed and maintained In essence, what is needed is an examination of the inherent anthropocentrism of western thinking which is inevitably linked to the modernist project which itself is predicated upon the superiority of humans over nature and their animal counterparts

Recognition of the embedded anthropocentrism and humanism of modernist theory has led to numerous post-humanist attempts to re-conceive the ways in which we think about animals eschewing traditional structure versus agency arguments which lead inevitably to the intractable polar opposites that Latour (2004) names mono- naturalism or multi-culturalism, has led post-humanist thinkers to develop entirely new ways of conceiving human-animal relationships seeking to start from an entirely new place, scholars of human-animal relations are at the forefront of groundbreaking new paradigmatic attempts to conceive human-animal relations and, in turn, nature-culture debates Collections such as simmons and Armstrong’s Knowing Animals (2007) and tyler and Rossini’s Animal Encounters (2009) indicate that there is both an interest in, and need for, new and innovative ways to approach our relationships with animals In turn, the theoretical frameworks which we utilize to analyze these ‘humanimal’ (Beatson, this volume) relations also need revising one of the key points that most of the scholars in this field are at pains to make is that the divisions we take for granted (social v natural; animal v human) are no longer viable ways of seeing the world And, in fact, they over-simplify what is, in reality, a much messier terrain of interconnected ‘things’ (humans, animals, inani- mate objects, technology and so on) There is then a trend within this area to coin new—yoked—phrases to represent this examples include Haraway’s ‘naturecultures’ (1991) and the notion of ‘humanimal’ put forth in this volume by Beatson Following on from these different ways to think about interlinked human-animal lives, the current collection aims to present a variety of innovative ways to

(27)

re-think humanimal relations informed by a variety of academic disciplines

whilst not every author presented here would necessarily identify as post-humanist, the volume itself, as a whole, is necessarily so in that its aim is to re-articulate the way humans ‘know animals ’ And despite differences brought about by intellectual background, all the authors presented here have one thing in common—they aim to problematise the notion of ‘animal’ and the human-animal relationship in order to unpack traditional assumptions about human relations with animals and about the place of animals within the world

As with any new area of knowledge, no one way forward will suffice It is crucial, therefore that we find both new ways, and new places, to think about animals As such the current volume presents a deliberately eclectic collection of potential—alternate—ways to

‘know animals ’ It is not intended to be exhaustive in scope but rather to present new ideas and new ways forward The range of work presented here is testament to both the burgeoning interest in human- animal relations and to their importance, whether this importance be seen as primarily to humans (e g what do animals tell us about ourselves) or primarily to animals (e g how do epistemological position- ings of animals dictate human treatments of them)

The book is divided into four sections: (1) Knotty Problems: to Theorise or not? (2) Animals and Modernity, (3) Animal Performers, and (4) Forward Thinking

Section One: Knotty Problems: To Theorise or Not?

The first section is comprised of two very different approaches to the idea of theorizing animals Both chapters in this section put forth the argument that humans can (and should) help other animals, but precisely how we go about this is the topic of debate here Beatson (chapter 1) argues that this can be achieved by re-conceiving our approaches to human animal studies whilst Kemmerer (chapter 2) argues that we need to abandon theory entirely and instead concen- trate on effecting change by other means

The first chapter sets out an alternative heuristic map of humanimal relations and, as such, opens this volume with one particular classificatory system which offers a different way of ordering our thought about animals and their relations with humans In this

