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, institutionalised and globalised. 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. KeywordsHuman-animal relations, institutionalised violence, farmed animals, companion animals 2 IntroductionIn her essay, 'Being Prey', Val Plumwood (1996) reflects on her experience of being attacked by a crocodile. While the crocodile attempts to kill her, Plumwood feels outraged -she is human and should not be food. She suggests that it is a mark of our status as beyond and above 'the animal' that we cannot position ourselves as prey. On the other hand, we do not usually think of ourselves as predatory animals, despite being highly effective in this regard.The most common relationship we have with domesticated non-human animals is that we eat them, and this requires the routine killing of enormous numbers. (ASPCA, 2013). These levels of routine and normative killing of those animals we refer to as 'livestock' and 'pets' is not, however, an issue that has concerned sociologists of violence. 3In sociology, violence has been understood as both individual and collective but as unmistakably a social phenomenon, socially organized and socially institutionalized (Stanko, 2001;Ray, 2011). There are specific arenas where violence is seen to occur -in sport, in war, in the home (domestic violence), and in association with criminal behavior. In some cases, this violence is linked to widespread forms of inequality and social exclusion (Toombs, 2007).Forms of violence have been understood to reflect multiple forms of domination -for example, feminist work has drawn our attention to the intersected qualities of racialised, gendered violence in situations of armed conflict (Cockburn, 2007). However, species is not factored into such analyses despite that non-human animals are embedded in the social institutions and processes of intra-human violence.In thinking about the killing of domestic animals in more developed countries, this paper attempts a posthumanist intervention in the agenda of the emerging sociology of violence. Sociological animal studies are increasingly d...
This article is a collective response to Anthony Burke et al's 'Planet Politics', published in this journal in 2016, and billed as a 'Manifesto from the end of IR'. We dispute this claim on the basis that rather than breaking from the discipline, the Manifesto provides a problematic global governance agenda which is dangerously authoritarian and deeply depoliticising. We substantiate this analysis in the claim that Burke et al reproduce an already failed and discredited liberal cosmopolitan framework through the advocacy of managerialism rather than transformation; the top-down coercive approach of international law; and use of abstract modernist political categories. In the closing sections of the article, we discuss the possibility of different approaches, which, taking the Anthropocene as both an epistemological and ontological break with modernist assumptions, could take us beyond IR's disciplinary confines.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to map the field of sociological animal studies through some examples of critical and mainstream approaches and considers their relation to advocacy. It makes the argument that while all these initiatives have made important contributions to the project of “animalising sociology” and suggest a need for change in species relations, the link between analysis and political strategy is uncertain. Design/methodology/approach – The paper develops its argument by using secondary sources, reviewing sociological positions and offering illustrations of possible interventions. Findings – Sociological interventions in the field of animal studies have been informed by critical perspectives, such as feminism and Marxism, or taken less critical routes deploying actor-network theory and symbolic interactionism. Whilst those working in critical traditions may appear to have a more certain political agenda, an analysis of “how things are” does not always lead to a clear position on “what is to be done” in terms of social movement agendas or policy intervention. In addition, concepts deployed in advocacy such as “liberation”, “quality of life” or “care” are problematic when applied beyond the human. Despite this, there are possibilities for coalition and solidarity around certain claims for change. Research limitations/implications – If the central argument of the paper were taken seriously by general sociologists, then sociology may be more open to “animal studies”. In implications for exisitng sociological animal studies scholarship is to trouble some of the certainties around advocacy. Practical implications – If the central argument of the paper were taken seriously by advocacy groups, then the hiatus between “welfarism” and “liberation” might be overcome. Originality/value – There have been recent attempts to map the field of scholarship in animal studies, but surprisingly little consideration of how different emergent positions inform questions of advocacy and the possibilities for political intervention.
The term 'new materialism' has recently gained saliency as a descriptor for an eclectic range of positions that question the human centred and human exclusive focus of scholarship across the humanities and social sciences. In turn these emerging perspectives have been subject to critique by those writing in the established materialist tradition who argue that new materialism ignores the unique specificity of human agency and the transformatory capabilities of our species. Our previous interventions have endorsed a particular account of posthumanism that draws together complexity influenced systems theory with elements of political ecologism that have incorporated aspects of established materialist and humanist thinking. This article rejects the old materialist critique that denies the emancipatory potential of posthumanist thinking, and explores the potential for an emancipatory posthumanism.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.