Power and animals: a foucauldian theme in critical animal studies

Автор: Rodin Lika

Журнал: Logos et Praxis @logos-et-praxis

Рубрика: Социология и социальные технологии

Статья в выпуске: 1 т.21, 2022 года.

Бесплатный доступ

A critical view on the relationships between humans and animals has become salient both within the public sphere and in academic discussions. An innovative research field - critical animal studies - has emerged to address the related issues. It employs a variety of tools, including theoretical constructs suggested by Michel Foucault. This article focuses on the potential of the Foucauldian tradition to analyze power in human - animal interactions. I reviewcritical research to describe various practices of power - external, internalized, and constitutive - and the proposals related to domination. How animals are treated in different contexts exhibits relations of power. This comprises control and termination, training and shaping, management and biopolitical regulation. Moreover, humans’ technologies of self-regulation manifest themselves in the approach to animals and the natural environment more broadly. It is indicated that to address the issue of power in human - animal interactions, recognizing the constructed nature of ontological boundaries is crucial, as well as acknowledging that power runs both within and across those frontiers. The critical approach might draw attention to the interconnectedness and interdependency of humans and nonhumans, as well as to their shared destiny in terms of their positions in the matrixes of domination and control. Whether anthropocentric or posthuman, future social research on animals must account for the critical tradition, social dialogue, and social activism.

Еще

Agency, animal rights, discipline, natural environment, regulation

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/149141033

IDR: 149141033   |   DOI: 10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2022.1.9

Список литературы Power and animals: a foucauldian theme in critical animal studies

  • Agamben G., 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
  • Agamben G., 2004. The Open: Man and Animal. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
  • Anneberg I., Vaarst M., Smrensen J.T., 2012. The Experience of Animal Welfare Inspections as Perceived by Danish Livestock Farmers: a Qualitative Research Approach. Livestock Science, vol. 147, pp. 49-58.
  • Chrulew M., 2011. Managing Love and Death at the Zoo: The Biopolitics of Endangered Species Preservation. Australian Humanities Review, vol. 50, p. 137.
  • Chrulew M., 2012. Animals in Biopolitical Theory: Between Agamben and Negri. New Formations, vol. 76, pp. 53-67.
  • Chrulew M., Wadiwel D. (eds.), 2017. Foucault and Animals. Leiden; Boston, Brill.
  • Cole M., 2011. From "Animas Machines" to "Happy Meet"? Foucault's Ideas of Disciplinary and Pastoral Power Applied to "Animal-Centred" Welfare Discourse. Animals, vol. 1, pp. 83-101.
  • Foucault M., 1997. Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth. New York: The New Press. (The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984; vol. 1).
  • Foucault M., 2003. Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College De France, 1975-76. New York, Picador.
  • Luke T., 1999. Environmentality as Green Governmentality. Discourses of the Environment. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 121-151.
  • Michelfelder D., 2003. Valuing Wildlife Population in Urban Environments. Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 79-90.
  • Miller P., Rose, N., 1990. Governing Economic Life. Economy and Society, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1-31.
  • Palmer C., 2001. "Taming the Wild Profusion ofExisting Things"? A Study of Foucault, Power and Human/Animal Relationships. Environmental Ethics, vol. 23, pp. 339-358.
  • Palmer C., 2003. Colonization, Urbanization, and Animals. Philosophy & Geography, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 47-58.
  • Pedersen H., 2011. Release the Moths: Critical Animal Studies and the Posthumanist Impulse. Culture, Theory and Critique, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 65-81.
  • Rinfret S., 2009. Controlling Animals: Power, Foucault, and Spices Management. Society and Natural Resources, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 571-578.
  • Rutherford P., 1999. The Entry of Life into History. Discourses of the Environment. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, pp. 37-62.
  • Rutherford S., 2007. Green Governmentality: Insights and Opportunities in the Study of Nature's Rule. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 291-307.
  • Srinivasan K., 2013. The Biopolitics of Animal Being and Welfare: Dog Control and Care in the UK and India. Transactions of the Institute of British Geography, vol. 38, pp. 106-119.
  • Taylor Ch., 2013. Foucault and Critical Animal Studies: Genealogies of Agricultural Power. Philosophy Compass, vol. 8/6, pp. 539-551.
  • Tester K., 1991. Animals and Society: The Humanity of Animal Rights. London; New York, Routledge. The Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) (n.d.). About. URL: https://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/ about
  • Thierman S., 2010. Apparatus of Animality: Foucault Goes to a Slaughterhouse. Foucault Studies, vol. 9, pp. 89-110.
  • Wolfe C., 2012. Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame. Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press.
  • Wadiwel D., 2015. The War Against Animals. Leiden; Boston, Brill.
Еще
Статья научная