Why Study the Roots of Exclusion of Animals in Sociology?

  • Salla Tuomivaara
Part of the The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series book series (PMAES)


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.


Exclusion Human–animal boundary Posthumanism Anthropocentrism Sociological canon Sociological animal studies 


  1. Arluke, Arnold (2002) A Sociology of Sociological Animal Studies. Society & Animals 10:4, 369–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauman, Zygmunt (1991) Modernity and ambivalence. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Benton, Ted (1993) Natural relations. Ecology, Animal Rights and Social Justice. Verso, London, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Birke, Lynda (1994) Feminism, animals and science: the naming of the shrew. Open University Press, Buckingham.Google Scholar
  5. Braidotti, Rosi (2013) The Posthuman. Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, Clifton D. (1979) The zoological connection: animal–related human behavior. Social Forces, 58: 399–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness. Accessed 5 Sep 2017.
  8. Corbey, Raymond (2005) The Metaphysics of Apes. Negotiating the Animal–Human Boundary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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. Accessed 10 Sep 2017.
  11. de Waal, Frans (2016) Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? Granta Books, London.Google Scholar
  12. Dickens, Peter (1992) Society and nature: Towards a green social theory. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Eder, Klaus (1996) The social construction of nature: A sociology of ecological enlightenment. Sage Publications, London. Originally published in German 1988.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Ferrando, Francesca (2012) Towards a Posthumanist Methodology. A Statement. In Narrating Posthumanism. Frame, 25.1, May 2012, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 9–18. Accessed 4 June 2017.
  17. 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
  18. Franklin, Adrian (2002) Nature and social theory. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  19. Glick, Megan H. (2018) Infrahumanisms. Science, culture, and the making of modern non/personhood. Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
  20. Grusin, Richard (ed.) (2015) The Nonhuman Turn. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  21. 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. Accessed 10 Sep 2017.
  22. Järvikoski, Timo (1996a) The Relation of Nature and Society in Marx & Durkheim. Acta Sociologica, 39:1.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Karsten, Rafael (1945) Sosiologian historia pääpiirteissään. Söderström & Co, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  25. Konecki, Krzysztof T. (2005) “The Problem of Symbolic Interaction and of Constructing Self.” Qualitative Sociology Review, I:1. Accessed 30 May 2017.
  26. Latour, Bruno (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published in French 1991.Google Scholar
  27. Macnaghten, Phil & Urry, John (1998) Contested Natures. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  28. Marvin, Garry and McHugh, Susan (eds.) (2014) Routledge Handbook of Human–Animal Studies. Routledge, London & New York.Google Scholar
  29. Midgley, Mary (1983) Animals and Why They Matter. The University of Georgia Press, Athens.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noske, Barbara (1997) Beyond Boundaries: Human and Animals. Black Rose Books, Montreal.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Science (1932) A course in animal sociology at Harvard University. 07 Oct 1932: Vol. 76, Issue 1971, pp. 319. Accessed 10 Sep 2017.
  34. 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
  35. Stroup, Timothy (ed.) (1982a) Edward Westermarck: Essays on his life and works. Acta Philosophica Fennica vol 34: Societas Philosophica Fennica, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  36. Sydie, Rosalind (1987) Natural women, cultured men: a feminist perspective on sociological theory. Methuen Publications, Agincourt.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Taylor, Nik (2013) Humans, Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human–Animal Studies. Lantern Books, New York.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Taylor, Sunaura (2017) Beasts of burden: animal and disability liberation. The New Press, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Thomas, Keith (1983) Man and the natural world. A history of the modern sensibility. Pantheon Books, New York.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tovey, Hilary (2003) Theorising Nature and Society in Sociology: The Invisibility of Animals. Sociologia Ruralis, 43:3, 196–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Väyrynen, Kari (2006) Ympäristöfilosofian historia. Maaäitimyytistä Marxiin. Eurooppalaisen filosofian seura ry, Tampere.Google Scholar
  45. 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. Accessed 30 May 2017.
  46. Wolfe, Cary (2010) What is posthumanism? University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salla Tuomivaara
    • 1
  1. 1.HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations