Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1163/15685306-12341567
T. Centner, L. Petetin
Technologies being used to produce nonhuman animals who are used for meat and dairy products are viewed by some people as meaningful. Two technologies receiving scrutiny in agriculture are beta agonists that are fed to food animals to improve weight gain and cloning animals to secure offspring with specific traits. The technologies enhance the productive capacities of animals so that fewer resources are needed to produce meat and dairy products. Yet consumers are not sure they want food products with beta agonist residues and that are produced from clones. In overseeing the safety of food products and animals, legislators and regulators in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) have developed contrasting provisions regarding the usage of these technologies. An evaluation of heuristics involving information and experiences with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and animal production technologies offers support in explaining the US’s and EU’s divergent provisions.
{"title":"Divergent Approaches Regulating Beta Agonists and Cloning of Animals for Food: USA and European Union","authors":"T. Centner, L. Petetin","doi":"10.1163/15685306-12341567","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341567","url":null,"abstract":"Technologies being used to produce nonhuman animals who are used for meat and dairy products are viewed by some people as meaningful. Two technologies receiving scrutiny in agriculture are beta agonists that are fed to food animals to improve weight gain and cloning animals to secure offspring with specific traits. The technologies enhance the productive capacities of animals so that fewer resources are needed to produce meat and dairy products. Yet consumers are not sure they want food products with beta agonist residues and that are produced from clones. In overseeing the safety of food products and animals, legislators and regulators in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) have developed contrasting provisions regarding the usage of these technologies. An evaluation of heuristics involving information and experiences with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and animal production technologies offers support in explaining the US’s and EU’s divergent provisions.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":"-1 1","pages":"613-632"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-12341567","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47278972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1163/15685306-12341520
Anne Vallely
Jainism’s renowned compassion toward nonhuman animals is derived from the vulnerability and finitude we share with them. The tradition recognizes the impetus to avoid suffering and preserve life as basic to all living beings and emphasizes our shared existential condition. Nevertheless, Jainism treats the condition of being human as privileged because of its capacity for radical bodily detachment. This article, based on long-term ethnographic work among Jain communities in India, brings Jainism’s traditional understandings of the human/nonhuman distinction into discussion with contemporary philosophical and anthropological reflections on the category of the “animal.”
{"title":"Vulnerability, Transcendence, and the Body: Exploring the Human/Nonhuman Animal Divide within Jainism","authors":"Anne Vallely","doi":"10.1163/15685306-12341520","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341520","url":null,"abstract":"Jainism’s renowned compassion toward nonhuman animals is derived from the vulnerability and finitude we share with them. The tradition recognizes the impetus to avoid suffering and preserve life as basic to all living beings and emphasizes our shared existential condition. Nevertheless, Jainism treats the condition of being human as privileged because of its capacity for radical bodily detachment. This article, based on long-term ethnographic work among Jain communities in India, brings Jainism’s traditional understandings of the human/nonhuman distinction into discussion with contemporary philosophical and anthropological reflections on the category of the “animal.”","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-12341520","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44566471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-01DOI: 10.1163/15685306-12341526
Rute Monteiro, G. Reis
We argue for the notion of egomorphism as an inexorable discursive element in/for children’s interspecies encounters mediated by nature interpreters. We do so by examining the discourses of a public environmental educator in Canada and a dolphin trainer in a marine park in Portugal while mediating such pedagogical experiences. Our analytical work contributes to expanding the understanding of how human–nonhuman interactions can create opportunities in science and environmental education to disrupt the notion that humans are superior and therefore removed from other animals.