(28)

chapter, Beatson uses the concept of ‘mutual determination’ to argue that “through the very process of being acted upon by humans, animals unwittingly shape human society in their own image ” Beatson argues that culture mediates five key areas—population, economy, politics, community, and welfare—which themselves encompass “any and every conceivable form of human-animal relationship” which, in turn are subsumed under the rubric of ‘nature ’ taking as its starting point the separation of human and animal via the invention of culture, this chapter explores the various forms that human “cultural dictatorship” over nature has taken For example, Beatson argues that whilst the main impact of humans on animal populations has been to shrink and/or eradicate them, there has been a corresponding impact by animals on human culture This is evidenced by such things as the geographical distribution of human populations being historically influenced by the migration and distribution of nonhuman populations This idea of ‘mutual determination’ is used throughout the chapter to demonstrate that human and animal lives are inextricably linked—be it via issues of population, economics, politics, community or welfare The chapter concludes with a direct discussion of the role of culture in human-animal relations: direct because Beatson is clear that culture has been a constant—if oblique—

companion throughout the preceding five key spheres of interest Beatson argues that it is through the pernicious operation of discourse that culture becomes something taken for granted and through this serves to legitimate human subjugation of other animals His final point, however, is unfailingly optimistic: that through a re-theorization of the cultural constructions of human-animal relations

“the yoke of human dominion, of which culture is an integral com- ponent, is starting to weigh slightly less oppressively on our fellow creatures ”

The next chapter offers a direct counter-argument to that of the first After offering an overview of how certain (human) groups have theorized about other (human) groups, Kemmerer explores the other end of the analytical spectrum by arguing that we might wish to con- sider not theorizing at all she opens with a cautionary tale regarding the very idea of theorizing Pointing out that theories are often put forth by those with vested interests in the ideas behind them, or the behavior they encourage, she reminds us that if we survey all of the theories ever proposed throughout human history “the vast majority”

of them have been proven wrong she points out that “vested interests

(29)

and the theories that support vested interests …require that ‘others’

be subjugated” After offering examples of the theoretical justification of the subjugation of human ‘others’ such as slaves and women, Kemmerer moves to discuss theories about animal ‘others’ she argues that human theorizing about animals begins from an exclusiv- ist perspective For Kemmerer, this is an ever present failing/necessity of current theories about animals because the human sense of self requires a clear dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them’, human and animal, which justifies current hierarchical thinking which in turn estab- lishes humans above all other species she goes on to highlight examples, such as language, intelligence and morality, wherein human theorizing about animals is used to maintain a separate, and inferior, status for animals Following this abstract outline of the harm that theories can do, Kemmerer moves to examine specific practices, e g factory farming and the veal industry, which continue to proliferate due to the inherent justification current theories about animals offer Her conclusions are stark and challenging—that humans have “proven embarrassingly partial in theorizing about

‘others’”; that self interested theories allow the continuance of exploitative behaviors towards animals; that human failure to adopt a compassionate morality towards animals is a direct result of our theories about them; that it is time to stop theorizing and instead “to bring change through choices”

Section Two: Animals and Modernity

The second section addresses human animal relations and species boundaries under modernity In the first chapter of this section (chapter 3), Murray addresses the road to modernity and its effects on animals Murray blurs species boundaries by pointing to the speciesism inherent in classical Marxist statements regarding the transition to modernity and by demonstrating how Marxist concepts regarding human slavery and oppression are applicable to animals In the second chapter of this section (chapter 4), Molloy offers an analysis of human-animal relations within reflexive modernity which are characterized by the need for a preservation of species boundaries through her analysis of the ‘dangerous dogs’ moral panic which occurred in the UK in the late nineties Finally, in this section Kendall (chapter 5) points out that even though modernity is often thought

(30)

characterized by reason and rationality at the expense of the charis- matic and the magical, human-animal relations often have ritualistic overtones which offer transcendent experiences The chapters in this section have in common not only attempts to theorize about the impact of modernity on animals and on human-animal relations, but the fact that they seek to extend traditional social theories to nonhuman animals

In chapter three, Murray argues that in debates about the transition to modern capitalism the role of non-human animals has hith- erto been ignored to Murray, existing debates, which focus exclusively on human social relations, are speciesist and ignore the fact that this transition to capitalism from feudalism was constructed in and through particular forms of speciesist social relationships Murray draws analogies between the enslavement of humans and of animals in early societies and points out that whilst freeing of human slaves occurred it did not find a corollary in the status of animals who remained then, as now, property of human masters Utilizing a traditional Marxist framework and drawing on standardized Marxist debates, Murray demonstrates how capitalism was founded on the

