The following people contributed to this research. Megan Moskos is the lead qualitative researche... more The following people contributed to this research. Megan Moskos is the lead qualitative researcher for the project, and had overall responsibility for the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of the qualitative component. Linda Isherwood, Llainey Smith, Zoei Sutton and Helen Walton contributed to the conduct, analysis and reporting of the qualitative component of the Plan Utilisation project. Kostas Mavromaras was Chief Investigator of the project.
Human-companion animal relationships are contradictory and complex. While companion animals are i... more Human-companion animal relationships are contradictory and complex. While companion animals are increasingly being considered part of the family, they are still surrendered and euthanised by the hundreds of thousands in shelters each year. Human-companion animal relationships have largely escaped the critique faced by other human-animal entanglements, instead being shrouded in positive connotations of love, commitment and kinship ties. This positive framing neglects to acknowledge the exploitation of breeding, the coercion of training and the asymmetrical power relations upon which these relationships depend. I argue that more species-inclusive methods are needed to challenge the silencing of companion animals that too often is facilitated when humans speak for them. This presentation draws on qualitative interviews and observations with humans and ‘their’ companion animals to construct a critical, comprehensive portrait of human-companion animal relationships in Australia. Inevitably, a more meaningful consideration of animals makes our relations with them appear much messier and far more problematic. I argue that we (humans) need to advocate for nonhuman animals in our research and in society. This research, then, has applications beyond the merely theoretical, highlighting often neglected areas of human-companion animal relations which can inform the policies and practices that surround them
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 2020
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to make a case for the political use of methods to shape post... more PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to make a case for the political use of methods to shape posthumanist futures that are for animals. It makes this case by drawing on findings from qualitative research on the lived experience of navigating human–pet relationships.Design/methodology/approachThe argument in this paper draws on qualitative data from interviews and observations with human participants and “their” companion animals to demonstrate that centring animals in research highlights new data and encourages participants to challenge anthropocentric narratives of pet relationships.FindingsThe findings of this project indicate that using animal-inclusive research methods is effective in centring non-human animals in discussions and providing new insights into human–animal relations that can inform and move towards critical posthumanist futures.Research limitations/implicationsIf the central argument that methods play an important role in shaping social worlds is accepted then huma...
It’s 2016 and rats are ‘taking over’ in Malmö, Sweden. Forced out of the sewers by flooding, the ... more It’s 2016 and rats are ‘taking over’ in Malmö, Sweden. Forced out of the sewers by flooding, the sight of usually-hidden rats now visible on streets and playgrounds (not to mention their dead bodies in the river) has humans calling for sanitation through eradication to ‘restore’ social order. In daring to exist ‘out of place’ in their search for food the rats ‘turn from tolerated, illegitimate, but invisible waste-workers, to ‘trash animals’ (1). This dramatic scene which opens Animal Places ‘shows how space, place and human-animal relations intersect, thereby producing diversity of effect, boundary work and political action’ (1). Building on Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel’s Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity (1995), and Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert’s Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human Animal Relations (2000), this edited collection offers an important contribution to scholarship that meaningfully considers animals’ relations to place and space. At ...
Sociologists have contributed to the development of the animal studies field in recent decades. H... more Sociologists have contributed to the development of the animal studies field in recent decades. However, many of these ventures have been anthropocentric, stopping short of sociological calls for animal liberation despite the fact that critical sociological concepts are often the (unspoken) antecedents of such work. Here, we present a systematic review of peer-reviewed sociological articles on human–animal relationships since 1979. Our analysis identified key themes supporting charges of anthropocentrism, but also aspects of politicised animal sociology. Based on this we call for sociological animal studies to incorporate a specifically Emancipatory Animal Sociology: an approach grounded in a social justice and emancipatory praxis that explicitly and critically engages with the material conditions of animals’ lives, taking into account the experiences and knowledge of activists and others working directly with animals and, where possible, centres the animals themselves.
The last few decades have seen rising interest in human relationships with other species. This in... more The last few decades have seen rising interest in human relationships with other species. This interest is broadly recognised as the human–animal studies field – a broad, multidisciplinary field that addresses both symbolic and material relationships between humans and other animals (e.g. DeMello, 2012; Taylor, 2013). Acknowledging the need to incorporate other species has proven difficult for sociology, whose disciplinary boundaries were historically constituted around the designation of an arena – ‘the social’ – which was defined as exclusively human. These difficulties notwithstanding, sociologists have contributed significantly to the ‘animal turn’ in academia (Franklin in Armstrong and Simmons, 2007: 1). And while sociology has historically situated itself firmly within a human-specific understanding of the social world, there has been a burgeoning of multispecies scholarship (see for example, Arluke and Sanders, 1996; Cudworth, 2011; Irvine, 2004; Nibert, 2003; Peggs, 2013; Taylor and Twine, 2014). This special section affords a timely snapshot of how sociologists are engaging with and responding to this ‘animal turn’. In particular, it foregrounds how multi-species perspectives can open up new and critical vistas on long-held disciplinary assumptions and concepts. In this sense, sociology can also benefit from the multi-species turn as a way of developing less humancentric understandings of social lives. Despite growing interest and scholarship in the area, investigations of human relationships with other species remain marginal to mainstream sociology (see Cudworth, 2011; Peggs, 2013 for examples). There are numerous reasons for this. Sociology’s humanist
The following people contributed to this research. Megan Moskos is the lead qualitative researche... more The following people contributed to this research. Megan Moskos is the lead qualitative researcher for the project, and had overall responsibility for the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of the qualitative component. Linda Isherwood, Llainey Smith, Zoei Sutton and Helen Walton contributed to the conduct, analysis and reporting of the qualitative component of the Plan Utilisation project. Kostas Mavromaras was Chief Investigator of the project.