{"title":"Animals “Я” Us: Egomorphism in/for Science and Environmental Education","authors":"Rute Monteiro, G. Reis","doi":"10.1163/15685306-12341526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341526","url":null,"abstract":"We argue for the notion of egomorphism as an inexorable discursive element in/for children’s interspecies encounters mediated by nature interpreters. We do so by examining the discourses of a public environmental educator in Canada and a dolphin trainer in a marine park in Portugal while mediating such pedagogical experiences. Our analytical work contributes to expanding the understanding of how human–nonhuman interactions can create opportunities in science and environmental education to disrupt the notion that humans are superior and therefore removed from other animals.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-12341526","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49618198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-27DOI: 10.1163/15685306-bja10022
Geoffroy Legentilhomme
How do nonhuman animal welfare campaigns influence the institutional use of nonhuman animals? This article narrates an episode of nineteenth century history of Geneva, pertaining to the use of nonhuman animals in science, to argue that welfare advocacy is a risky, and indeed sometimes counterproductive, endeavor. In the late nineteenth century, the mainstream Genevan animal welfare group (SGPA) refused to condemn vivisection, and decided to side with Moritz Schiff, a controversial physiologist, provided that he later accepted respecting certain welfare standards in his experiments. The SGPA defended Schiff against the charges of the Genevan abolitionists, and thus provided a metaphorical certificate of “humane treatment” to the vivisector. Behind this moral shield, the laboratory could expand its practices, undisturbed by the need to legitimize them. This episode illustrates the phenomenon of “capture” of the welfarist group by the institutions from which animals are supposed to be protected in the first place.
{"title":"Animal Welfare Promotion as a Mechanism of Moral Certification: Microhistorical Evidence From 19th Century Switzerland","authors":"Geoffroy Legentilhomme","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10022","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000How do nonhuman animal welfare campaigns influence the institutional use of nonhuman animals? This article narrates an episode of nineteenth century history of Geneva, pertaining to the use of nonhuman animals in science, to argue that welfare advocacy is a risky, and indeed sometimes counterproductive, endeavor. In the late nineteenth century, the mainstream Genevan animal welfare group (SGPA) refused to condemn vivisection, and decided to side with Moritz Schiff, a controversial physiologist, provided that he later accepted respecting certain welfare standards in his experiments. The SGPA defended Schiff against the charges of the Genevan abolitionists, and thus provided a metaphorical certificate of “humane treatment” to the vivisector. Behind this moral shield, the laboratory could expand its practices, undisturbed by the need to legitimize them. This episode illustrates the phenomenon of “capture” of the welfarist group by the institutions from which animals are supposed to be protected in the first place.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":" ","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47486694","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-25DOI: 10.1163/15685306-bja10029
Kenneth J. Shapiro
This is the third in a series of reports on the state of the field of Human-Animal Studies. In the introductory section, major terms in the prevailing definition of the field—Human-Animal Studies is the interdisciplinary study of human-animal relationships—are unpacked and critically analyzed. Subsequent sections deal with the field’s past, present, and possible futures. A schematic history of the field considers both scholarly contributions and programmatic inroads in the academy. The current state of the field section describes its breadth in terms of publication venues, disciplines that interface with it, and the variety of methods employed. It also offers a description of several common strategies that critique the received view of the categorical divide between human and other animal beings. The final section highlights both the potential of and anticipated roadblocks to each of several future trajectories.
{"title":"Human-Animal Studies: Remembering the Past, Celebrating the Present, Troubling the Future","authors":"Kenneth J. Shapiro","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This is the third in a series of reports on the state of the field of Human-Animal Studies. In the introductory section, major terms in the prevailing definition of the field—Human-Animal Studies is the interdisciplinary study of human-animal relationships—are unpacked and critically analyzed. Subsequent sections deal with the field’s past, present, and possible futures. A schematic history of the field considers both scholarly contributions and programmatic inroads in the academy. The current state of the field section describes its breadth in terms of publication venues, disciplines that interface with it, and the variety of methods employed. It also offers a description of several common strategies that critique the received view of the categorical divide between human and other animal beings. The final section highlights both the potential of and anticipated roadblocks to each of several future trajectories.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-bja10029","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47039410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-10DOI: 10.1163/15685306-bja10016
Nadeen Kharputly
This article examines the relationship between Muslims, dogs, and the constitution of American humanity. While existing scholarship has explored scriptural portrayals of dogs in Islam, the article focuses on the cultural effects of this perceived hostility towards dogs in the U.S. and situates this hostility within the legacy of canine abuse against bodies of color in the U.S. These historical links demonstrate the use of dogs in the dehumanization of communities of color in the U.S. and against Muslims specifically.
{"title":"Whose Best Friend? Muslims, Dogs, and the Making of American Humanity","authors":"Nadeen Kharputly","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000This article examines the relationship between Muslims, dogs, and the constitution of American humanity. While existing scholarship has explored scriptural portrayals of dogs in Islam, the article focuses on the cultural effects of this perceived hostility towards dogs in the U.S. and situates this hostility within the legacy of canine abuse against bodies of color in the U.S. These historical links demonstrate the use of dogs in the dehumanization of communities of color in the U.S. and against Muslims specifically.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":"-1 1","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43416494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-03DOI: 10.1163/15685306-bja10024
Wayne Pacelle, Richard L. Pacelle
Nonhuman animal fighting is an ancient form of exploitation, still attracting millions of followers. While 19th-century proscriptions imposed in the U.S. succeeded in stigmatizing it, animal fighters adapted to these cultural and legal taboos and continued to operate, often clandestinely. Cockfighting thrived, operating as a quasi-legal enterprise until an incremental policy-making campaign succeeded in passing a raft of local, state, and federal laws to outlaw it everywhere in the U.S. Between 1998 and 2018, legal cockfighting was banned in the final five states; more than 40 other states reformed their laws; and Congress passed multiple reforms to ban animal fighting, including in the U.S. territories. The process of outlawing animal fighting faced fierce resistance, but these practices are now the most widely and severely criminalized forms of animal mistreatment in the U.S. Adherence to the law and enforcement are continuing challenges.
{"title":"A Legislative History of Nonhuman Animal Fighting in the U.S. and Its Territories","authors":"Wayne Pacelle, Richard L. Pacelle","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Nonhuman animal fighting is an ancient form of exploitation, still attracting millions of followers. While 19th-century proscriptions imposed in the U.S. succeeded in stigmatizing it, animal fighters adapted to these cultural and legal taboos and continued to operate, often clandestinely. Cockfighting thrived, operating as a quasi-legal enterprise until an incremental policy-making campaign succeeded in passing a raft of local, state, and federal laws to outlaw it everywhere in the U.S. Between 1998 and 2018, legal cockfighting was banned in the final five states; more than 40 other states reformed their laws; and Congress passed multiple reforms to ban animal fighting, including in the U.S. territories. The process of outlawing animal fighting faced fierce resistance, but these practices are now the most widely and severely criminalized forms of animal mistreatment in the U.S. Adherence to the law and enforcement are continuing challenges.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":" ","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-bja10024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46965417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-03DOI: 10.1163/15685306-bja10026
R. Portus
As life on Earth becomes increasingly precarious, it becomes ever clearer that, while some nonhuman losses are perceived as tragic and controversial, many more are left to slip away, unnoticed and unmourned. The purpose of this study, then, is to determine what renders a nonhuman animal life as significant and why. Specifically, the story of colony collapse disorder is traced, illustrating how the loss of honeybees became framed as an ecological whodunit. This framing incited widespread interest in and anxiety about the disappearance of honeybees. Moreover, the controversy surrounding colony collapse disorder encouraged the preemptive mourning of honeybees’ extinction, a fact which has consequently increased their chances of survival. Therefore, I argue that the stories told about nonhuman animals have influence. This article contributes to literature that recognizes extinction as a distinctly biocultural process, shaped as much by cultural values as it is by scientific fact.
