Domesticando o Humano: para uma antropologia moral da proteção animal

Lewgoy, Bernardo; Sordi, Caetano; Pinto, Leandra Oliveira

doi:10.5007/ilha.v17i2.38946

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Entre muitos exemplos, estão os trabalhos de Fausto (2001), Lima (2005), Bonilla (2007) e Garcia (2011. Para a discussão dos dilemas morais na relação humano-animal, Lewgoy et al (2015) apresentam uma densa resenha da temática a partir de uma etnografia do universo da proteção animal em Porto Alegre/RS.…”

Section: Recebido Em 16 De Agosto De 2016 Aprovado Em 23 De Novembro unclassified

Quando O Animal Dura Mais Que a Estimação

Segata

2016

Mana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O estudo das relações humano-animal tem ganhado boa expressão na antropologia contemporânea. Ele forma um campo que se desenvolve a partir de duas frentes de discussão que se complementam -uma política e outra epistemológica. A primeira envolve ativismos e novos movimentos sociais em torno de direitos e de moralidades dos animais, enquanto a outra passa a questionar e a reposicionar qualidades e distinções entre eles e os humanos.1 Particularmente, minha inserção nesse campo se deu por meio de pet shops e de clínicas veterinárias do sul do Brasil, que formaram o cenário etnográfico pesquisado entre 2007 e 2012. A partir dele, eu procurei mostrar que a medicalização de estados físicos e morais e as práticas de produção de longevidade para animais têm sido facilitadas pelo alto investimento em tecnologias, como equipamentos, diagnósticos, intervenções cirúrgicas, procedimentos clínicos e um vasto mercado que congrega medicamentos e outros dispositivos que definem saúde, doença e estética a partir de modelos biomédicos da medicina humana e sua infraestrutura global (Segata 2012).O meu interesse pelo tema está associado ao redimensionamento que o debate sobre natureza e cultura ganhou nos últimos anos. Se essa antinomia ainda resiste como um programa de controle desde o pensamento antropológico moderno, para mim, ela encontra na relação humano-animal uma figura de mediação. Em linhas gerais, esta ideia forma o pano de fundo do que tratarei aqui, concentrando-me nas controvérsias em torno do envelhecimento de um animal de estimação e da manutenção de seu vínculo com os seus companheiros humanos. A situação etnográfica que me guia é a de que, mais velhos, alguns desses animais têm desenvolvido problemas que até há pouco tempo não faziam parte do repertório veterinário e nem dos seus companheiros humanos, como é o caso dos cânceres e tumores, das cegueiras, dos problemas renais e hepáticos, da hipertensão, da depressão, entre outros. Como esses diagnósticos e tratamentos são contínuos àqueles dos humanos, uma forma particular de identificação e de relação com o animal em meios urbanos, especialmente em clínicas veterinárias, parece

show abstract

Section: Recebido Em 16 De Agosto De 2016 Aprovado Em 23 De Novembro unclassified

Quando O Animal Dura Mais Que a Estimação

Segata

2016

Mana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few of these works set out to analyze homeless animal protectors, including the texts by Osório (2011Osório ( , 2013, Matos (2012), Santos (2014) and Lewgoy, Sordi & Pinto (2015). None of them, however, develops a more sustained analysis of the process through which someone begins to see her or himself as a protector.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociabilities and Sensitivities: Recruitments in Homeless Animal Care

Osório

2016

Vibrant, Virtual Braz. Anthr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbastractHomeless animal protectors are volunteers who rescue, care for and donate abandoned animals for human adoption. They make up networks, organizing themselves into groups or acting autonomously. Interviews with protectors in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, afford an understanding of the recruitment system in these networks and activities. The collected stories are compared to similar processes observed by other studies of the field, especially in relation to animal rights movements. Recruitment was found to be associated with Veterinary Medicine schools and sociability networks, but self-recruitment cases via the internet, especially via Facebook, were also observed.Key words: animal protectors; sociotechnical network; activist recruitment; animal welfare. Sociabilidades e sensibilidades:Recrutamentos na proteção a animais de rua ResumoProtetores de animais de rua são voluntários que resgatam, cuidam e encaminham para adoção humana animais em situação de abandono. Integram redes de proteção, organizam-se como grupos ou agem de forma autônoma. Entrevistas com protetores fluminenses permitiram uma compreensão do sistema de recrutamentos nessas redes e atividades. As narrativas colhidas são comparadas com processos similares observados na literatura da área, com ênfase para o movimento pelos direitos dos animais. Verificou-se recrutamentos relacionados aos cursos de medicina veterinária e a redes de sociabilidade, bem como autorecrutamentos através da internet, especialmente através do Facebook.

