Stabilizing the Herd: Fixing the Identity of Nonhumans

Abstract

Supported by scientific modes of representation, wildlife-management agencies commonly adopt policies that subordinate nonhuman species and resubstantiate human–nonhuman hierarchies. In this paper I illustrate the inadequacy of current management policies by drawing upon Deleuzian notions of immanence and movement and applying them to the specific case of Yellowstone bison. Modes of representation that define nonhuman ontology in terms of genetics are shown to be inadequate for they separate essence from experience and facilitate the removal and exclusion of nonhumans. In contrast, a Deleuzian theory of wildlife accentuates the importance of movement, contact, and contingency in the constitution of nonhuman ontology, thus outlining an approach that can also lead to a revision of human–nonhuman relations. In particular, movement provides a physical mechanism to bridge the theoretical gap that separates human from nonhuman, and suggests a means to link together ethical and evolutionary concerns regarding nonhumans. With the distinctions between Deleuzian theory and common wildlife-management practices in mind, the paradigm of sustainability is criticized for prioritizing demographic and genetic stability over spatial transgression, thereby minimizing the developmental capacities of nonhumans and legitimizing existing spatial structures of exclusion and control.

Valuing Species: The Continuities between Non-Market and Market Valuations in Biodiversity Conservation

“…As well as these discursive iterations, the value of living organisms is also performatively located at the level of species rather than individuals through the many fleshy encounters of biopolitical practices within biodiversity conservation, including the management of animal populations through culling 'for the good of the species' (Lulka 2004;Smith 2014); captive breeding programmes that subject individual animals to confinement, invasive procedures, forced couplings, and euthanasia in the name of regenerating the species (Chrulew 2011;van Dooren 2014;Braverman 2015a); and the distribution of care and harm to individual organisms based on their categorisation as 'native' or 'invasive' species rather than an assessment of their particular actions and relationships (Marris 2011;van Dooren 2011).…”

“…This is most evident in captive breeding programmes where animals are selected and bred according to stringent plans for maximising genetic diversity while maintaining an ideally designated and fixed species form (Haraway 2008;Braverman 2015a;Fredriksen 2016) and in the subset of these programmes focused on genetic technologies, wherein animals who possess genetic types that 'don't "give back" to the population'-because they are common or 'redundant'-are characterised by those working in biodiversity conservation as embodying 'forms of waste' (Friese 2015: 165). The species category is also performatively shaped in biodiversity conservation practices in less immediate ways, as through the management of in situ populations of protected species with practices such as limiting spatial ranges, providing supplemental feeding, administering vaccines or other medications, and culling or sterilising 'problem' animals like hybrids or others that are perceived to threaten the viability of the ideal species form (Lulka 2004;Braverman 2015a;Fredriksen 2016).…”

“…Individual organisms are framed as being either inside or outside of species units, and the unruly tendencies of organisms to mix and unfold beyond stable species categories as well as differences between individuals within a species category are excluded from this frame (Grosz 2004;Lulka 2004;Hinchliffe 2008;Bear 2011;Mitchell 2016). Biodiversity 2 catalogues thus make organisms present for conservation by conceptually abstracting them from their messy lifeworlds and bringing them into stable species categories, which can be ranked according to various assessments of value, for example their rarity, phylogenetic distinctiveness, or level of endangerment.…”

Methodologies for animals’ geographies: cultures, communication and genomics

“…Together these have inspired livelier accounts of animals within (more-than) human geography. 16 Calls for a more integrative and flexible approach are growing within the pages of ethological journals as well. 17 As Bateson puts it, through a wider consideration of the factors influencing animal behaviour, 'behavioural biologists should be able to retain a grasp of what it is to be an intact, freely moving animal'.…”

Significance of affect and ethics in applying conservation standards: The practices of flying squirrel surveyors

“…These moments of unpredictability are also the moments when the animal agency becomes visibleflying squirrels choose their own nests and habitats, and they may choose "wrong" for the human observer (see Philo & Wilbert, 2005, pages 10, 13;Lulka, 2004, Collard 2012. The squirrels live in their own Umwelt and perceive and use the affordances in their environment (see Warkentin, 2009, 23-28), and by doing so they participate in the conservation and planning networks (see Woods, 2005, page 202;Goedeke & Ricoon, 2008, pages 113, 127) frequently in unpredictable ways.…”