{"title":"An Ecological Whodunit: The Story of Colony Collapse Disorder","authors":"R. Portus","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000As life on Earth becomes increasingly precarious, it becomes ever clearer that, while some nonhuman losses are perceived as tragic and controversial, many more are left to slip away, unnoticed and unmourned. The purpose of this study, then, is to determine what renders a nonhuman animal life as significant and why. Specifically, the story of colony collapse disorder is traced, illustrating how the loss of honeybees became framed as an ecological whodunit. This framing incited widespread interest in and anxiety about the disappearance of honeybees. Moreover, the controversy surrounding colony collapse disorder encouraged the preemptive mourning of honeybees’ extinction, a fact which has consequently increased their chances of survival. Therefore, I argue that the stories told about nonhuman animals have influence. This article contributes to literature that recognizes extinction as a distinctly biocultural process, shaped as much by cultural values as it is by scientific fact.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-bja10026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48176973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-03DOI: 10.1163/15685306-12341480
E. V. Meer
Alligators were perceived as dangerous by early settlers in Florida, and they also reflected the untamed and potentially untameable Florida wilderness. By the 20th century, alligator farms capitalized on the thrill of alligator encounters in controlled theme park experiences. Alligators are tamed in the current farm context and valued increasingly for the products that can be derived from their bodies. This anthrozoological investigation of perceptions of Florida alligators explores how farms define alligators and why visitors might accept these particular constructed images of alligators, concluding with a wider view to consider these perceptions of farmed animals in relation to the idea of the nuisance alligator. The discussion is framed by multi-species studies that rest on notions of embodiment and attentiveness, which in this case push the importance of alligator experience and agency to the foreground.
{"title":"Alligator Song","authors":"E. V. Meer","doi":"10.1163/15685306-12341480","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341480","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Alligators were perceived as dangerous by early settlers in Florida, and they also reflected the untamed and potentially untameable Florida wilderness. By the 20th century, alligator farms capitalized on the thrill of alligator encounters in controlled theme park experiences. Alligators are tamed in the current farm context and valued increasingly for the products that can be derived from their bodies. This anthrozoological investigation of perceptions of Florida alligators explores how farms define alligators and why visitors might accept these particular constructed images of alligators, concluding with a wider view to consider these perceptions of farmed animals in relation to the idea of the nuisance alligator. The discussion is framed by multi-species studies that rest on notions of embodiment and attentiveness, which in this case push the importance of alligator experience and agency to the foreground.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":"28 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-12341480","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44470039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-19DOI: 10.1163/15685306-bja10028
Raegan Murphy, Shauna Daly
To better understand the psychological effects on humans of working with distressed non-human animals, I set out to understand the professional quality of life experienced by this group of workers. Measures included compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress. An online survey-based cross-sectional correlational design was employed to survey 340 animal rescue workers. The survey consisted of items assessing demographic information (gender, age, geographic location), type of work performed (single or multiple caring roles), exposure to euthanasia, in-home fostering of animals, and whether the work was salaried or voluntary. The results of the present study may prove useful for both animal rescue organizations and animal rescue workers who may be experiencing distress as a result of their work. Recommendations for future research include a focus on the effects of exposure to euthanasia and the home fostering of rescue animals.
{"title":"Psychological Distress Among Non-Human Animal Rescue Workers: An Exploratory Study","authors":"Raegan Murphy, Shauna Daly","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000To better understand the psychological effects on humans of working with distressed non-human animals, I set out to understand the professional quality of life experienced by this group of workers. Measures included compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress. An online survey-based cross-sectional correlational design was employed to survey 340 animal rescue workers. The survey consisted of items assessing demographic information (gender, age, geographic location), type of work performed (single or multiple caring roles), exposure to euthanasia, in-home fostering of animals, and whether the work was salaried or voluntary. The results of the present study may prove useful for both animal rescue organizations and animal rescue workers who may be experiencing distress as a result of their work. Recommendations for future research include a focus on the effects of exposure to euthanasia and the home fostering of rescue animals.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15685306-bja10028","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47877219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：