“back of hooves, paws and claws” whilst both necessitating and extending the slavery of nonhuman animals she points out how taylorist and Fordist methods, developed to increase worker effi- ciency, are relentlessly applied to intensive, industrial animal production wherein animals have even less freedoms than their human predecessors did under such systems Moreover, for Murray, such systems do not benefit from the products of the animal-slaves alone but from the very animals themselves who become commodified in the process Following a brief review of the intellectual foundations which generated Marx’ species blind philosophy—humanism—

Murray goes on to point out the numerous concepts within Marxism which can readily apply to animals in capitalist societies These include not only the increasing commodification of animals, but the reification of this process whereby the social relationships which cause and maintain this commodification remain obfuscated Throughout the chapter Murray makes it clear that there is nothing intrinsic to animals that necessitate this outcome, rather it is the outcome of “an unholy alliance between science, technology and the pursuit of profit” which leads to animals being transformed into commodities for human use; into “miraculous machines” which are

“sacrificed for the multitudes ”

(31)

taking the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act [DDA] (1991) in the UK as a starting point, Molloy is concerned with analyzing the

“specific social and cultural conditions and frameworks of understanding that gave rise to the emergence of dogs as risks in the UK”

Utilizing theories of risk she demonstrates how the moral panic sur- rounding ‘dangerous’ dogs in the nineties in the UK was used to negotiate and to affirm both “social hierarchies and cultural norms”

Molloy points out that Beck’s original thesis on risk was based on an analysis of the consequences of the loss of a clear demarcation between nature and culture she then argues that certain companion animal keeping practices can be understood, within this framework, as part of the myriad social control practices which developed in response to a sense of the loss of clear nature-culture boundaries Given that “nowhere is the line between nature and culture more blurred than within pet-keeping practices where nonhuman animals are brought into the domestic sphere” it is a perfect place to analyze the function of various regulatory practices—of which the DDA is the most overt Molloy then uses the idea of moral panics to culturally and historically trace the development of the construction of certain dogs as risky A construction which ultimately led to a moral divide between those perceived as ‘good’ dog owners and those perceived to be ‘bad’ dog owners Central to this was the pervasive and dominant construction of a relationship between some marginalized males and the ownership of certain types of ‘dangerous’ dogs, in particular pit bulls A relationship which was characterized by perceived similarities in aggressive behavior taking examples from the media at the time, Molloy demonstrates how pit bull owners were slowly denied the opportunities to be credible sources of knowledge and how, instead, a complex interplay between the media and various state agencies came into being which ensured that the discourse sur- rounding dangerous dogs was extended to become a discourse about social deviance Furthermore, in a response to the ontological inse- curities characteristic of reflexive modernity the discourse also came to be about nature-culture boundary maintenance Molloy thus argues that ‘risk’ was central to the construction of the abject status of certain animals and that ‘abject animality’ combined with Beck’s model of risk society offers a meaningful way to think about human relations with ‘dangerous dogs ’

The next chapter maintains this theme of animals and modernity by considering ritual and tradition as a way of thinking about human

(32)

relations with animals Kendall examines two humanimal intersec- tions—ancient Greek sacrifice and Balinese cockfights—in order to develop his argument that rationalistic attempts to characterize society—and animals’ place within it—may be misplaced He points out that modern societies render animals invisible by removing any wonder or magic that might have once been bestowed upon them and replacing it instead with a rational discourse For Kendall, the theory that ‘hot’ interactions between humans and animals which gave rise to wonder and mysticism such as those found in the ‘wild’, have increasingly been replaced by ‘cold’ interactions which are characterized by inspection, surveillance and reason, is a compelling one but only a partial one He argues that there are several exceptions to this idea that the ‘heat’ has slowly been drained from human encounters with animals For example, he points towards the rituals involved in whale watching—where the ritual is primarily that of the whales rather than the humans nonetheless he argues that human whale watching practices with their stress on the naturalness of the encounter (the whales may or may not show; nature is uncontrollable) and the fact that here humans are able to play a part in the primordial ritual of whale migrations offer a ‘transcendent experience’ This experience, he argues, holds all the hallmarks of a ritual He expands on this argument by turning to look at dog and cat shows where again he sees evidence of both tradition and ritual He concludes that

