Power and Othering

I thank Christina Fredengren for this productive discussion of how to theo­ rize relations between humans and other animals, which raises a number of important issues. In recent years we have seen the advent of various ap­ proaches – multispecies ethnography/archaeology, posthumanism, entan­ glement, actor­network theory, flat ontologies, symmetrical archaeology, and others – that seek to decenter humans in their interactions with other entities. As Fredengren points out, this is easier said than done, and often when we attempt to put humans and other animals on the same plane, hu­ mans remain implicitly centered. We still mostly consider other species only in relation to their interactions with humans, and it concerns me that the more implicit the centering of humans, the less we acknowledge the power relations that Fredengren insists we must confront. I am heartened to see considerations of power being brought to bear on these ‘flat’ approaches (e.g. Fowles 2016; Grossman & Paulette 2020; Van Dyke 2021). The rela­ tions among entities that we study must include power relations; acknowl­ edging animal agency does not mean that they are equal partners in most situations. Leaving power out of the analysis always benefits the powerful. Fredengren’s critique of categorical thinking is well taken, although this, too, is difficult to abandon completely (how can we think without categories?), as seen in the keynote itself, where taxonomic categories such as sheep or Pitted Ware Culture are deployed. In the end we need to rec­ ognize that categories always impose somewhat arbitrary boundaries but give us a place to start – and make phenomena that challenge or cross those boundaries particularly striking. There has always been a particular am­ biguity in the conjunction of the terms ‘human’ and ‘animal’. Humans, of