Exploring the Human-Animal Divide: Culture and Values

Module 2: Human-Animal Borders Module 2 Overview In this module, you will be introduced to: 1. The complexity of the human-animal divide, historic through to present day, as a reflection of human culture, individual and social values. 2. The classification of animals, highlighting the sociozoologic scale. 3. The use value of animals to humans, using food as an illustration. Module 2 Learning Objectives When you have finished this module, you should be able to: 1. Identify our individual and social values in relation to animals. 2. Summarize the complexity and origins of the human-animal divide. 3. Evaluate human-centred cultural reasons for changing boundaries related to animals. 4. Examine the classifications of animals, with attention to tools such as the sociozoological scale. 5. Interpret the use value of animals, with a particular look at food production. Module 2 Module Instructions 1. Complete the readings outlined in the Required Readings section of this module.

2. Proceed through the Learning Material, reading the materials and watching any videos as they are presented. Complete the Learning Activities and “PAWnder This” reflections as you go – these are not a graded component, but will enhance your understanding of the material. 3. Write responses to the Learning Journal prompts for this module (you will find several – be sure to answer two for each module). See the Learning Journal area of the course for more information. This is a graded component of the class. 4. Add a response to the Discussion Question for this module to the class Discussions Forum. See the Discussions area of the course for more information. This is a graded component of the class. 5. Check the syllabus for any other formal evaluation due dates. 6. Review the lists of Key Terms and Concepts and Learning Objectives. If you still have questions about anything, please email your instructor. Module 2 Required Readings DeMello, M. (2021). “Chapter 2, Human-Animal Borders.” Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies . NY: Columbia University Press. [Textbook] DeMello, M. (2021). “Chapter 3, The Social Construction of Animals.” Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies . NY: Columbia University Press. [Textbook] Thompson, P. (2017). “ The Ethics of Food Animal Production ”. In L. Kalof (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies . New York, NK: Oxford University Press. pp. 364-379. McGinnis, A., Tesarek Kincaid, A., Barrett, M. J., Ham, C., & Community Elders Research Advisory Group. (2019). Strengthening Animal-Human Relationships as a Doorway to Indigenous Holistic Wellness . Ecopsychology . pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.1089/eco.2019.0003. Module 2 Key Terms and Concepts

 Human-animal divide  Individual values  Social values  Culture  Animism  Animality  Sentience  Human exceptionalism  Speciesism  Biological determinism  Social groups  Boundaries  Use value  Sociozoologic scale  Ethics of food animal production:  Dietetic approach  Productionist approach The Human-Animal Divide See Required Reading: DeMello, M. (2021), Chapter 2, Human-Animal Borders. McGinnis, A., et al. (2019). Strengthening Animal-Human Relationships as a Doorway to Indigenous Holistic Wellness . Learning Activity 2-1 First, complete the exercise on individual values found at the following link: http://webmedia.jcu.edu/advising/files/2016/02/Core-Values-Exercise.pdf Next, think about what social values we have regarding animals in Canada. Are you able to make a similar list? To the following Padlet board , add a post with some examples of social values you think we hold regarding animals, and/or comment upon why your answer might be “it depends…”

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Culture and the Human-Animal Divide

DeMello focuses Chapter 2 of her text on a discussion about the human- animal divide . She shares that the divide is a social construction that reflects a society’s culture ; “it is culturally and socially contingent; that is, depending on time and place this border not only moves but the reasons for assigning animals and humans to each side of the border change as well” (p. 33). Recognizing culture can help to develop our sociological imagination (both material and non-material). Quite simply, culture shapes individual lives and societies, and is made up of components such as symbols, values, language and norms. Culture has been described by Ann Swidler (1986) as a “tool kit of symbols, stories, rituals, and world views, which people may use in varying configurations to solve different kinds of problems” (273). DeMello shares that within North American culture there is at present a wide border or divide between humans and animals, but that this was not always the case. She gives the example of animism ; “the worldview that finds that humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects all may be endowed with spirit” (p. 34). She also gives the example of hunters and gatherers, who saw humans and animals as related, and that both are part of nature. Contrast this with later Christian theology, from which arose the idea that animality was something “inferior to humankind and as something to be conquered and exploited” (p. 38). According to DeMello (2012, Ch. 2, Slide 8-9), the present human-animal divide comes about via two broad means: 1. The Domestication of Animals, which led to animals being seen as creatures to be owned and controlled.

