作为道德认证机制的动物福利促进:来自19世纪瑞士的微观历史证据

IF 0.6 4区 农林科学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY Society & Animals Pub Date : 2020-11-27 DOI:10.1163/15685306-bja10022
Geoffroy Legentilhomme
{"title":"作为道德认证机制的动物福利促进:来自19世纪瑞士的微观历史证据","authors":"Geoffroy Legentilhomme","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nHow 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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nHow 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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Society & Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10022\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Society & Animals","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非人类动物福利运动如何影响非人类动物的机构使用?这篇文章讲述了日内瓦19世纪历史上的一段插曲,涉及在科学中使用非人类动物,认为福利倡导是一项有风险的、有时甚至适得其反的努力。19世纪末,主流的Genevan动物福利组织(SGPA)拒绝谴责活体解剖,并决定站在有争议的生理学家Moritz Schiff一边,前提是他后来接受在实验中尊重某些福利标准。SGPA为希夫辩护,反对Genevan废奴主义者的指控,从而为活体解剖提供了一个隐喻性的“人道待遇”证书。在这种道德保护的背后,实验室可以扩大其实践,不受使其合法化的需要的干扰。这一事件说明了福利主义群体被最初应该保护动物的机构“捕获”的现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Animal Welfare Promotion as a Mechanism of Moral Certification: Microhistorical Evidence From 19th Century Switzerland
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Society & Animals
Society & Animals 社会科学-兽医学
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Society & Animals publishes studies that describe and analyze our experiences of non-human animals from the perspective of various disciplines within both the Social Sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science) and the Humanities (e.g., history, literary criticism). The journal specifically deals with subjects such as human-animal interactions in various settings (animal cruelty, the therapeutic uses of animals), the applied uses of animals (research, education, medicine and agriculture), the use of animals in popular culture (e.g. dog-fighting, circus, animal companion, animal research), attitudes toward animals as affected by different socializing agencies and strategies, representations of animals in literature, the history of the domestication of animals, the politics of animal welfare, and the constitution of the animal rights movement.
期刊最新文献
Toward Commensalism: Deconstructing the Intersectionality of Racism and Speciesism Foster Puppies as Therapeutic Partners: A Model for Mutual Benefit Effects of Human-Dolphin Interactions on Tourist Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Dolphins Coyote Killing: Where Species and Identities Collide Factors Associated with Children’s Humane Attitudes toward Animals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1