Zoonotic Politics: The Impossible Bordering of the Leaky Boundaries of Species

Zoonotic pandemics shine an uncomfortable light on how human lifeways facilitate the sharing of pathogens across species. Yet our lack of acknowledgement of our shared vulnerability with those non-human animals we raise or hunt to kill and eat, whose habitats we encroach upon and destroy, whose populations we undermine and threaten, has led us to the current human health crisis. The predominant political response to zoonotic pandemic has been bordering practices of surveillance, securitisation and bodily separation. These practices reflect intra-human and species hierarchies. They also fail to acknowledge the extent to which the boundaries of species are leaky, and are continually breached. A posthumanist zoonotic politics seeks not to attempt to border the leaky boundaries of species, but rather to insist on a re-ordering of species relations towards less exploitative and extractive ways of sharing the planet with the myriad creatures that constitute our world

Animalizing International Relations

This article explores what it means to ‘animalise’ International Relations. The posthuman move in the social sciences has involved the process of de-centring the human, replacing an anthropocentric focus with a view of the human as embedded within a complex network of inter-species relations. In a previous work we drew attention to the lack of analysis within International Relations of the key role played by more-than human animals in situations of conflict. The current COVID-19 pandemic again indicates that an analysis of international relations that does not have at its core an understating of a more than human world is always going to be an incomplete account. The paper argues for the animalizing of International Relations in order to enhance inclusivity, and suggests five ways in which this might be approached. As it becomes increasingly clear that a climate-related collapse is imminent, we argue for a transformative approach to the discipline, stressing interlinked networks and a shared vulnerability as a political project which challenges capitalism (advanced/late/carboniferous/genocidal) and the failure of states to address the concatenation of crises that life on the planet confronts

Most farmers prefer Blondes: The Dynamics of Anthroparchy in Animals’ Becoming Meat

open access journalThere are varied social formations that contemporary human-animal relations assume, but the dominant interaction which most of us in wealthy regions of the globe have with domestic animal species, is that we eat them. This paper argues that the animals we eat are framed by the symbolic regimes and material contexts of their becoming-meat. The placing of animals as food suggests an ontology of species, and this paper draws out elements of such an ontology with reference to an empirical British study of the institutional sites and practices of farming, slaughter and butchery through which animals are transformed into meat. It is not only species relations which are present in animals’ becoming-meat however, and an emergent theme in the empirical material is the way in which gendered and natured (and other) narratives coalesce. Domestic food animals have, of course, varied histories of bio-sociality with ‘humans’. Yet despite this co-constitution, the paper argues that many non-human animals are subject to a complex system of natured domination which privileges the human. Despite the dynamic qualities of contemporary formations of natured domination, the becoming-meat of animals can be understood as a network of institutions, processes and practices and can be evidenced in particular social forms. Social relations are complexly intersectionalised however, and this paper explores some of the entanglements of gender and nature in the conceptions, lives, deaths and dismemberments of meat animals

Killing animals: sociology, species relations and institutionalized violence

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Influential voices have argued for a sociology which acknowledges the way we are co-constituted with a range of non-human species as part of the condition of life on this planet. Despite this, sociology has generally retained a conception of the social that is centred on the human. This paper argues for the inclusion of non-human animals in sociological agendas, focusing on the emerging field of the sociology of violence. It examines the institutions and processes through which non-human animals are subjected to different forms of violence, most notably, mass killing.The practice of killing animals is routine, normative, institutionalized and globalized. The scale of killing is historically unprecedented and the numbers killed are enormous. The paper argues that this killing of non-humans raises questions around inequalities and intersectionality, human relations with other species, the embedding of violence in everyday practices and links between micro and macro analyses. These are questions with which the new sociology of violence might engage

A Sociology for Other Animals: Analysis, advocacy, intervention

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Sociology has come late to the field of Human Animal Studies (HAS), and such scholarship remains peripheral to the discipline. Early sociological interventions in the field were often informed by a critical perspective, in particular feminism but also Marxism and critical race studies. There have also been less critical routes taken, often using approaches such as actor-network theory and symbolic interactionism. These varied initiatives have made important contributions to the project of animalizing sociology and problematizing its legacies of human-exclusivity. As HAS expands and matures however, different kinds of study and different normative orientations have come increasingly into relations of tension in this eclectic field. This is particularly so when it comes to the ideological and ethical debates on appropriate human relations with other species, and on questions of whether and how scholarship might intervene to alter such relations. However, despite questioning contemporary social forms of human-animal relations and suggesting a need for change, the link between analysis and political strategy is uncertain. This paper maps the field of sociological animal studies through some examples of critical and mainstream approaches and considers their relation to advocacy. While those working in critical sociological traditions may appear to have a more certain political agenda, this article suggests that an analysis of 'how things are' does not always lead to a coherent position on 'what is to be done' in terms of social movement agendas or policy intervention. In addition, concepts deployed in advocacy such as rights, liberation and welfare are problematic when applied beyond the human. Even conceptions less entrenched in the liberal humanist tradition such as embodiment, care and vulnerability are difficult to operationalize. Despite complex and contested claims however, this paper suggests that there might also be possibilities for solidarity

