Animals and Sociology

Peggs, Kay

doi:10.1057/9780230377271

Cited by 71 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(101 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Wolfe's (2010) version of posthumanism similarly asserts "a shared trans-species being-in-the-world constituted by complex relations of trust, respect, dependence, and communication" (p. 141). We also see attempts to articulate a human-nonhuman relational ontology in fields as diverse as archaeology (Watts, 2013), anthropology (Dugnoille, 2014;Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010;Kohn, 2013;Latour, 2014), geography (Whatmore, 2006;Wright, 2015), sociology (Charles, 2014;Cudworth, 2015;McCarthy, 2016;Sanders, 2007;Wilkes, 2013;York & Longo, 2017) criminology and legal studies (e.g., Agnew, 1998;Sollund, 2011); philosophy and cultural studies (Haraway, 2003;Litchfield, 2013;Plumwood, 2002); natural history (Henderson, 2012); feminism (Adams, 2015;Kemmerer, 2011;Potts, 2010); and the growing interdisciplinary field of human-animal studies (HAS) (Birke & Hockenhull, 2012;DeMello, 2012;Peggs, 2012;Wilkie, 2015)-dedicated to finding "new ways of thinking about animals and about human-animal relationships" (Potts, 2010, p. 291). Evidence of a growing understanding of interrelatedness incorporates animals, but also extends to other nonhuman forms, beings, things, places, and elements of the morethan-human world (Anderson, Adey, & Bevan, 2010;Bawaka Country et al, 2016;Ingold, 2005).…”

Section: The " Animal Turn" and A Human-animal Relational Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a critical psychology of human–animal relations

Adams

2018

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that critical psychological engagement with the field of human-animal relations is largely absent, but of potential significance, and begins to outline more concretely what such a perspective might contribute, especially as a form of social psychology. The article provides a brief overview of the emerging psychology of human-animal relations and the extent to which it emphasises situated human-animal interactions in real-world settings, including from the standpoint of animal participants. Recent elaborations of the "animal turn" outside of the discipline of psychology are considered, as they place fresh emphasis on human-animal interaction and interdependence and might further extend the boundaries of what counts as relations that matter in critical and social psychology.These foundations are argued to offer an invitation to critical psychology to engage more fully in the study of human-animal relations and enliven it as a result.

show abstract

Section: The " Animal Turn" and A Human-animal Relational Ontologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a critical psychology of human–animal relations

Adams

2018

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Egalitarianism can also be used as a starting point in the evaluation of equality between humans and nonhuman animals (Vallentyne 2005). Current societies tend to be highly speciesist: non-human animals are discriminated against solely based on their non-human status, regardless of the morally relevant characters they share with humans, such as sentience (Peggs 2012). Moreover, a moral hierarchy is constructed between animals based on their usefulness and affective importance to humans (Arluke & Sanders 1996).…”

Section: Moral Egalitarianism and Fair Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability Matrix: Interest Groups and Ethical Theories as the Basis of Decision-Making

Vinnari

Kupsala

2017

J Agric Environ Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past few decades, the global food system has confronted new sustainability challenges related not only to public health and the environment but also to ethical concerns over the treatment of farmed animals. However, the traditional threedimensional framework of sustainable development is ill equipped to take ethical concerns related to non-human animals into account. For instance, the interests of farmed animals are often overridden by objectives associated with social, economic or environmental sustainability, despite their vast numbers and influence on contemporary societies. Moreover, sustainability policies necessarily involve an element of ethical evaluation; yet this element is not explicitly incorporated in prevailing frameworks of sustainable development. Our purpose in this article is to address these shortcomings by developing a Sustainability Matrix that recognizes the need to consider food system sustainability from the perspective of all interest groups affected by the issue under consideration, from a plurality of ethical standpoints. Combing sustainability principles with the basic idea of an ethical evaluation tool, the proposed Sustainability Matrix evaluates the sustainability of food-related systems, decisions and policies from the perspectives of three major strands of ethical theory and from the perspectives of human beings, farmed animals and wildlife. In terms of policy implications, the Sustainability Matrix can be applied in deciding on the specific targets of food system sustainability that can then be utilized as a basis for designing policies and measures towards the achievement of these goals.The final publication is available at Springer via http: //dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9670-y.

show abstract

“…A humancentrist agenda for the sociology of violence excludes the ways non‐human beings are caught up in violent social practices which are wide‐scale, systemic and normalized. Given the development of sociological animal studies and the ways it has troubled the human‐exclusive, partial agendas of the discipline as it has emerged historically (Peggs, ), new developments might show caution and at the very least be open to inclusion.…”

Section: Thinking About Species Violencementioning

confidence: 99%

Killing Animals: Sociology, Species Relations and Institutionalized Violence

Cudworth

2015

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Animals and Sociology

Cited by 71 publications

References 48 publications

Towards a critical psychology of human–animal relations

Towards a critical psychology of human–animal relations

Sustainability Matrix: Interest Groups and Ethical Theories as the Basis of Decision-Making

Killing Animals: Sociology, Species Relations and Institutionalized Violence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About