Animals, Capital and Sustainability

Abstract

Taking serious consideration of the engagement of non-animals in human-society often transforms our understanding of human society. Here we offer insights that come from considering the role of non-human animals in the production of human well-being. Drawing on Braverman's critique of the deskilling of labor, we examine the effects of the drive for efficiency in capitalist production on both humans and non-human animals. Non-human animals provide well-being through their role in ecosystem services, as companions, as objects used as both raw materials and as processors of raw materials, and as labor. The drive for efficiency impacts all four of these roles, especially by reducing the agency of non-human animals. Our analysis suggests several lines for future research, and re-enforces the idea that taking non-human animals seriously can substantially hone thinking in human ecology.

The Plight of the Honeybee: A Socioecological Analysis of large‐scale Beekeeping in the United States

“…Tovey (2003) specifically asks us to examine animals not only as abstract components of ecosystems but as equally important as humans, at the centre of sociological analysis. Warren (1990Warren ( , 2000, Benton (1993), Noske (1997b), Gaard (2011), Wilde (2000), Arluke (2002), Tovey (2003), Nibert (2002Nibert ( , 2003Nibert ( , 2013, Clark and York (2005), York and Mancus (2013), York and Longo (2015), Dietz and York (2015), White (2015), Pellow (2014), Kim (2015), Pellow and Brehm (2015), and Pellow and Nyseth Brehm (2013) all point to the necessity for social scientists to rehabilitate nonhuman natures in order to strengthen environmental theory and the environmental movement. This paper responds to this need to embrace a broader socio-ecological framework and focus on the role that capitalism plays in the oppression of humans, non-human animals, and more broadly on all ecological systems and natural resources.…”

World food security, globalisation and animal farming: unlocking dominant paradigms of animal health science

“…Hence, the term 'live-stock' for animals that are domesticated for food production. In other words, farmed animals and their products became capital, internationalised and globally regulated, to easily circulate through complex global networks of production, trade and finance (24,25).…”

“…In being global, as opposed to international, patterns of animal production and consumption became integrated across territories without regard to the particular context in which they were located. As a result, new forms of organisation and new structural arrangements had to be found for animal farming to remain competitive globally and for associated global and local enterprises to survive (25).…”

“…To achieve the food production goals set by governments, farming had to change drastically. In the 1960s-1970s, a new industrial model of farming initiated by the USA expanded into Western Europe before reaching developing countries and, to some degree, Eastern European countries (25,26). Research institutes (for example, in agronomy, animal breeding and nutrition, horticulture and engineering) and the booming manufacturing industries were the key pillars of this new 'agricultural extension model', which promoted the use of industrial methods and technologies in farming (27).…”

“…The globalisation of farming and the technological advancements of the time also played an important role in geographically liberating individual capital units (e.g. animals), as these were shifted to regions with lower production costs or behind tariff walls (25). The integration and benefits of conventional farming methods, however, varied considerably among farmers and countries, excluding many from the global food industry system.…”