show abstract

“…This difference is also noted in the French case by the gap found between pets and farm-raised animals -where the first are considered to be an elite form of animal while the second case involves the denunciation of exploitation. According to Digard (2012), the universe of animal protection in This can be seen in the strategies of distinction in the breeding and production of cattle in Leal (2016); in the situation of wild boars that ignore borders and property lines presented by Sordi (2015); among the lab rats in Souza (2013) that challenge moral indifference and evoke the biopolitical tattooing of Giorgio Agamben and the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas; in the transnational mosquito that mobilizes biopolitical emergencies in studies by Segata (2016aSegata ( , 2016b; in the dogs with leishmaniosis on Brazil's "triple frontier"…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…families, yet which as a victim is deserted at the metropolitan peripheries (Fudge 2014;Lewgoy, Sordi & Pinto 2015). This second group, is in general dedicated to investigating animals in less exotic contexts than those commonly emphasized in the discipline, but which equally place anthropology in limit situations, by inserting themselves in the crossing of effects and influences of broad geopolitical, global and local trends, with highly complex urban and rural realities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Presentation

Segata¹,

Lewgoy²

2016

Vibrant, Virtual Braz. Anthr.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals are not new to anthropology. Since the early days of the discipline they appear in rituals, classifications and symbols. Animals are hunted, raised, domesticated, eaten, feared and venerated. Of course anthropology is generically defined as the discipline that studies "man", and it is thus common that animals only appear in a supporting role: they are part of the scenery described, assistants in activities or a means to help understand how humans think and organize themselves in the world. One of the many consequences of this attitude was to authenticate the generalized idea that animals are seen as resources of all sorts of types, given that they only appear as part of ecosystems -cultures or societies -which are anthropically centered. Animals have thus been relegated in the traditional anthropological project to figurative functional or mediating roles in contrast to the majesty of human agency.1 To some degree, this dossier is part of an agenda that is critical of this more traditional posture, and accompanies a set of debates that have been expanding in the discipline and that shift animals from their position as simple appendixes of humans or as elements in the environment, to position them in the foreground of ethnographies, making more visible how the lives of animals and humans interact and are co-produced.In this critical direction, Rebeca Cassidy (2007), when discussing the literature about domestication, makes explicit references to how the anthropological tradition can be understood in terms of humans' relationship with animals (and with plants). For Cassidy, the domestication of animals and the development of agriculture were treated in the discipline in terms that are similar to the explanation of the passage from savagery to barbarity and from the affirmation of civilization, to the defeat of a feminine mode of the world, and the consolidation of private property. This anthropological posture mirrored zoological thinking, which emphasized human control over plants, animals and "primitive" peoples and incorporated1 The famous controversy between Marvin Harris (1976) and Claude Lévi-Strauss (1983a, 1983b emblematically illustrates this tendency. In Harris' cultural ecology, societies were understood as a cultural adaptation to pressures from their natural environments. In Levi-Strauss's structuralism, we find the idea that mythic thinking organizes certain salient elements of the empiric world in signifying systems. Thus, in a non-exclusive reduction, nature, including animals, in both cases, are an objectifiable externality. For Harris they are inscribed in a naturalistic semantic (animals are good for the environment or good for evolving) and in Lévi-Strauss' structural semiotic they are good for thinking. A significant change in the anthropological perspective on animals began to take shape with the work of Philippe Descola, in particular in the realm of his anthropology of nature. Dscola indicates that (i) nature cannot be considered as a universal condition (or as a category) upon whic...

show abstract

Domesticando o Humano: para uma antropologia moral da proteção animal

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Quando O Animal Dura Mais Que a Estimação

Quando O Animal Dura Mais Que a Estimação

Sociabilities and Sensitivities: Recruitments in Homeless Animal Care

Presentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About