Abstract
In Western cultures, the rabbit holds a double status: it is, at once, livestock and pet. Furthermore, manifold connotations (rabbit can also be hunting quarry, vermin, test animal, etc.) and a rich and long-lasting iconography (it is an iconic animal with a meaningful symbolic presence in many cultures) make this animal a powerful metonymy of the dynamics of the human-animal relation, grounded in incessant renegotiations.
Looking specifically at the Italian cultural context, this chapter aims at exploring the diverse processes of semiotization of the rabbit, and the different (sometimes incompatible) visions of nature lying behind, which may at times take the form of a (only apparently minor) “war of the worlds” (Latour) in which different ontologies come into conflict.
Through a quick analysis of different texts, objects, practices and discourses, I shall underline how various “modes of existence” of this animal confirm the hypothesis of Descola, according to whom different “regimes” of nature (and hence “animality”) can coexist (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) in the same society.
The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.
(Leviticus 11:5)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
I refer here to the essay by Bruno Latour “Guerre des mondes – offres de paix” (Latour 2000).
- 2.
As is well known, according to Levi-Strauss (1962), food is “good to eat” if it is regarded as “good to think” as well: its edibility is made possible within a symbolic system which defines also the conditions through which it is allowed to eat some animals, while others are forbidden. Food is then basically a language, expressing a particular structure of the world (see also Marrone 2016).
- 3.
The distinction between Anglo-Saxon and Latin cultures on this issue should be taken with a grain of salt, as testified by a recent controversy in Venezuela triggered by some statement by the government, which promoted a campaign to consume rabbit’s meat in order to boost food availability in Venezuela, urging citizens to stop seeing rabbits as pets (https://goo.g./A8LbPm). See Desmond Morris’ observations about indoor pets, that is, those animals who are allowed to live inside the house (and not just on the premises, such as the garden) (Morris 1986).
- 4.
In his essay “War of world, offers of peace” (2000), Bruno Latour comments the notion of “clash of civilization” by Samuel Huntington. This notion, Latour says, has the advantage to focus on conflict, but it is still affected by classic culturalistic positions and then fails in “recognizing the true frontlines of such clash, that do not cross in any way the odd aggregates designated by him” (ibidem, my translation).
- 5.
- 6.
I owe the suggestion of the concept of zoema to Paolo Fabbri.
- 7.
“One could say that myths use what we could name zoems, that can be reduced to bundles of variously combined differential elements, similarly to phonemes for the linguists” (Levi-Strauss 1971: 69 my translation).
- 8.
See Baker 1994. Greimas instead defines the trickster as an actantial role that can be defined on the plane of veridiction and that “has the function of modifying the knowledge mechanism and make ineffective his interpretative action, producing the cognitive space of illusion” (Greimas 1976: 74–75 my translation). The trickster is then “someone who deceives himself for someone else” (ibidem).
- 9.
Remarkable are also the observation by Leach about the various denominations of the rabbit, for which the same word is used to designate both the animal and the meat destined to consumption (similarly to other small animals). Moreover, the word “rabbit” is a substitute for a taboo word, which testifies, on the one hand, the pre-existent quasi-taboo feature of this animal (that used to be called “coney” or “cunny”, words that are very similar to “cunt” and from which derives the childish “bunny”) and, on the other hand, the attempt of a “linguistic domestication” (Leach op. cit.: 160). In another excerpt Leach insists on the ambivalent status of rabbit, regarded at the same time as plague and food (but only in some moments of the year): “Although vermin and pests are intrinsically inedible, rabbits and pigeons, which are pests when they attack crops, may also be classed as game and then become edible” (Leach op. cit.: 159).
- 10.
For instance, the pig does not fall into the shared classificatory scheme because it has a cloven hoof as the ungulates, but it is not ruminant.
- 11.
This conclusion is compatible to Leach’s comments, when he says that “Language gives us the names to distinguish the things; taboo inhibits the recognition of those parts of the continuum which separate the things” (Leach, op. cit.: 155).
- 12.
Interestingly enough, results may vary significantly in different regional version of eBay. The examples shown in figures are from Italian eBay.
- 13.
For the notion of narrative programme (shortened: PN) and for all the other categories of narrative semiotics, see Greimas and Courtés 1979, ad vocem.