2. In the West, a number of philosophies emerged to then explain and justify this new reality. DeMello also shares that the human-animal border is currently narrowing because of scientific gains detailing physical, behavioural and emotional similarity between humans and animals. Animal sentience has been one area of particular focus. Culture changes in society as there are advancements, such as in technology. DeMello further shares that “as the border between human and non-human animal has continued to shift, patrolling that border remains ever more important for those who are invested in the idea that humans are not just separate from animals but that that separation entails superiority. As we shall see in this text, humans’ ‘specialness’ has been employed to justify virtually every practice engaged in by humans involving animals” (42). This idea that humans are somehow unique in the animal world is human exceptionalism . Learning Activity 2-2 Try the following Learning Activity to review the major Western philosophies related to the human-animal divide as discussed in your textbook reading. Match the Western philosophy related to the human-animal boundary with it's source or originator. Match the Western philosophy related to the human-animal boundary with it's source or originator. 1. Animals lack rationality. Aristotle 2. Animals lack a soul, and were not created in God's image. Old Testament 3. All life created in a hierarchy. Great chain of being 4. Without souls, animals are simply things. Aquinas 5. Animals as automata. Descarte 6. Animals lack rationality as well as a moral code. Kant

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

PAWnder This (Reflective Question) Consider the following concepts: 1. human exceptionalism 2. speciesism How are these concepts related? How are they distinct? Do you think human exceptionalism and/or speciesism will ever come into question in our Western culture? What evidence have you seen that supports your thinking on this? Classification of Animals See Required Reading: DeMello, M. (2021), Chapter 3, The Social Construction of Animals. Learning Activity 2-3 Listen to the NPR podcast Hidden Brain episode entitled “ Pets, Pests and Food: Our Complex Contradictory Attitudes Toward Animals , ” featuring Hal Herzog (47:25 minutes). Hal is the author of Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight About Animals (2010). As you listen to this podcast, consider what types of groups you classify animals into in your everyday life. Then, try the following:  Make a list of the animals you interact with (directly or indirectly) and see if you can categorize them into groups.  What defines the group each animal ends up in?

Systems of Classification for Animals Recall from your introductory Sociology courses:  At the micro level sociology focuses on social interactions.  At the macro level, sociology pays attention to social groups – primary groups and secondary groups , social networks , formal organizations and social institutions . It can be said that animals are also placed into a social group and/or groups . Animals are divided by their type and there are different classification systems, ranging from biological systems of classification – such as biological determinism (“the interpretation of animal behavior from a strictly biological perspective that tends to exclude culture, social practices, and personality factors in behaviour” (DeMello p. 46-47)) – through to Christian theology, which is how animals were generally classified in Medieval Europe according to a hierarchy: “While all animals were seen as lower than human—and further from God— some were more elevated than others. For example, carnivores like lions and eagles sat at the top of the hierarchy of animals, while vegetarians and domesticated animals sat at the bottom. The folklore of the time created animal heroes who exhibited characteristics like bravery, cunning and intelligence, and other animals who were seen as hapless, stupid, or weak. Animals could be noble, evil, or pure” (DeMello, 2012, Ch. 3, Slide 8). Another major way in which we have classified animals has to do with where they live, and whether or not they are part of human culture – in other words, how they can be classified as ‘wild’ or ‘tame’. The most commonly applied classification system today is based on the animal’s use value to humans.

DeMello also identifies how the categories get blurred and can change over time. She gives the example of the rabbit (Figure 2-3); the same rabbit can be a household pet, a lab animal, killed for its fur, a wild creature, the Easter bunny, or eaten as food. She has written about this in her 2003 book – Stories Rabbits Tell: A Natural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature . She also gives the example of potbellied pigs (Figure 2-4) which are used for food in Vietnam, but in the West can be considered a pet. Watch this video about Esther the Wonder Pig (3:08 minutes) as an example of the blurring of these boundaries . You can find more on Esther on her Facebook page , website , and sanctuary website https://youtu.be/UlHV_GGR0RM The Sociozoologic Scale First published in 1996 by sociologists Arnold Arluke and Clinton R. Sanders in their book “Regarding Animals: Animals, Culture, and Society”, the sociozoologic scale is applied to determine the value of a species in society. It classifies animals based on their benefit to humans (meat animals vs. pests). Again, the use value to humans is central. The scale can be explained as follows (DeMello, 2012, Ch. 3, Slide 23):  “Since the time of Aristotle, humans have always ranked higher than animals; the sociozoologic scale ranks animals in a structure of meaning that allows humans to define, reinforce, and justify their interactions with other beings.  Those at the top deserve more privileges and those at the bottom have earned their poor place in society.  In other words, animals can be different things to different people: a beloved Labrador can be a best friend, a chicken can be dinner, a sea otter can be local color, a lab rat can be a research subject. And how we respond to their loss tells us a lot about the value we place

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

on them: while we mourn the passing of a pet, we tend to write of the death of lab animals as a "loss of data.”  Good animals are pets and tools (farm, lab, and work animals). They allow us to use them and thus are nicely incorporated into human culture.  Bad animals are vermin and pests, who both stray from their proper place and also resist being used.  Rats, for instance, can be both a good animal and a bad animal.  These categories involve defining the animal to fit the category, and then applying certain treatment to them. Cow = food, and thus the cow is made to be killed and eaten.” Classifying animals is closely linked to how societies are stratified based upon class, race and gender. DeMello shares that a category such as gender “organize[s] humans on the basis of arbitrary criteria and then allocate[s] privileges and opportunities accordingly” (p. 51). DeMello further shares that ranking animals based on their use to humans, in turn “allows humans to define them, reinforce their position, and justify their interactions with other beings” (p. 51) Animals as Food PAWnder This (Reflective Question) Do you think it is possible to create a new classification system that is more inclusive and humane? A system that does not rank animals based on their importance to humans, but rather, on some other characteristic? What about a system that does not rank them at all? Is this possible? What about including nature in this new system of non-classification; would that be possible? This is where our sociological imagination comes into play – seeing the world through the lens of the animal and not the human (and some would argue, nature too). The Ethics of Food Production and Animal Boundaries

The ethics of food animal production is a good illustration of the making of boundaries . These boundaries for the most part are not arbitrary, and are made in the interest of humans, and humans alone. The boundaries can be linked, for example, to cost efficiency for humans in animal food production. According to Jerolmack (2005), “History has shown us that the boundary between humans and animals is fluid and contingent on time, place, and the practical interests of humans. Thus the time appears ripe to go beyond speaking of animals in the abstract—as symbols, property, and so forth—and discover how humans actually make sense out of and interact with the animals that they encounter” (651). In DeMello, Chapter 3, she shares that in all cultures some animals are edible and some are not. A related classification is whether an animal is fit to be sacrificed as part of a religious ritual or is identified as a totem. It can be argued that the ethics of food animal production blurs boundaries. As we distinguish these boundaries as a society, norms develop. We gave the example of the pot bellied pig being both a pet and a food source. In North America the dog is seen most only as a pet, and so veterinary students have even reported an uneasiness with their educational use, both live and cadaverous (Arluke, 2004, p. 197). Learning Activity 2-4 Thompson (see Required Readings) identifies two main ways to approach ethical questioning about the consumption of animal-based foods: the dietetic approach and the productionist approach . What are each of these approaches? Make a simple compare-and-contrast table, like the one shown here, listing a definition and examples of each approach. Dietetic approach Productionist approach Definition: The dietetic approach to ethical questioning about animal-based food consumption centers on individual food choices and dietary preferences. It examines the ethics of personal decisions related to consuming specific animal-based foods, taking into account factors like health, well-being, and personal beliefs. Examples: Definition: The productionist approach focuses on the broader ethical considerations associated with the entire food production system. It goes beyond individual dietary choices and examines the ethics of the food production process itself, including how animals are raised, treated, and processed before becoming food products. Examples:

1. Vegetarianism and veganism, where individuals choose not to consume animal products due to concerns about animal welfare or environmental impact. 2. Making dietary choices based on personal health goals, such as reducing saturated fat intake. 3. Opting for organic or locally sourced animal products to support sustainable and ethical farming practices. 1. Advocating for improved living conditions and better treatment of animals in factory farms to enhance their welfare. 2. Supporting the adoption of sustainable and environmentally responsible farming practices, such as organic farming or pasture-raised animal products. 3. Evaluating the overall environmental impact of industrial agriculture and seeking alternatives to reduce negative consequences. Module 2 Conclusion In summary, according to Serpell (2009), “We are, in effect, trapped between the proverbial rock and a hard place. If we place animals beyond the pale of moral consideration, we can harvest their economic and instrumental benefits with a clear conscience, but we cannot simultaneously claim that these animals are members of our families, the subjects of profound emotional attachments, or sentient and cognitively sophisticated beings worthy of special treatment and protection. So, our solution to this dilemma seems to be to compartmentalize—to allocate our moral obligations to some animals but not others—and to invent elaborate belief systems and ‘just-so stories’ to explain why animals do not actually matter even when our gut instincts, our moral intuitions, tell us that they do. These are, of course, precisely the same techniques that people have used throughout history to justify the abuse and persecution of other humans (Bandura, 1999), and that, more than anything else, is why animals are a social issue” (642). In this module, we identified how human culture, including individual and social values, contributes to the widening and narrowing of the divide between human and non-human animals. This division is complex and has changed over history, initiated by social advances. Classification systems,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

such as the sociozoological scale, help us to understand the multiple categories one species of animal can occupy depending on its use value to humans. The role of animals as food was used as an illustration. Module 2 References Arluke, A. (2004) The Use of Dogs in Medical and Veterinary Training: Understanding and Approaching Student Uneasiness. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 7 :3, pp. 197-204, DOI: 10.1207/s15327604jaws0703_6 DeMello, M. (2021). Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies . Second Edition. New York: Columbia University Press. DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies . New York: Columbia University Press. DeMello, M. (2012). Instructor slides for Animals and Society. An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies . Jerolmack, C. (2005). “Our animals, our selves? Chipping away the human-animal divide”. Sociological Forum. Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 651-660. Serpell, J. (2009). “Having our dogs and eating them too: Why animals are a social issue”. Journal of Social Issues , Vol. 65, No. 3, 2009, pp. 633-644. Swidler, A. (1986). “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies”. American Sociological Review. 5(1), pp. 273-286. Module 2 Supplementary Resources  See the DeMello text for Suggested Additional Readings , Suggested Films , and Websites .

Module 2 SOC 307

Related Documents