Search results

This paper reviews the possibilities of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreading from infected humans to pet animals and from pet animals to other animals and humans.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed on research articles from November 2019 to August 2020. This study explored urgently needed research issues on COVID-19 infection spreading across animals and humans and vice versa.

Essential and much needed precautionary measures and necessary preventive steps to protect pet animals from infection were highlighted.

Essential investigation and experiment results were highlighted. The necessary measure to prevent the spread of infection among and across species and people was analyzed.

Many of the human communities that comprise the South have cosmologies that place human and nonhuman animals on a continuum. Culturism, with its foreign logic and dynamics, has broken this continuum, thereby fuelling speciesist practices. In this chapter, I portray the deep relation that some rural Southern communities have with nonhuman animals, and analyse some of the imposed logics that lead the South to abuse nonhuman animals while denying that what they are doing is mistreatment.

This piece is a review of the animal selfhood literature in sociology, organized into four main parts. First, I review the sociological literature of human–animal interactions, in which sociologists claim that animals possess selves. Second, I review how sociologists have referred to the self, from which I construct five criteria of selfhood, including self as attribution, self-awareness, intersubjectivity, self-concept/reflexivity, and narration. Third, I address how animals have selves using these criteria, drawing on sociological and ethological evidence. Fourth, I critique the animal interaction sociologists’ specific claims of animal selfhood, including their epistemological failure to distinguish between human accounts of animal subjectivities and animal subjectivities, and their empirical failure to show how animals act toward themselves. Ultimately, I conclude that animal selves, particularly in an elemental Meadian sense, are potentially real, but in most cases are unobservable or unverifiable phenomena.

Ever since Mead, sociology has maintained a deep divide between human and non human animals. In effect, Mead constructed humans as having capacities that he saw lacking in animals. Recent research on animals has challenged the traditional ideas of Mead and others by providing evidence of animal intelligence, adaptability, selfawareness, emotionality, communication and culture. This paper examines the human‐animal relationship as presented in Introductory Sociology Textbooks to see if this new research on animals has allowed us to move beyond Mead. We find outdated information and confused thinking on such topics as the relationship between language and culture, the development of the self in animals, and the role of instinct, socialization and culture in animal behavior. We conclude that, with few exceptions, the main function of the treatment of animals in these texts is to affirm the hard line that sociology has always drawn between humans and other species.

This paper introduces more-than-human perspective in information behaviour and information experience studies. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to understandings of the concept of multispecies families by exploring their significant dimensions related to information phenomena involving multiple contexts, situations, spaces, actors, species, and activities.

Based on previous research in human information behaviour and human-animal studies, our ideas around information experience of multispecies families are developed conceptually. The paper builds both on previous empirical findings about human information behaviour and the new domain of information experience.

The paper proposes a holistic approach both to information phenomena in everyday living with companion animals including embodied, affective, cognitive, social, digital, and objectual information that shapes pet care and management practices, and to the context of study, including work, domestic, and leisure aspects of multispecies family.

This study broadens our understanding of information phenomena in multispecies families, and so contributes to the field of information experience. It also provides insights for animal welfare scientists to help them understand the information behaviour of humans who are responsible for keeping and caring for animals.

The purpose of this paper is to map the field of sociological animal studies through some examples of critical and mainstream approaches and considers their relation to advocacy. It makes the argument that while all these initiatives have made important contributions to the project of “animalising sociology” and suggest a need for change in species relations, the link between analysis and political strategy is uncertain.

The paper develops its argument by using secondary sources, reviewing sociological positions and offering illustrations of possible interventions.

Sociological interventions in the field of animal studies have been informed by critical perspectives, such as feminism and Marxism, or taken less critical routes deploying actor-network theory and symbolic interactionism. Whilst those working in critical traditions may appear to have a more certain political agenda, an analysis of “how things are” does not always lead to a clear position on “what is to be done” in terms of social movement agendas or policy intervention. In addition, concepts deployed in advocacy such as “liberation”, “quality of life” or “care” are problematic when applied beyond the human. Despite this, there are possibilities for coalition and solidarity around certain claims for change.

If the central argument of the paper were taken seriously by general sociologists, then sociology may be more open to “animal studies”. In implications for exisitng sociological animal studies scholarship is to trouble some of the certainties around advocacy.

If the central argument of the paper were taken seriously by advocacy groups, then the hiatus between “welfarism” and “liberation” might be overcome.

There have been recent attempts to map the field of scholarship in animal studies, but surprisingly little consideration of how different emergent positions inform questions of advocacy and the possibilities for political intervention.

