Form and Formlessness: The Spatiocorporeal Politics of the American Kennel Club

Abstract

Form and formlessness The species Canis familiaris, otherwise known as the domestic dog, includes perhaps the widest range of body types of any single species (Young and Bannasch, 2006). As Bjo« rnerfeldt et al (2008) note:`T he morphological differences between breeds are so large that they easily exceed the differentiation between all species in the Family Canidae, and probably no other vertebrate has comparable phenotypic diversity.'' As a result, there are now more than 400 recognized dog breeds in the world (Parker et al, 2004). In their genetic analysis of poodles, Bjo« rnerfeldt et al (2008) are even more discriminating, contending that breeds are likely to contain genetically divergent subgroups due to selective pressures. Not surprisingly, these morphological and genetic differences are accompanied by a host of behavioral distinctions as well. As Trut et al (2006, page 81) define this relationship:`M orphology constrains the range of behavioral patterns, and behavior regulates and modifies morphological function.'' This intraspecific diversity is primarily due to the long association between humans and dogs and, more importantly, the cultural and economic factors that led to the explosion of new breeds in the 18th and 19th centuries. Though Lee and Kasif (2006) observe that humans share a more recent ancestor with the mouse than with the dog, the intimate human^canine relationship has developed into more intricate forms of interspecific understanding, wherein dogs can`read' cues from humans (Hare et al, 2002). Nevertheless, the morphological and behavioral form of dog breeds is always susceptible to deformation by virtue of the fact that distinct breeds within the species can still commingle, mate, and produce undesired offspring of uncertain stature. Altogether, the social and biological qualities of the species as a whole indicate the malleability (and agency) of dogs, making for a species that is as susceptible to

Mapping protests against dog culling in post‐communist Romania

“…This paper draws on the published literature about euthanasia (Tasker ) and dog shelters (Lulka ; Srinivasan ), along with the ethics of killing, to assess policies aimed at reducing the size of non‐human animal populations and the changing power relationships in a more‐than‐human world. I link key elements of the published literature to recent cases on the ethics of stringent measures implemented for regulating stray dogs in Romania during September 2013.…”

The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and India

“…Animal and more‐than‐human geographies have steadily developed as a sub‐field since the mid‐nineties (Lorimer 2010; Philo and Wilbert 2000; Wolch and Emel 1998). Some of this literature has looked at ‘companion species’ (Haraway 2003) such as elephants and dogs (Lorimer 2010; Lulka 2009). Such work often has the aim of ‘autre‐mondialisation’ (Haraway 2008, 3), i.e.…”

“…Dog breeding involves human intervention in dog reproduction, and has as its objectives the development and enhancement of specific physiological and behavioural traits favoured for aesthetics or efficient performance in tasks such as hunting, herding and racing (Ritvo 1987, 104–15). Breeding takes on the contours of an art form (Lulka 2009), with human sculptors exerting control over choice of mates, techniques of mating, number and frequency of pregnancies, and the fates of the newborns, in a process of ‘ontological choreography’ (Thompson 2005). Such sculpting of dog bodies through reproductive control has serious impacts on the bodies and lives of these animals (Asher et al 2009).…”

“…While there are more than 400 recognised dog breeds in the world, this level of ‘diversity’ within the species can be largely attributed to cultural and economic factors (Lulka 2009; Ritvo 1987). Left to themselves, dogs would reproduce across human‐influenced breed categories, ‘employing different criteria’ for partner choice (Haraway 2003, 67).…”

Viewing animal bodies: truths, practical aesthetics and ethical considerability in UK livestock breeding

“…There are parallels here with Lulka's (2009) discussion of the tension between the search to establish and sustain 'form' in dog breeding, and the entropic tendency towards a 'formlessness' in which breeds lose distinctiveness and become mongrelised. For cattle and sheep, as for dogs, aesthetic qualities are a key determinant of the form of particular breeds, and as such are closely policed in the ongoing process of maintaining and protecting breed identity.…”