Search results

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.

The late Nancy Jay described a striking feature of animal sacrifice: in many different cultures it functions to establish paternity. This article develops a theoretical framework for understanding just what it is about animal sacrifice that makes it so cross‐culturally well‐suited for establishing paternity. The main premise of this framework is that sacrifice communicates menace – not so much towards the domesticated animals ritually killed, but primarily towards those subordinated humans (children in particular) who are similarly disempowered vis‐à‐vis the class of male sacrificers. By demonstrating their willingness and ability to kill, sacrificing men gain a material basis for claiming credit for human reproduction, namely, that children live only by virtue of the sacrificers’ decision to kill animals in their stead. This framework is explicated through reference to Old and New Testament discourses of sacrifice.

Animal rights is a growing social justice movement opposed to all forms of animal exploitation and abuse. Animal rights is not animal welfare. It is not pet therapy, wildlife conservation, or the services of the local humane society. Although it shares concerns with other organizations interested in the welfare of animals, the animal rights movement is activist and progressive, rejecting the view that animals are resources to be used for human purposes.

This paper explores the life cycle of a captive bred lion in South Africa, focusing on the distinction between captive bred and wild individuals. Lions are bred in captive breeding facilities across the country to provide cubs and teenagers for ecotourism, and following this, hunting “trophies.” A distinction is made between the “wild” and “captive” lion, a categorization that I argue legitimizes violent and unethical treatment toward those bred specifically to be cuddled and killed. This analysis explores how the lion is remade or modified from wild to commodity and the repercussions this has had throughout the wildlife security assemblage.

The paper is based on ethnographic research carried out in South Africa during 2016 that involved conducting informal and semi-structured interviews with activists, breeders, wildlife security personnel and conservationists drawing out the interspecies relations that influenced the encounters between humans and wildlife.

Dominant conservation narratives continue to understand and interpret wildlife solely as a commodity or profitable resource, which has led to the normalization of unethical and cruel practices that implicate wildlife in their own security and sustenance through their role in ecotourism, hunting and more recently, the lion bone trade. Captive bred lions are treated as products that undergo a series of translations through which they are exposed to violence and exploitation operationalized through practices linked to conservation and ecotourism.

Through posthuman thinking, this paper contributes to debates on the interspecies dimensions of politics through challenging the dominant assumptions that govern conservation and the interspecies encounter.

This paper considers the role of nonhuman animals in the thought of Donna Haraway, going from her critique of the animal as model/mirror for the evolution of the human body politic to her proposal for a “compost” society. It demonstrates her changing positions in relation to the social role of animals and the deepening of her critique of intersectional relations that subordinate nonhuman animals and animalized people.

The paper intertwines a loosely historical approach and a thematic one, focusing on key issues of sociological theory, such as work, agency and kinship, and the way these relate to the animal question in Haraway's writings. Her texts are discussed both broadly and in-depth, and her positionality in terms of both feminism and antispeciesism is foregrounded.

The paper shows how the progressive abandonment of a posthuman approach in favor of a compostist one brings Haraway nearer to intersectional ecofeminism and to a fuller consideration of nonhuman agency at a material level, as well as to a deeper critique of instrumental relations of domination and issue that had been problematic in critiques of her earlier work.

The paper highlights the role of nonhumans in the evolution and constitution of societies and advocates a response-able multispecies politics.

This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of the social role of animals in Haraway's thought and the deepening antispeciesism of her feminist approach that sheds a different light on her positionality in relation to ecofeminism.

Literature on social movements increasingly identifies everyday life as significant to understand political practices and activism. However, scholars have retained a major bias towards movement mobilisation and collective action, often relegating the everyday at the margins of social movements. While there have been notable exceptions, with studies of prefigurative activism and everyday practices of social change, they have usually focussed on alternative community spaces such as autonomous social centres and protest camps, and paid less attention to “ordinary” practices and spaces of activism. The purpose of this paper is to address these problems by suggesting that everyday life may be central to the production of activist spaces and the action of social movements.

Drawing upon ethnography methods, interviews with vegan activists, an on-line survey of supporters of vegan movements and an examination of on-line vegan forums, it seeks to analyse the practices of the vegan movement in France.

This paper attempts to demonstrate that prefigurative activism and seemingly banal practices may be central to strategies for social change. Drawing on an anarchist perspective on activism, it further suggests that activism and everyday life should not be studied in isolation from each other but as mutually constitutive in the creation of everyday alternative spaces – hemeratopias.