Society’s relations to animals pose possible blind spots in sociological theory that may be revealed and illuminated by studying systems of human‐animal interaction. By investigating whether and how animals enter into key processes that shape self and society we may determine the ways in which animals might be included in the core subject matter of sociology. An earlier discussion of the role of animals in sociology initiated by Weber is reviewed. Issues that debate raised about the extent of linguistically‐mediated human‐animal intersubjectivity are updated. It is in principle difficult to rule out animal languages, and some animals have acquired human language. But sociology may follow a more fecund empirical route by examining successful human‐animal performances produced by enduring interspecies relationships. Following this route, this paper specifically argues that the human self should be seen to take root in the available mixed species community. To show this, the work of G.H. Mead is revisited and corrected in light of recent work on early human development, and conceptual analyses of language, the body, and the self. The formation of the self is not dependent on only linguistic exchanges; a nonverbal nonhuman other can contribute to the self‐reflective sense of being a human self. Based on this reasoning, examples of studies of humans with wild and domestic animals illustrate the potential for a human‐animal sociology.

This study aims to raises the question of the potential impact of posthumanism, a stream in contemporary postmodernist philosophy, on current tourism practices and tourism studies. The author discusses its denial of some basic positions of enlightenment humanism: human exceptionalism, anthropocentrism and transcendentalism. The author then seeks to infer the implications of posthumanist thought for the basic concepts and categorical distinctions on which modern tourism and modernist tourist studies are based.

This paper raises the question of the potential impact of posthumanism, a stream in contemporary postmodernist philosophy, on current tourism practices and tourism studies. The author discusses its denial of some basic positions of Enlightenment humanism: human exceptionalism, anthropocentrism and transcendentalism. The author then seeks to infer the implications of posthumanist thought for the basic concepts and categorical distinctions on which modern tourism and modernist tourist studies are based. This paper raises the question of the potential impact of posthumanism, a stream in contemporary postmodernist philosophy, on current tourism practices and tourism studies. The author discusses its denial of some basic positions of Enlightenment humanism: human exceptionalism, anthropocentrism and transcendentalism. The author then seeks to infer the implications of posthumanist thought for the basic concepts and categorical distinctions on which modern tourism and modernist tourist studies are based. The author then discusses some inconsistencies in posthumanist philosophy, which stand in the way of its applicability to touristic practices, and end up with an appraisal of the significance of posthumanism for tourism studies.

The author pays specific attention to the implications of the effort of posthumanism to erase the human-animal divide for tourist-animal interaction, and of the possible impact of the adoption of posthumanist practices on the tourist industry and the ecological balance of wilderness areas. The author then discusses some inconsistencies in posthumanist philosophy, which stand in the way of its applicability to touristic practices, and end up with a brief appraisal of the significance of posthumanism for tourism studies.

This is the first attempt to confront tourism studies with the radical implications of posthumanist thought. It will hopefully open a new line of discourse in the field.

The last few decades have seen the rise of a new field of inquiry – human–animal studies (HAS). As a rich, theoretically and disciplinarily diverse field, HAS shines a light on the various relations that humans have with other animals across time, space and culture. While still a small, but rapidly growing field, HAS has supported the development of multiple theoretical and conceptual initiatives which have aimed to capture the rich diversity of human–animal interactions. Yet the methodologies for doing this have not kept pace with the ambitions of such projects. In this chapter, we seek to shed light on this particular issue.

We consider the difficulties of researching other-than-human beings by asking what might happen if methods incorporated true inter-disciplinarity, for instance if social scientists were able to work with natural scientists on multi-species ethnographies. The lack of established methodology (and the lack of cross disciplinary research between the natural and social sciences) is one of the main problems that we consider here. It is an issue complicated immensely by the ‘otherness’ of animals – the vast differences in the ways that we (humans) and they (animals) see the world, communicate and behave. This chapter provides the opportunity for us to consider how we can take account of (if not resolve) these differences to arrive at meaningful research data, to better understand the contemporary world by embarking upon more precise investigations of our relationships with animals.

Drawing upon a selection of examples from contemporary research of human–animal interactions, both ethnographic and scientific, we shed light on some new possibilities for multi-species research. We suggest that this can be done best by considering and applying a diversity of theoretical frameworks which deal explicitly with the constitution of the social environment.

Our methodological exploration offers the reader insight into new ways of working within the template of human animal studies by drawing upon a range of useful theories such as post-structuralism and actor network theory (ANT) (for example, Callon, 1986; Hamilton & Taylor, 2013; Latour, 2005; Law, Ruppert, & Savage, 2011) and post-humanist perspectives (for example, Anderson, 2014; Haraway, 2003; Wolfe, 2010). Our contribution to this literature is distinctive because rather than remaining at the philosophical level, we suggest how the human politics of method might be navigated practically to the benefit of multiple species.