Animals’ atmospheres

Abstract

This article introduces the concept of animals’ atmospheres, as a contribution to work in animal and atmospheric geographies. It defines the concept and identifies the key factors that shape an animals’ atmosphere. These offer a framework for future comparative research. The second section focuses on methodological and epistemic challenges of knowing and representing animal atmospheres. The third section examines engineering of animals’ atmospheres, in context of the biopolitics of managing animal life in the Anthropocene. In conclusion, the article highlights its contributions. Illustrations are drawn from the atmospheres of dogs and wolves.

Cultural geographies of extinction: Animal culture among Scottish ospreys

“…In this manner, animal – specifically, avian – cultural life might be mapped, as Deleuze and Guattari suggest, by virtue of “counting its affects” (, p. 299). That is, by documenting site‐ and relationally specific ways of living as part of always‐hybrid communities (Lestel, 2014a); or through attention to the (re)articulation of animal being amid particular “atmospheres” or fields of forces (Lorimer et al., ). Exploring more‐than‐human cultural geographies therefore requires attention to processes of “learning to be affected” by the world, as to mediate future meetings (Despret, , p. 131).…”

“…To expand a sense of what is at stake in extinction, I make geographical and historically specific osprey "ways of living" tangible through the notion of "animal culture." "More-than-representational" (Lorimer, 2005) cultural geographies are just as evidently "more-than-human" (Lorimer et al, 2017;Whatmore, 2006). They elude explanation merely in terms of autonomous, exceptional human figures (Whatmore, 2002;Hird, 2010;Anderson, 2014).…”

“…Although methodological and conceptual developments have favoured the former (Hodgetts & Lorimer, 2015), there is growing energy within more-than-human geography to explore the spatial character of animal life beyond its "placing" by humans (Buller, 2014(Buller, , 2015Johnston, 2008;H. Lorimer, 2006;Lorimer et al, 2017;Van Patter & Hovorka, 2018). Animals, figured as "geographers too" (Buller, 2015, p. 380), enact spatial lives and attachments.…”

“…Similarly, many discussions held during the course of research with individuals who have spent time working with these birds likewise inform my understanding of ospreys’ capabilities (see Midgely, ). Stories of humans living and working with birds past and present provide “narratives of affiliation” (Lorimer, , p. 65), helping tune into the elements of the environment affecting, and affected by, animal existence (Lorimer et al., , p. 6). In sum, extant writing and reflection on ospreys, by those who have spent years researching with them, assists me in asking the “right questions” of documents bearing their trace (Despret, ).…”

Between disgust and indifference: Affective and emotional relations with carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia

“…In this paper I consider embodied responses to carp and the circulation and amplification of emotions in emerging sites of invasive species management that involve killing. I aim to bring invasive fish and their deaths into the biopolitical realm of Anthropocene concerns (Lorimer et al., ) and out of the world of indifference, addressing the challenges of a so‐called “return to Pangea” (Everts & Benediktsson, ) where humans must acknowledge their role in the global spread and accumulation of invasive species, but also confront the dilemmas of how best to respond, to care, and to be involved where all life is connected. The social dimensions of managing this new normal are an emerging area of research requiring attention to the cultural and emotional aspects of relationships with “places, species and individual organisms” (Crowley et al., , p. 355) but have received less attention, most likely because they are more challenging to measure and assess (Crowley et al., ).…”