The Recipe for Love? Continuities and Changes in the Sexual Politics of Meat

open access journalOur eating of animals and animal products is a key tenet of human-animal relations in late modernity, and the popular culture of food, in wealthy regions of the globe, is infused with images of animals as flesh for human consumption. This paper suggests, drawing particularly on the feminist conception of the ‘absent referent’, that such images can tell us something about both human-animal relations, and intra-human relations. Some sociologists have seen the postmodernization of human-animal relations in the changing content of the cultural texts of meat. Drawing upon an empirical study of the presentation of animal food in British food magazines and advertising in the 1990s, and discussing some images of meat food as cultural texts, this paper argues that the narratives which frame such images coalesce in overlapping discursive formations of gendered and natured power and difference. The paper takes the view that the postmodernization thesis is overstated, and that the cultural texts of meat tell us a story which still reflects both social hierarchy and the human domination and exploitation of the animals we consume as ‘food’

Muddied Living: making home with dog companions

Purpose Focusing on everyday lives and relationships within the household, this paper suggests that the quality of ‘home’ is altered by the presence of animal companions. Conceptions of home as a haven have been critiqued on grounds of the elision of power relations, yet home has also been understood as a place of resistance to, and refuge from, an exploitative and exclusionary public world. Acknowledging differentiated relations of power and understanding homemaking as a process, this paper investigates the playing out of species relations within home space. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws on empirical material from a study of companion species in households and public spaces, deploying ethnographic material gained through extended observation and semi-structured and often mobile interviews with dog ‘owners’ in urban and rural contexts in the UK. Findings Dogs transform domestic space through muddying human lives. This process is twofold. First, life in posthumanist households problematizes boundaries between humans and other creatures in terms of relationships, behaviour and use of space. Second, muddied living involves breaching and maintaining domestic order. Muddied living is characterised by tension, power and compromise. Homes are posthuman not just by including non-human animals, but through elements of dog agency in how home is made. Originality Little has been written of ‘home’ within sociology, despite ‘home’ capturing a range of social practice. Sociologists examining human-animal companion relations have not considered how relations play out in home space. This paper investigates home as a shared space of multispecies interaction, making the case for a posthuman sociology of home

A Sociology for Other Animals: Analysis, advocacy, intervention

Sociology has come late to the field of Human Animal Studies (HAS), and such scholarship remains peripheral to the discipline. Early sociological interventions in the field were often informed by a critical perspective, in particular feminism but also Marxism and critical race studies. There have also been less critical routes taken, often using approaches such as actor-network theory and symbolic interactionism. These varied initiatives have made important contributions to the project of animalizing sociology and problematizing its legacies of human-exclusivity. As HAS expands and matures however, different kinds of study and different normative orientations have come increasingly into relations of tension in this eclectic field. This is particularly so when it comes to the ideological and ethical debates on appropriate human relations with other species, and on questions of whether and how scholarship might intervene to alter such relations. However, despite questioning contemporary social forms of human-animal relations and suggesting a need for change, the link between analysis and political strategy is uncertain. This paper maps the field of sociological animal studies through some examples of critical and mainstream approaches and considers their relation to advocacy. While those working in critical sociological traditions may appear to have a more certain political agenda, this article suggests that an analysis of 'how things are' does not always lead to a coherent position on 'what is to be done' in terms of social movement agendas or policy intervention. In addition, concepts deployed in advocacy such as rights, liberation and welfare are problematic when applied beyond the human. Even conceptions less entrenched in the liberal humanist tradition such as embodiment, care and vulnerability are difficult to operationalize. Despite complex and contested claims however, this paper suggests that there might also be possibilities for solidarity

Posthuman Community in the Edgelands

This paper draws on a study of companion animals in human households and public spaces, deploying material gained by ethnographic observation and interviews with dog walkers in urban and rural contexts. The communities which are the subject of this study frequent public places that might be described as ‘edgeland’ space where dogs and ‘dog people’ meet. The paper argues that the relationships between cross-species packs of people and dogs develop over time in the routine practice of walking are micro-communities inclusive of both dogs and their human companions. It is suggested that these might be understood as posthuman social forms with particular characteristics of inclusivity, diversity and reconstitution. Human members of such communities are also invested in, and defensive, of edgeland spaces and engaged in practices of care for both human and canine walkers

Killing animals: sociology, species relations and institutionalized violence

Influential voices have argued for a sociology which acknowledges the way we are co-constituted with a range of non-human species as part of the condition of life on this planet. Despite this, sociology has generally retained a conception of the social that is centred on the human. This paper argues for the inclusion of non-human animals in sociological agendas, focusing on the emerging field of the sociology of violence. It examines the institutions and processes through which non-human animals are subjected to different forms of violence, most notably, mass killing.The practice of killing animals is routine, normative, institutionalized and globalized. The scale of killing is historically unprecedented and the numbers killed are enormous. The paper argues that this killing of non-humans raises questions around inequalities and intersectionality, human relations with other species, the embedding of violence in everyday practices and links between micro and macro analyses. These are questions with which the new sociology of violence might engage