Human-companion animal relationships are contradictory and complex. While companion animals are i... more Human-companion animal relationships are contradictory and complex. While companion animals are increasingly being considered part of the family, they are still surrendered and euthanised by the hundreds of thousands in shelters each year. Human-companion animal relationships have largely escaped the critique faced by other human-animal entanglements, instead being shrouded in positive connotations of love, commitment and kinship ties. This positive framing neglects to acknowledge the exploitation of breeding, the coercion of training and the asymmetrical power relations upon which these relationships depend. I argue that more species-inclusive methods are needed to challenge the silencing of companion animals that too often is facilitated when humans speak for them. This presentation draws on qualitative interviews and observations with humans and ‘their’ companion animals to construct a critical, comprehensive portrait of human-companion animal relationships in Australia. Inevitably, a more meaningful consideration of animals makes our relations with them appear much messier and far more problematic. I argue that we (humans) need to advocate for nonhuman animals in our research and in society. This research, then, has applications beyond the merely theoretical, highlighting often neglected areas of human-companion animal relations which can inform the policies and practices that surround them
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 2020
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to make a case for the political use of methods to shape post... more PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to make a case for the political use of methods to shape posthumanist futures that are for animals. It makes this case by drawing on findings from qualitative research on the lived experience of navigating human–pet relationships.Design/methodology/approachThe argument in this paper draws on qualitative data from interviews and observations with human participants and “their” companion animals to demonstrate that centring animals in research highlights new data and encourages participants to challenge anthropocentric narratives of pet relationships.FindingsThe findings of this project indicate that using animal-inclusive research methods is effective in centring non-human animals in discussions and providing new insights into human–animal relations that can inform and move towards critical posthumanist futures.Research limitations/implicationsIf the central argument that methods play an important role in shaping social worlds is accepted then huma...
It’s 2016 and rats are ‘taking over’ in Malmö, Sweden. Forced out of the sewers by flooding, the ... more It’s 2016 and rats are ‘taking over’ in Malmö, Sweden. Forced out of the sewers by flooding, the sight of usually-hidden rats now visible on streets and playgrounds (not to mention their dead bodies in the river) has humans calling for sanitation through eradication to ‘restore’ social order. In daring to exist ‘out of place’ in their search for food the rats ‘turn from tolerated, illegitimate, but invisible waste-workers, to ‘trash animals’ (1). This dramatic scene which opens Animal Places ‘shows how space, place and human-animal relations intersect, thereby producing diversity of effect, boundary work and political action’ (1). Building on Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel’s Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity (1995), and Chris Philo and Chris Wilbert’s Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human Animal Relations (2000), this edited collection offers an important contribution to scholarship that meaningfully considers animals’ relations to place and space. At ...
Sociologists have contributed to the development of the animal studies field in recent decades. H... more Sociologists have contributed to the development of the animal studies field in recent decades. However, many of these ventures have been anthropocentric, stopping short of sociological calls for animal liberation despite the fact that critical sociological concepts are often the (unspoken) antecedents of such work. Here, we present a systematic review of peer-reviewed sociological articles on human–animal relationships since 1979. Our analysis identified key themes supporting charges of anthropocentrism, but also aspects of politicised animal sociology. Based on this we call for sociological animal studies to incorporate a specifically Emancipatory Animal Sociology: an approach grounded in a social justice and emancipatory praxis that explicitly and critically engages with the material conditions of animals’ lives, taking into account the experiences and knowledge of activists and others working directly with animals and, where possible, centres the animals themselves.
The last few decades have seen rising interest in human relationships with other species. This in... more The last few decades have seen rising interest in human relationships with other species. This interest is broadly recognised as the human–animal studies field – a broad, multidisciplinary field that addresses both symbolic and material relationships between humans and other animals (e.g. DeMello, 2012; Taylor, 2013). Acknowledging the need to incorporate other species has proven difficult for sociology, whose disciplinary boundaries were historically constituted around the designation of an arena – ‘the social’ – which was defined as exclusively human. These difficulties notwithstanding, sociologists have contributed significantly to the ‘animal turn’ in academia (Franklin in Armstrong and Simmons, 2007: 1). And while sociology has historically situated itself firmly within a human-specific understanding of the social world, there has been a burgeoning of multispecies scholarship (see for example, Arluke and Sanders, 1996; Cudworth, 2011; Irvine, 2004; Nibert, 2003; Peggs, 2013; Taylor and Twine, 2014). This special section affords a timely snapshot of how sociologists are engaging with and responding to this ‘animal turn’. In particular, it foregrounds how multi-species perspectives can open up new and critical vistas on long-held disciplinary assumptions and concepts. In this sense, sociology can also benefit from the multi-species turn as a way of developing less humancentric understandings of social lives. Despite growing interest and scholarship in the area, investigations of human relationships with other species remain marginal to mainstream sociology (see Cudworth, 2011; Peggs, 2013 for examples). There are numerous reasons for this. Sociology’s humanist
Uploads
Papers by Zoei Sutton