- 14.
In Italian eBay, for both feed and bullets, the same word, “pellet”, is often used.
- 15.
I want to thank in particular Francesco Mangiapane whose observations and comments made me rethink this passage.
- 16.
All the examples considered here refer, again, to the Italian context. See for example the AEE information sheet at the address http://www.aaeconigli.it/schede.php?id=1
- 17.
Cfr. Greimas, Courtés 1979, ad vocem
- 18.
See, again, see Greimas, Courtés 1979, ad vocem
- 19.
Figures from Italian Ministry of Health, available at the official website.
- 20.
I am referring here especially to the notion of “diplomat” adopted by Paolo Fabbri and taken from Isabelle Stengers: “the diplomat is someone who is obliged to deal with two worlds, one the one side, the world of the scientific studies and, on the other side, the natural world” (Fabbri 2012: 159, my translation).
- 21.
Some excerpts from the show are available here (in Italian) https://goo.gl/rVvV8J
- 22.
- 23.
About the application of Agamben’s model to animal rights; see Filippi 2012.
References
Agamben, G. (2002). L’aperto. L’uomo e l’animale. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. English edition: Agamben, G. (2004). The open: Man and animal. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Baker, M. P. (1994). The rabbit as trickster. The Journal of Popular Culture, 28, 149–158.
Bastide, F. (2001). Una notte con Saturno. Scritti semiotici sul discorso scientifico. Roma: Meltemi.
Caffo, L., & Sferrazza Papa, E. (2015). Nuda vita come animalità. Un argomento di ontologia sociale contro Giorgio Agamben. Lo Sguardo – rivista di filosofia, 18(II), 129–138.
Davis, S. E., & Demello, M. (2003). Stories rabbits tell. A natural and cultural history of a misunderstood creature. New York: Lantern Book.
Descola, P. (2005). Par-delà nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard. English edition: Descola, P. (2013). Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge.
Fabbri, P. (2012). Natura, naturalismo, ontologia: In che senso? Conversazione con Gianfranco Marrone. In P. Fabbri (Ed.), L’efficacia semiotica. Risposte e repliche. Milano: Mimesis.
Ferraris, M. (2009). Documentalità. Perché è necessario lasciar tracce. Roma: Laterza. English edition: Ferraris, M. (2012). Documentality: Why it is necessary to leave traces. New York: Fordham University Press.
Filippi, M. (2012). Menti animali. In S. Castignone & L. Lombardi Vallauri (Eds.), Trattato di biodiritto. La questione animale. Milano: Giuffré Editore.
Greimas, A. J. (1976). Maupassant. La sémiotique du texte : Exercises practices. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Greimas, A. J., & Courtés, J. (1979). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de le théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette. English edition: Greimas, A. J., & Courtés, J. (1982) Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Latour, B. (1999). Politiques de la nature. Comment faire entrer les sciences en démocracie. Paris: Éditions La Découverte et Syros.
Latour, B. (2000). Guerre des mondes – offres de paix. Ethnopsy, les mondes contemporains de la guérison 4 (Numéro spécial, Colloque de Cerisy, Guerre et paix des cultures) (pp. 61–80)
Latour, B. (2012). Enquête sur les modes d’existence. Une anthropologie des Modernes. Paris: La Decouverte.
Leach, E. (1989). Anthropological aspects of language: Animal categories and verbal abuse. Anthrozoös: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People and Animals, 2–3, 151–165.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). Le Totémisme aujourd’hui. Paris: PUF.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1971). Mythologiques IV. L’homme nu. Paris: Plon.
Marrone, G. (2011). Addio alla natura. Torino: Einaudi.
Marrone, G. (2012). Semiotica della natura. Internaturalità e significazione. Milano: Mimesis Edizioni.
Marrone, G. (2016). Semiotica del gusto. Linguaggi della cucina, del cibo, della tavola. Milano: Mimesis Edizioni.
Morris, D. (1986). Dogwatching. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mazzucchelli, F. (2018). The Birth of a Pet? The Rabbit. In: Marrone, G., Mangano, D. (eds) Semiotics of Animals in Culture. Biosemiotics, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72992-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72992-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72991-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72992-3
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)