Skip to main content

Complexity, ‘Nature’ and Social Domination: Towards a Sociology of Species Relations

  • Chapter
  • 252 Accesses

Abstract

Whilst environmental sociology has been emergent over the past twenty years, our discipline has distinct difficulties grasping non-human life-worlds as properly the subject matter of sociological enquiries. Sociologists continue to write, for example, of the ‘family’ or household as if all household dwellers were human, frustrating those few of us who have undertaken empirical work on interactions between humans and the non-human animals who are so often to be found in the ‘home’. I have been interested in a variety of non-human creatures whose lives are co-constituted with our own, particularly domesticated animals who live with us, labour for us and are eaten by us. Yet in disciplinary terms, the lives of non-human species and scapes are still overwhelmingly absent or enter the scene of the social as a backdrop, a prop, a fantasy, or a rhetorical device. Yet as Donna Haraway (2008) suggests, we constantly meet other species and have histories of entangled (and often ugly) relations with them. We need, in my view, a sociology that understands these relations with non-human ‘natures’ as social and allows for critical perspectives on the power relations of species difference. These social relations with species are also cross-cut, emergent with relations of social difference that have become sociologically recognised, around ethnicity, sexuality, gender, locality, and so on.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Anderson, K. (2001) ‘The Nature of Race’, in Castree, N. and Braun, B. (eds), Social Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, T. (1994) ‘Biology and Social Theory in the Environment Debate’, in Redclift, M. and Benton, T. (eds), Social Theory and the Global Environment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (1996) The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. London: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (2003) The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. London: Flamingo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume I. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1997) The Power ofIdentity: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume II. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (1998) End of Millenium: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume III. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castree, N. (2001) ‘Marxism, Capitalism and the Production of Nature’, in Castree, N. and Braun, B. (eds), Social Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catton, W.R. and Dunlap, R.E. (1980) ‘A New Paradigm for Post-exuberant Sociology’ American Behavioral Scientist 24 (1): 15–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catton, W.R. and Dunlap, R.E. (1993) ‘The Development, Current Status and Probable Future of Environmental Sociology: Toward an Ecological Sociology’, The Annals of the International Institute of Sociology 3: 263–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers, P. (2007) ‘The Philosophical Importance of Thinking Complexity’, in Cilliers, P. (ed.), Thinking Complexity: Complexity and Philosophy Volume 1, Mansfield MA: ISCE Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronon, W. (1995) ‘The Trouble with Wilderness, or Getting Back to the Wrong Nature’, in Cronon, W. (ed.), Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth, E. (2003) Environment and Society London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth, E. (2005) Developing Ecofeminist Theory: The Complexity of Difference. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth, E. (2007) ‘Complexity Theory and the Sociology of Natures’, International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 2 (3): 351–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudworth, E. and Hobden, S.C. (2009) More than a metaphor? Complexity in the social sciences, paper given to the 4th International Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, University of Athens, Greece 4–7 July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, P. (1992) Society and Nature: Towards a Green Social Theory. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, P. (1996) Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation and the Division ofLabour. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. (2002) ‘Paradigms, Theories and Environmental Sociology’, in Dunlap, R. Buttel, F. Dickens, P. and Gijswijt, A. (eds), Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights. Lanham Md.: Rowland and Littlefield, pp. 329–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earnest, D.C. and Rosenau, J.N. (2006) ‘Signifying Nothing? What Complex Systems Theory Can and Cannot Tell Us about Global Politics’, in Harrison, N.E. (ed.), Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm. New York: SUNY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach. London: University College London Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. (1994) The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York: Freeman and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. (1995)‘What is Complexity?’ Complexity 1(4):16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guha, R. (1997) ‘The Environmentalism of the Poor’, in Guha, R. and Martinez-Alier, J. (eds), Varieties of Environmentalism. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1992) ‘The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others’, in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, and P.A. Treichler (eds), Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (2008) When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2001) ‘Chaos and Complexity: Their Bearing on Policy Research’, Social Issues 1(2): http://www.whb.co.uk/socialissues/harvey/htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N.K. (1990) Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayles, N.K. (ed.) (1991) Chaos and Order: Complex Dynamics in Literature and Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Brock, W.A., and Grunderson, L.H. (2002) Chapter 15, ‘Discoveries for Sustainable Futures’, in Grunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press pp. 395–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H., and Ludwig, D. (2002) ‘In quest of a theory of adaptive change’, in Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C.S., Gunderson, L.H., and Peterson, G.D. (2002) ‘Sustainability and panarchies’, in Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S.A. (1993) The Origins of Order: Self-organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, S.A. (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. London: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2000)‘When Things Strike Back: A Possible Contribution of “Science Studies” to the Social Sciences’, British Journal of Sociology 51(1): 107–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, J. and Scott, J. (2000). Social Structure. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. ( 2000 The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth, second edi-tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995) Social Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (1973) Power: A Radical View. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. (1986) Microcosmos. New York: Summit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martell, L. (1994) Ecology and Society: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H. and Varela, F.J. (1980) Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, L. (2005) ‘The Complexity of Intersectionality’, Signs 30 (3): 171–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLennan, G. (2006)‘Complexity Rules? Four complications, three dangers, two conclusions’ paper given to Symposium on Complexity Theory, University of Edinburgh, 1 December 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Also see G. McLennan, 2006, Sociological Cultural Studies: Reflexitivity and Positivity in the Human Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mcnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1998) Contested Natures. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant C. (1980) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mies, M. (1993) ‘The Need for a New Vision: The Subsistence Perspective’, in Mies, M. and Shiva, V. (eds), Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin, E. (2007)‘Restricted Complexity, General Complexity’, in Gerhenson, C., Aerts, D., and Edmonds, B. (eds), Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity. London: World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdock, J. (2001) ‘Ecologising Sociology: Actor-Network Theory, Co-constructionism and the Problem of Human Exemptionalism’, Sociology 35 (1): 111–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. (1989) Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1960) Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet, R. and Watts, M. (1996) ‘Liberation Ecology: Development, Sustainability, and Environment in an Age of Market Triumphalism’, in Peet, R. and Watts, M. (eds), Liberation Ecologies. London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V. (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plumwood, V. (1994) ‘The Ecopolitics Debate and the Politics of Nature’, in Warren, K. (ed.), Ecological Feminism. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I. (1980) From Being to Becoming. San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I. (1989) ‘The Philosophy of Instability’, Futures 21 (4): 396–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984) Order Out of Chaos. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffer, M., Westley, F., Brock, W.A., and Holmgren, M. (2002) ‘Dynamic Interaction of Societies and Eco-Systems– Linking Theories from Ecology, Economy and Sociology’, in Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soper, K. (1995) What is Nature? Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S. (2007) ‘Complexity Theory, Systems Theory and Multiple Intersected Inequalities’, Philosophy of Social Sciences 37 (4): 449–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, I. (1979) The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westley, F., Carpenter, S., Brock, W.A., Holling, C.S., and Gunderson, L.H. (2002) ‘Why Systems of People and Nature are Not Just Social and Ecological Systems’, in Gunderson, L.H. and Holling, C.S. (eds), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2010 Erika Cudworth

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cudworth, E. (2010). Complexity, ‘Nature’ and Social Domination: Towards a Sociology of Species Relations. In: Burnett, J., Jeffers, S., Thomas, G. (eds) New Social Connections. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274877_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics