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

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractThe UK is widely regarded as a nation committed to animal welfare. On the other hand, the precarious lives of India's stray dogs have attracted a considerable amount of international animal activist attention, and raised questions about the nation's indifference to these animals. Furthermore, animal welfare practice and policy in India are significantly shaped by British law and practice, which is often considered superior. While these contrasting reputations appear reasonable, a closer inquiry reveals complexities that belie an easy relegation to 'cruel' and 'kind'. Bringing together Foucauldian scholarship on power with legal and more-than-human geographies, this paper examines state and civil society discourse relating to the companion species, 'dog', an animal that is protected as a pet if in human homes, and controlled as a pest if out of place. In particular, this inquiry examines the discursive formations of dog control law and welfare practice in the UK and India to interrogate conventional understandings of dog (well)being. This analysis is then used as a foundation to conceptually develop Foucauldian work on biopower for the study of more-thanhuman relationships. The paper also draws out, from the above examination, insights connected to the political question of how humans might share physical and ethical space with animals, even those that do not enjoy the status of 'protected' or useful species.

Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity

“…Impounding and killing dogs because they are "out of place" is typically motivated by the intent of reducing dog-related threats and nuisances, but may also reflect concern for a roaming dog's own welfare, concern for dogs being kept "in their proper place," or concern for pet owners (Srinivasan, 2013). Indeed, dog-related nuisances as well as outright threats deter physical activity and fuel animosity to an extent that is relevant for equity in public health (Derges et al, 2012;Toohey & Rock, 2011).…”

Caring for the Collective: Biopower and Agential Subjectification in Wildlife Conservation

“…I argue below that biopower in the turtle conservation dispositif is driven by 'agential subjectification' (Srinivasan, 2013). By this, I mean subjectification processes in the conservationists whereby they act upon and for turtles on the basis of truth discourses about turtle flourishing.…”

“…In using the biopolitical framework to critically analyse human-animal relationships, such work has expanded Foucault's purely human conceptualisation of the biopolitical 'population' to discuss nonhuman and human-nonhuman collectives of varying kindsbreeds (Holloway and Morris, 2012), genotypes (Braverman 2013), species (Chrulew, 2012); spatially defined animal groups/populations (Srinivasan 2013); and even 'biodiversity' (Youatt 2008). Building on these, this paper explores the insights that emerge from application of the biopolitical concept of 'population' to Olive Ridley turtles.…”

“…Holloway and Morris, 2012). This paper addresses this lacuna by theorizing the concept of 'agential subjectification' to explain how biopower in more-than-human contexts can be driven by subjectification in those (humans) acting for and on behalf of animals (Srinivasan, 2013).…”

“…With the latter, it shares an interest in animals as subjects of ethical and political concern. This integration enables the recognition that human-animal relations in general, and conservation in particular, are shaped not just by personal motivations but also by socio-political influences, and allows for the direction of attention to those aspects of these relationships that are substantially driven by human decision-making (Srinivasan, 2013). To this end, the paper works with Foucault's scholarship on biopower and governmentality to chart the linkages between the socio-political context, human discursive activity and the embodied politics of intervening on, in, and for turtle life.…”