Trans-biopolitics: Complexity in interspecies relations

Abstract

This article introduces the concept of trans-biopolitics to account for complexity in the intermingling of animal and human bodies, with particular attention to diseases capable of crossing the species divide from animals to humans. While zoonotic diseases never disappeared, they had re-emerged as pressing concerns by the 21st century. The concept of trans-biopolitics takes into account the power relations inherent in human and nonhuman lives in contemporary global, industrial, and technological formations. More specifically, trans-biopolitics revolves around practices determining whose lives are possible or legitimate to prolong, whose bodies are sacrificed in order to preserve the vitality of other bodies, and whose bodies are sustained yet ultimately rendered insignificant. To illustrate, we examine connections between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and feline spongiform encephalopathy, to show how certain bodies (humans, livestock) are taken into consideration in terms of health and food regulations, whereas other bodies (pets) remain at the periphery. Acknowledging human-animal relations in contemporary technological and global contexts challenges us to rethink ways in which the politics of health continues to evolve.

From more‐than‐human solidarity to multi‐species biographical value: insights from a veterinary school about ethical dilemmas in One Health promotion

“…Faced with dire circumstances in the pop‐up clinics, more‐than‐human solidarity was difficult for CT to practice (Blue and Rock , Rock and Degeling ). A perceived conflict between the wellbeing of the dog and the wellbeing of the dog's legal owner was her key concern.…”

“…). Given the circumstances of the people who live with these pets, however, some of the animals have presented with health problems that are acute or chronic in nature (Blue and Rock , Rock et al . ).…”

“…Given the degree to which human lives entangle with non‐human objects and beings (Hinchliffe et al . , Nading , Rock ), even as policies and programs tend to privilege human lives, people regularly experience difficulties in practicing solidarity across species lines (Blue and Rock , Coulter , Rock and Degeling , Toohey and Rock ). The present article examines dilemmas that have arisen in subsidising veterinary services on behalf of pets and their people.…”

Becoming bovine: Mechanics and metamorphosis in Hokkaido's animal-human-machine

“…4 This way of analysing human and non-human interactions has had an influence in contemporary social theory, notably found in writers of an ANT (Actor Network Theory) sensibility or sensitivity (Braun and Whatmore, 2010;Haraway, 2003Haraway, , 2008Latour, 2007) and through more open-minded, or renegade depending on one's inclination, animal behaviourists (Bekoff, 2007;Horowitz, 2009). Staying true to my discipline, there have been recent moves towards a more inclusive "transspecies anthropology of life" (Kohn, 2007), including "multispecies ethnography" (Kirksey and Helmreich Ed., a special issue of Cultural Anthropology in 2010), and "trans-biopolitics" focussing on boundary crossing (Smart and Smart, 2012) more-than-human-publics (Blue and Rock, 2010). With this theory outline in place, the following section turns to this history of both the town and the farm where I conducted fieldwork.…”

Connecting Lives: Reflections on a Syndemic Approach to Prevention Involving Research on How People Relate to Pets

“…Connections between animal diseases and the health of human populations are particularly visible when it comes to zoonoses (Blue and Rock ; Singer ; Singer et al ), that is, infectious diseases that are capable of jumping species boundaries. Does this situation imply that, in settings where zoonotic infections account for only a small proportion of morbidity and mortality in human populations, there is little value in adopting an approach to prevention that considers connections between people and animals?…”