For an Emancipatory Animal Sociology

Abstract

Sociologists have contributed to the development of the animal studies field in recent decades. However, many of these ventures have been anthropocentric, stopping short of sociological calls for animal liberation despite the fact that critical sociological concepts are often the (unspoken) antecedents of such work. Here, we present a systematic review of peer-reviewed sociological articles on human-animal relationships since 1979. Our analysis identified key themes supporting charges of anthropocentrism, but also aspects of politicised animal sociology. Based on this we call for sociological animal studies to incorporate a specifically Emancipatory Animal Sociology: an approach grounded in a social justice and emancipatory praxis that explicitly and critically engages with the material conditions of animals' lives, taking into account the experiences and knowledge of activists and others working directly with animals and, where possible, centres the animals themselves.

How Prevalent Are Invertebrates in Human-Animal Scholarship? Scoping Study of Anthrozoös and Society & Animals

“…As a zoologist, he noted a "concentration on large, well-known mammals, which from a zoological standpoint are a miniscule proportion of the world's animals, and even a highly skewed sample of mammals" (p.46), particularly companion and agricultural animals. Within HAS, domesticated mammals have similarly attracted more attention than wild animals (Shapiro & Lynn, 2019;Taylor & Sutton, 2018).…”

Engaging the “Animal Question” in International Relations

“…These two elements correspond respectively to whatGinn (2018) calls a "critical anti-humanist" and "ontologicalethical" way of doing posthumanism.28 On the politics of posthumanism, see alsoCudworth and Hobden (2018).29 In addition to work cited earlier, recent overviews includeTaylor and Fitzgerald (2018),Taylor and Sutton (2018),Kean and Howell (2019), and Gibbs (2020).30 The quote is from Kim Wingerei's translation of Arnulf Øverland's poem "Du må ikke sove" (You must not sleep) of 1936 (https://kimwingerei.com/arnulf-overland; accessed July 7, 2019).Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/isr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/isr/viaa082/5981752 by Bilkent University user on 31 March 2021…”

Researching towards a critically posthumanist future: on the political “doing” of critical research for companion animal liberation

“…Tuan, 1984) or (overwhelmingly) the positive aspects of these entanglements, including the human benefits of pet ownership and the (positive) framing of pets as minded, familial beings (see, for instance, Charles, 2014; Haraway, 2008; Irvine, 2013). Sociological research on human–companion animal relationships is exceedingly anthropocentric and depoliticised, more so than research focussed on other human–animal entanglements (Taylor and Sutton, 2018). This then means that as a body of work, sociological studies of the pet are more likely to contribute to broader narratives that legitimise and support the use of non-human animals as companions, than further thinking that seeks to challenge them.…”

“…This then means that as a body of work, sociological studies of the pet are more likely to contribute to broader narratives that legitimise and support the use of non-human animals as companions, than further thinking that seeks to challenge them. The extent to which anthropocentrism and non-human animal use is seen as problematic varies depending on where scholars are placed between more mainstream human–animal studies or its more critical offshoots such as Critical Animal Studies (CAS) which actively advocate for non-human animals and against their “use” (see Best et al , 2007; Taylor and Sutton, 2018). However, the tensions between these seemingly loving, familial bonds and the total human control over the lives and (often) deaths of both owned and rejected pets remain an under-explored area in empirical sociological studies, regardless of the reader's positioning.…”

“…However, the tensions between these seemingly loving, familial bonds and the total human control over the lives and (often) deaths of both owned and rejected pets remain an under-explored area in empirical sociological studies, regardless of the reader's positioning. As sociologists increasingly call for research that explicitly advocates for non-human animals (Cudworth, 2016; Peggs, 2013; Taylor and Sutton, 2018), sociological pet studies need to do more to highlight and challenge the manifestations of power and oppression in these seemingly unproblematic everyday relations. Such a focus is not only relevant to CAS scholars, but also enriches understanding of the social world in its attention to the complexity and nuances of power relations between species on both macro and micro levels.…”