This paper adds to the literature on activism and social movements by offering a more complex picture of the spatial politics at work in social movements and a better understanding of individual action and mobilisation.

The rise of fast fashion has changed the face of global fashion. Despite sector growth, critics have questioned the level of obsolescence, encouragement of over-consumption and fast fashion's unsustainable business practices. Specifically, mounting concerns surround the impact on environmental, worker and animal welfare. Accordingly, the aim of this current work is to understand the influence of consumer's values on ethical consumption in a fast-fashion context.

An online survey was designed to collect responses relating to personal values and ethical concerns towards animal and worker welfare issues, as well as environmental concerns. A total of 350 US-based fast-fashion consumers completed the survey via Amazon MTurk. Factor analyses and structural equation modelling were used to analyse and test a theoretically hypothesised model.

This study found that self-transcendence values and openness to change values have a positive impact on consumers' levels of ethical concern towards animal welfare, the environment and worker welfare concerns within the fashion industry. Furthermore, a consumer's level of concern towards animal welfare and the environment positively influences a consumer's likeliness to purchase ethically marketed fast fashion.

This is the first study to investigate the role of consumer values and their influence on ethical concerns within the fashion industry and the impact of these concerns on intentions to purchase ethically marketed fast fashion. Responding to calls for further research into ethical consumption of apparel, this study includes all elements of ethical consumption identified, including animal welfare. This study identifies ethical areas of concern salient amongst fast-fashion consumers and provides a deeper understanding of the values impacting the level of ethical concerns surrounding animal welfare, the environment and worker welfare.

The purpose of this review paper is to extend the literature on animal welfare in the hospitality industry by exploring how some of the major fast-food companies have publicly addressed this issue.

The paper reviews, and reflects on, the animal welfare statements and policies posted on the Internet by five major fast-food companies, namely, Yum! Brands, Restaurant Brands International, McDonald's, Domino's Pizza Group and Subway.

The findings reveal that four interlinked themes, namely, strategic corporate commitment, a focus on supply chains, policies on specific categories of animals and food products, and auditing, illustrated the selected companies approach to animal welfare. The authors also raise a number of issues about the selected companies' approaches to animal welfare including the aspirational nature of their commitments, the emphasis on regular audits, the role of external assurance in the reporting process, the role of animal welfare pressure groups and campaigns, and the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

The paper's empirical material is drawn from the corporate websites of five fast-food companies, but the paper has theoretical and practical implications and provides a platform for future research.

The paper offers a simple review of the way five major fast-food companies have addressed the issue of animal welfare.

Sociology, narrowly defined and almost universally practiced as the study of human society, is limited in its benefits to human animals because it ignores how hegemonically crafted and unjust human social arrangements are intertwined with the oppressive treatment of other animals. This article promotes a wider definition of sociology and its practice, one that includes the lives and experiences of other species. The analysis uses a recrafted minority group theory that highlights the entangled oppression of humans and other animals. A historicalmaterialist reflection on relationships between humans and other animals demonstrates the efficacy of this more inclusive theory. Sociologists must become aware of and engage this wider approach to the study of society in order to understand how social arrangements create oppressive conditions for both humans and other animals and to increase the possibility for the discipline to have substantive impact on deteriorating societal and global conditions.

The purpose of this study is to assess the role of animals in creating a satisfactory experience at a natural park by investigating the impact on visitors of the exposure to, or absence of, fauna, towards the visitors’ overall experience.

The work is based on a quantitative data collection of tourists visiting a nature park. Altogether, 532 valid questionnaires were collected and used for the analysis. A series of factor analyses was conducted on pull and push factors for animal encounters. The resulting factor domains (FDs) were used as independent variables in ordinal logistic regression models to describe customer satisfaction.

The results of this study show that important FDs characterize the main visitor characteristics. Although human–animal encounters are an important factor for some visitors, the encounters should be encouraged in the most natural manner possible and not in captivity. This brings us to the concept of “Interpretation”, where guides and guided tours can help with the encounters. Information given prior to and during the visit can ensure visitors are aware that animal encounters are subject to nature and cannot be guaranteed.

The presence of areas where a number of animals are in captivity and can be viewed by visitors is an important decision for national parks and protected areas, as animals represent a potential attraction for visitors. Nevertheless, this decision creates an ethical dilemma in relation to the exploitation of animals, exacerbated by recent and increasing pressure on sustainable management. This study provides valuable results for guiding park managers in making reasoned decisions.