“modernity was never really completely drained of tradition and ritual, and critical reason was never really alone on the battlefield, with tradition dead at its feet” Instead, ritual and tradition have been—

and still are—ever present and offer an alternative way to understand both “ourselves and how we make sense of non-human animals”

Section Three: Animal Performers

The third section concentrates on the ideas of performance and performativity as a way to think about human-animal relations In the first chapter of this section (chapter 6) szarycz argues that all life is dramaturgical and that the intertwined ideas of performance and performativity can be used to meaningfully explore human-animal relations Related to this is the next chapter (chapter 7) where Armstrong uses a visit to London Zoo whereupon he ‘gazes’ at a captive tiger whilst she gazes elsewhere, to discuss the meaning of

(33)

animal ‘gazes’ and the role that this concept might play in fostering new ways to think about animals

In chapter 6 szarycz argues that all social life is dramaturgical and he seeks to extend this analysis to non-human animals by analyzing how humans construct perceptions of the natural world through rep- resentations of animal actors The chapter begins with a discussion of performance and performativity and an examination of the possibil- ity, and appropriateness, of applying these terms/theories to nonhuman animals By arguing that performance is a process which depends on the skill of the actor, its context and its interpretation, szarycz points out that it is a concept which can readily be applied to nonhuman animals He points out that animal performances are nar- ratives about nature wherein audiences seek—through their interpre- tations of the performance and associated animal behaviors—to discover something about the physical and mental capacities of the actor Using examples drawn from traditional sites of animal performance, e g circuses, szarycz demonstrates how the implication that trained animal behavior is an extension of their natural behavior is one which is directed by human assumptions about animal behavior mediated through ‘staged performances’ szarycz points to the differences between the presentation and the re-presentation of nonhuman animals, the main difference being that presentation is direct whilst re-presentation is mediated Despite these differences, and the differences they in turn lead to in terms of both animal behavior and human participation in animal performances, szarycz concludes that they are subsumed within ideological frameworks which dominate the way various discourses (e g ‘animal’, ‘wild’, ‘nature’) are constructed within human cultures Despite this, szarycz concludes that there is something inherently inexplicable, magical, in animal performance and that through it “animals reveal something we did not know of them”

Armstrong begins his chapter by considering the gaze of a captive tiger and asks what does it mean if that which we are theorizing about can return our gaze; can look back at us? Armstrong uses two main ideas here The first is Berger’s argument that industrial capitalism has led to the disappearance of ‘real’ animals, to be substituted by virtual animality (e g as spectacles in zoos) The second is Derrida’s now famous account of the encounter he had with his cat one morning and the questions it led him to Drawing from both of these ideas, Armstrong uses the idea of ‘gaze’ (both from human to

(34)

animal and from animal to human) as the organizing principle of this chapter Following a historical review of the mythical qualities bestowed upon animals’ eyes and their gaze, this chapter then turns to a discussion of the various events which contributed to the paradigm shift which ultimately removed visual agency from nonhuman species and in turn served to reify human superiority Despite the ascendency of rationalistic and logical paradigms which often account for perceived animal inferiority, Armstrong demonstrates how many key pieces of post-enlightenment literature maintain earlier mythical ideas regarding the gaze of animals However, this has been accom- plished at the price of subsuming these ideas within a deeply ana- lytically rational paradigm which again serves to both create and justify human superiority over animals This chapter then moves onto more contemporary accounts of animals and argues that just as industrial modernity involved the disappearance of animals, one of the hallmarks of postmodernity is an attempt to reverse this Armstrong points out that much postmodern literature concerning animals represents the ontological insecurity characteristic of modernity and uses animals to point to an “atavistic fear” However, Armstrong argues that one response to this fear, rather than simply harking back to the strict hierarchical relations between humans and animals constitutive of modernity, could be to instead take the opportunity to develop new theories and material relations between humans and animals For the remainder of the chapter, Armstrong does just this: he weaves in ideas from various scholars and disciplines to conclude that we need to bring together philosophy, theory, the sciences and new theories about animals to allow us to learn from, as well as about, our nonhuman counterparts

Section Four: Forward Thinking

The final section of the book is concerned with the application of a relatively new social theory—Actor network Theory (Ant)—to human animal relations In the first chapter of this section (Chapter 8), taylor asks whether social theory as it currently stands is adequate to the task of theorizing about, and emancipating, animals she argues that it is not—that its modernist base is inherently anthropocentric and based upon the very dualisms that maintain human- animal boundaries which in turn legitimate animal oppression she

(35)

then turns to a discussion of Ant as one alternate way of thinking about animals similarly, Thompson (chapter 9) argues that traditional ways of seeing horse riders gives primacy to the human in the relationship at the expense of the horse who is often overlooked entirely she argues that a fusion of Ant and the centaur metaphor are alternative ways of conceptualizing the hybridity of horse-rider relations Finally, the book concludes with a chapter which addresses the ways in which technology, humans and animals come together to form a working display of jellies at the Monterey Bay Aquarium The author, Hayward, is keen to draw attention away from traditional ways of thinking about animals on display (as passive objects subject to human gaze) and instead outlines ways of thinking which again stress the interplay of humans, animals and objects

In the first chapter of this final section, taylor points out that as social theorists increasingly attempt to come to grips with ‘the animal question’ they are finding that a direct corollary of this is the need to revisit ‘the social question’ as current conceptions of animals are based on a belief in the social-natural divide This chapter questions whether sociology, in its current forms, can indeed, ever resolve ‘the animal question’ without recourse to established epistemological frameworks which ultimately underpin animal oppression in modern society Concluding that social theories are inadequate in this respect the author then explores various facets of post-humanist thought, and in particular, Actor network Theory, as one potential starting point for a resolution of these issues Pointing out that Ant starts from an epistemological point wherein humans, animals, technology and objects are considered as equal, taylor argues that this is one particularly fruitful way forwards for human-animal scholars who seek to move beyond agency-structure debates and envision a different future for animals she concludes the chapter with considerations of the problems inherent to adopting Ant wholesale as a way forward in human-animal studies and points towards issues which need further consideration within such a framework, such as the moral status of animals

In chapter 8 Thompson explores new ways to address human- horse relations stressing the necessity for inter-corporeal communi- cation between human and horse, she points out that the hybrid generated from the riding relationship questions taken for granted human-animal boundaries Using data drawn from fieldwork in Andalusia, research into the corrida de rejones (bullfight from

(36)

horseback) and personal equestrienne experiences, Thompson uses this chapter to investigate the utility of the centaur metaphor to bet- ter explore human-horse relationships In particular she argues that the centaur metaphor may meaningfully be used to draw attention to the usually taken for granted role of the horse by allowing a descrip- tion of the multiple levels of hybridity which are the ultimate aim for most riders For Thompson, human-horse relationships are unique This uniqueness can be found, for example, in the fact that the horse is one of the largest animals that humans form close ties with and in the fact that the horse remains perceived as both wild and domesti- cated at the same time Ultimately, however, it is the rider-horse relationship which leads to a hybrid relationship, a relationship

“generated through the interaction of rider and horse” which is only possible “though a harmonization of human and animal” This then leads to the “ontological thrill” of being more than just human and more than just horse, but being a true hybrid—a centaur It is this uniqueness that for Thompson, demands unique (or at least new) ways of addressing human-horse relations For her, Ant offers this with its stress on the ‘relatings’ rather than the ‘relators’, Ant allows the idea of the horse playing a central role Furthermore, with its insistence that humans exist and operate within broader networks of nonhumans (in Ant this term covers animals as well as non sentient artifacts, although does not confer the same moral status to them as detractors tend to argue) it allows for an analysis of rider-horse relations in such a way as to take account of the horse and various other contextual and spatial phenomenon such as technology (e g tack) Thompson finishes the chapter by applying these ideas to a compari- son of the picador and rejoneador rider-technology-horse networks in the spanish corrida.

In the final chapter of the volume Hayward opens by claiming that

“species don’t just have relationships, they are relationships” she then explores this further using Haraway’s idea of ‘metaplasm’ For Hayward, metaplasm is a way of getting at the co-mingling of “sign, matter and action” which is constitutive of social life and has particular relevance for human-animal studies as it allows analyses which do not privilege the human Instead it leads to an analysis which focuses on the material relationality between beings/things rather than on (human) actors alone Hayward then uses her own visits to a jellyfish exhibit at the Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA) to explore this idea further The exhibit was one which worked

(37)

specifically by “building nature” to immerse both observers and observed in a ‘natural’ environment Her guiding questions throughout the piece are: “how does the display form and re-form ontologies and epistemologies?”, “what metaplasm of technoHumanAnimal emerge?” she points to the immersive nature of the exhibit as one which deliberately pulls at the “foundations of familiar order” This intensity of involvement and immersion in the virtual marine world of the jellies is one where familiar order is “transposed, altered, reconfigured” so that observers, if only for a short period of time, cohabit rather than merely observe Given that technology enables this kind of immersive, cohabiting experience, what role then is left for the jellies? or, as Hayward puts it “how do we account for their presence in the apparatuses of immersion, refraction and transpar- ency?” she acknowledges that analyses which stress the marketability of certain animal features (here, the ‘difference’ of the jellies) and/or their role as an embodiment of nature (as opposed to culture) may be relevant to understanding parts of the MBA display However, she points to the inherent anthropocentrism of such theories and instead, insists that we need to recognize the jellies own participation in the exhibit and the life of the aquarium Ultimately she argues “‘they’ and

‘we’ are metaplastic—we are of each other through processes of being and knowing not as discrete units, but as material ensembles made possible by the Drifters display”

The title of this final section of the book is a deliberately mislead- ing in that it suggests there is a definitive future to get to, where our thinking about animals might be significantly different However, one of the central arguments of this collection is that there is no such thing as a finite point we are/should be reaching we decided to leave the title in, however, as it suggests a journey, movement, and it is precisely this optimism we wish to leave you with: that things are forever moving, knowledge is always changing; attitudes—and with them epistemologies and methodologies, are always malleable, muta- ble and unfixed Thus a future which (re) conceives of nonhuman animals in entirely different ways is not beyond reach

In closing we would like to briefly reflect on the link between theory and practice whilst detractors often question the need to theorize about anything at all, pointing out that it is action which counts, we defend our choice to publish a book which theorizes about animals It is our contention that theory and practice are inextricably linked: that the ways in which we think about, and know, animals

(38)

directs how we treat them If we think that animals are inferior

‘others’ to humans then we neatly justify much (if not all) of the hor- rible practices they are subject to throughout the world Accordingly, if we change the underlying assumptions we have about animals it must lead to a change in the way we treat them one cannot occur without the other This book is therefore much more than an academic exercise; it is the beginning of a prescription for change

we hope that you find this book as enjoyable to read as we did to put together

References

Arluke, A and C sanders 1996 Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: temple University Press

Bekoff, M and J Pierce 2009 Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press

Cazaux, G 1999 “Beauty and the Beast: Animal Abuse form a non-speciesist Criminological Perspective ” Crime, Law & Social Change 31( 2): 105-126 Crist, e 1999 Images of Animals: Anthropomorphism and Animal Mind.

Philadelphia: temple University Press

Giddens, A 1991 Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age Cambridge: Polity

Haraway, D 1991 Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. new York: Routledge

Irvine, L 2004 If you Tame Me: Understanding Our Connection With Animals.

Philadelphia: temple University Press

Latour, B 2004 The Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press

Regan, t 1984 The Case for Animal Rights Berkeley: University of California Press sanders, C 2003 “Actions speak Louder than words: Close Relationships between

Humans and nonhuman Animals ” Symbolic Interaction 26(3): 405-426 simmons, L , and P Armstrong 2007 Knowing Animals Boston and Lieden: Brill

Academic Publishers

singer, P 1990 Animal Liberation London: Harper Collins

taylor, n 2007a “never an it: Intersubjectivity and the Creation of Personhood in an Animal shelter ” Qualitative Sociology Review 3(1) http://www qualitative sociologyreview org /enG/archive_eng php Accessed March 2010

taylor, n 2007b “Human-Animal studies: A Challenge to social Boundaries?”

Proteus: A Journal of Ideas 24(1): 1-5

tyler, t , and M Rossini 2009 Animal Encounters. Boston and Lieden: Brill Academic Publishers

whatmore, s 2006 Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces London: sage wolfe, C 2003 Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species and

Posthumanist Theory Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

(39)

(40)

KnottY PRoBLeMs: to tHeoRIse oR not?

(41)

(42)

CHAPteR one

MAPPInG HUMAn AnIMAL ReLAtIons Peter Beatson

This chapter is an exercise in conceptual cartography Its purpose is to help contribute clarity and order to the myriad forms that human- animal interactions can take, to the wide diversity of academic disciplines involved in the study of those interactions, and to the many sites where active intervention on behalf of abused animals occurs The discussion is not ‘theoretical’ as such, but undertakes the more modest, pretheoretical task of constructing what might alternatively be termed a unified heuristic field, a classificatory system, an analytical framework, or a sociological map

The map comprises seven regions Any and every conceivable form of human-animal relationship can be classified into at least one of those regions They are:

(43)

Conjunctures, disjunctures and issues

At their most elementary level, the seven zones of the map provide a heuristic check list for theorists in the field of Human-Animal studies of all the key factors that must be fed into their descriptive or explanatory equations every relationship between humans and particular kinds of animals can only be fully and adequately theorised when regarded as the conjuncture (i e the simultaneous interplay) of all seven spheres Bearing these conjunctures in mind helps guard theorists against the reductionism inherent in ‘one factor’ causal explanations The seven spheres mutually determine one another, and no one zone, be it economic, political, cultural or whatever, has ontological priority In the present chapter, they have been teased apart for analytical clarity, but in messy reality they are inextricably interwoven

over and above the basic heuristic function just mentioned, the analytical model is particularly fecund from a theoretical perspective when used to identify the ‘disjunctures’—i e the points of tension, contradiction or conflict—which exist both between different zones of the map and within each zone itself The identification of such disjunctures enables us to explore and clarify the many issues sur- rounding the human-animal nexus—the practical and ethical problems it generates, and the conflicts to which it gives rise as the interests of humans and of animals collide both within and between the seven spheres

Because of space limitations, it has not been possible to do more than hint at the nature and complexity of such issues, nor to flesh out and give colour to the descriptive generalisations contained in this chapter through the use of illustrative examples The present discussion contains only the bare skeleton: it would require a full book in its own right to flesh out its staccato abstractions and bring them fully to life All the present author is able to do to compensate for the high level of generality at which the chapter is written, and the brev- ity with which its constitutive points are presented, is to refer readers to the suggested Further Readings listed in-text at the end of each section