Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Animals in the Sociologies of Westermarck and Durkheim pp 1–21Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Why Study the Roots of Exclusion of Animals in Sociology?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 234 Accesses

Part of the book series: The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series ((PMAES))

Abstract

This chapter explains why it is essential to study how and why animals became excluded in sociology. It questions this exclusion and the strict human–animal boundary; problems excessively anthropocentric attitude has created for sociology. It also introduces posthumanist approaches that aim to revoke this dualist tradition, which has narrowed the portrayal of both humans and other animals in sociology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for example, Marvin and McHugh 2014; Society & Animals 10:4; Taylor 2013, 1–3; Taylor and Twine 2014.

  2. 2.

    See, for example, Cudworth 2014; Latour 1993, 13; Macnaghten and Urry 1998 5; Taylor 2012, 37.

  3. 3.

    For example, Dickens 1992; Dunlap et al. 2002; Eder 1996; Franklin 2002; Latour 1993; Macnaghten and Urry 1998.

  4. 4.

    See, for example, Birke 1994, 12; Corbey 2005, 21–24.

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Cudworth 2014.

  6. 6.

    See, for example, Bain, 1928 in Emel and Wolch 1998; Science 1932.

  7. 7.

    Karsten was a student of Westermarck (see, e.g., Stroup 1982a, xi).

  8. 8.

    See Arluke 2002; Cudworth 2014; Tovey 2002, 27; Tovey 2003.

  9. 9.

    The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf. Accessed 5 Sep 2017.

  10. 10.

    See, for example, Wolfe 2010, xii.

  11. 11.

    See, for example, Braidotti 2013; Wolfe 2010.

  12. 12.

    For example, Braidotti 2013, 13–37.

  13. 13.

    Wolfe 2010, xxiii, 62, 77, 80.

  14. 14.

    Aph Ko (2019) Keynote presentation. 6th Conference of the European Association for Critical Animal Studies. Organized by Department of Communication at UPF, Critical Communication Research Group (UPF), Centre for Animal Ethics (CAE), European Association for Critical Animal Studies (EACAS). Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Campus Poblenou, Barcelona. 24 May 2019.

  15. 15.

    See, for example, Corbey 2005, 24; Taylor 2013, 158–160; Thomas 1983, 40.

References

  • Arluke, Arnold (2002) A Sociology of Sociological Animal Studies. Society & Animals 10:4, 369–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Zygmunt (1991) Modernity and ambivalence. Polity Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, Ted (1993) Natural relations. Ecology, Animal Rights and Social Justice. Verso, London, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birke, Lynda (1994) Feminism, animals and science: the naming of the shrew. Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braidotti, Rosi (2013) The Posthuman. Polity Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, Clifton D. (1979) The zoological connection: animal–related human behavior. Social Forces, 58: 399–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf. Accessed 5 Sep 2017.

  • Corbey, Raymond (2005) The Metaphysics of Apes. Negotiating the Animal–Human Boundary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth, Erika (2014) Beyond Speciesism: Intersectionality, critical sociology and the human domination of other animals in Nik Taylor and Richard Twine (eds.) The rise of critical animal studies. From the margins to the centre. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques (2002) The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow). Translated by David Wills. This article represents the first part of a ten-hour address Derrida gave at the third Cerisy-la-Salle conference devoted to his work, in July 1997. Critical Inquiry Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winter, 2002). The University of Chicago Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344276. Accessed 10 Sep 2017.

  • de Waal, Frans (2016) Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? Granta Books, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, Peter (1992) Society and nature: Towards a green social theory. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., Buttel, F. H., Dickens, P. & Gijswijt, A. (eds.) (2002) Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., Lanhan, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eder, Klaus (1996) The social construction of nature: A sociology of ecological enlightenment. Sage Publications, London. Originally published in German 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emel, Jody & Wolch, Jennifer (1998) Witnessing the Animal Moment. In J. Emel & J. Wolch (eds.) Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature–Culture Borderlands. Verso, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrando, Francesca (2012) Towards a Posthumanist Methodology. A Statement. In Narrating Posthumanism. Frame, 25.1, May 2012, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 9–18. http://www.tijdschriftframe.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Frame-25_01-Ferrando.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2017.

  • Foucault, Michel (1970) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of The Human Sciences. Tavistock, London. Originally published in French 1966 (Les mots et les choses).

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, Adrian (2002) Nature and social theory. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, Megan H. (2018) Infrahumanisms. Science, culture, and the making of modern non/personhood. Duke University Press, Durham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grusin, Richard (ed.) (2015) The Nonhuman Turn. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irvine, Leslie (2003) Mead’s Myopia: What His Dog Could Have Told Him about the Self. Conference Papers – American Sociological Association, 2003 Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, 1–38. http://research.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/6/4/6/p106463_index.html?phpsessid=re7vs9f1gbdqn6bj9287nq8al1. Accessed 10 Sep 2017.

  • Järvikoski, Timo (1996a) The Relation of Nature and Society in Marx & Durkheim. Acta Sociologica, 39:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Järvikoski, Timo (1996b) Sociology and ‘nature’. In Konttinen (ed.) Green Moves, Political Stalemates. Sociological Perspectives on the Environment. Annales universitatis Turkuensis, B215, Turku, 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karsten, Rafael (1945) Sosiologian historia pääpiirteissään. Söderström & Co, Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konecki, Krzysztof T. (2005) “The Problem of Symbolic Interaction and of Constructing Self.” Qualitative Sociology Review, I:1. http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/archive_eng.php. Accessed 30 May 2017.

  • Latour, Bruno (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published in French 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, Phil & Urry, John (1998) Contested Natures. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marvin, Garry and McHugh, Susan (eds.) (2014) Routledge Handbook of Human–Animal Studies. Routledge, London & New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, Mary (1983) Animals and Why They Matter. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, Olin Eugene Jr. (2003) No Longer the Lonely Species: A Post-Mead Perspective on Animals and Sociology. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23:3, 46–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noske, Barbara (1997) Beyond Boundaries: Human and Animals. Black Rose Books, Montreal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peggs, Kay (2014) Critical animal studies and the reflexive human self. In Taylor and Twine (eds.) The rise of critical animal studies. From the margins to the centre. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science (1932) A course in animal sociology at Harvard University. 07 Oct 1932: Vol. 76, Issue 1971, pp. 319. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/76/1971/319.1. Accessed 10 Sep 2017.

  • Society & Animals. Journal of Human–Animal Studies. Special 10th Anniversary Issue (1992–2002). The State of Human–Animal Studies. 10:4, 2002. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroup, Timothy (ed.) (1982a) Edward Westermarck: Essays on his life and works. Acta Philosophica Fennica vol 34: Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydie, Rosalind (1987) Natural women, cultured men: a feminist perspective on sociological theory. Methuen Publications, Agincourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Nik (2012) Animals, Mess, Method: Post-humanism, Sociology and Animal studies. In Birke & Hockenhull (Eds.) Crossing Boundaries: Investigating Human-Animal Relationships. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Nik (2013) Humans, Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human–Animal Studies. Lantern Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Nik and Twine, Richard (eds.) (2014) The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: From the Margins to the Centre. Routledge, London & New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, Sunaura (2017) Beasts of burden: animal and disability liberation. The New Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Keith (1983) Man and the natural world. A history of the modern sensibility. Pantheon Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovey, Hilary (2002) Risk, Morality and the Sociology of Animals – reflections on the Foot and Mouth outbreak in Ireland. Irish Journal of Sociology, 11:1, 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tovey, Hilary (2003) Theorising Nature and Society in Sociology: The Invisibility of Animals. Sociologia Ruralis, 43:3, 196–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Väyrynen, Kari (2006) Ympäristöfilosofian historia. Maaäitimyytistä Marxiin. Eurooppalaisen filosofian seura ry, Tampere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, Rhoda & McKinnon, Andrew (2013) George Herbert Mead on Humans and Other Animals: Social Relations After Human–Animal Studies. Sociological Research Online, 18 (4), 19. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/18/4/19.html. Accessed 30 May 2017.

  • Wolfe, Cary (2010) What is posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Helsinki, Finland

    Salla Tuomivaara

Authors
  1. Salla Tuomivaara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Tuomivaara, S. (2019). Why Study the Roots of Exclusion of Animals in Sociology?. In: Animals in the Sociologies of Westermarck and Durkheim. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26863-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation