Against anthropocentrism...

[Isabel Cardana]

Humans are part of society, but they are not society itself. The existing bond between human and animals is a social production and derives not only from our common biologic nature, but also from the activities that humans share with animals ever since their paths first crossed. People and animals (and their “natures”) interact in a mutual and reciprocal basis.

What is the social and cultural basis of long-term relationships between humans and animals? In what kind of social activities resides these relations? What kind of feelings are involved, what kind of negotiations? How do people construct their identities when they live closely and in a daily-basis with animals?

[Stacy A A Hope]

I think this is a difficult topic to generalise, and unfortunately I only have a short time to respond. As you rightfully mention, it is important to consider the issue of different 'kinds of negotiations' that need to take place in order for relationships--especially long-term ones--to be constructed and played out. I guess another way to enter into this discussion is to address the rituals which places negotiations as an integral denominator in such relationships. What ambiguities within the definitions of humanity and animality. Maybe I am making this more philosophical that the discussion was meant to be? Anthropocentrism or humanocentrism is a perspectival concept (in a Nietzschean-meets-Viveiros de Castro construct of the term), which is generated from the negation of the animal and other non-human perspectives. Therefore, can we not look at the "social" and "cultural" bases for such relationships as embedded within a perspectival shift, that places landscape--i.e. environment--as a determining factor, whereby such societies are in constant negotiation as to how they define each other and the roles they play?

I do hope this adds a bit to the discussion.

[Isabel Cardana]

Hi Stacy!
Thanks for adding this comment.

Stacy A A Hope said:

I guess another way to enter into this discussion is to address the rituals which places negotiations as an integral denominator in such relationships.

Nice point. Never thought about it. There are in fact several rituals marking these relationships, and they don't even need to be long-term or positive/"affective" ones. I'm thinking about the "medical" relationship between vet / pet / owner, which is in fact a trilateral and sort of complex relation, mediated by at least two points of view (three, if you consider that the animal as a point of view - I do), where negotiation is in fact the fundamental basis of the relation, where both have to deal with the "strenght" of technical/scientific knowledge, the "vulnerability" of the owner's affective and defensive position, and the "voiceless" position of the pet.

Now that I am writing I wonder: "would it be the same if it where a child?" - "why?/why not?"

Stacy A A Hope said:

Anthropocentrism or humanocentrism is a perspectival concept (in a Nietzschean-meets-Viveiros de Castro construct of the term), which is generated from the negation of the animal and other non-human perspectives. Therefore, can we not look at the "social" and "cultural" bases for such relationships as embedded within a perspectival shift, that places landscape--i.e. environment--as a determining factor, whereby such societies are in constant negotiation as to how they define each other and the roles they play?

I do hope this adds a bit to the discussion.

Precisely.

Maybe I'll take a peek on OAC's "Anthropology and Children" group, because the anthropocentric negation of the non-human perspective always sounds - to me - like some kind of adult hegemony towards children, i.e., the negation of children's perspectives, desconsidering their existence as subjects. The same way people do with animals?

[rhys evans]

Isabel, Stacy, and all

Your brief discussion here set off lots of resonances for me. I'm a human geographer working on a set of ideas we are calling Equine Landscapes. The first of your points that spoke to me is the need for specificity. In dealing with horse/human relationships, at least those of an non-productivist type activity (i.e. equestrianism, leisure riding, etc) we can use little of the work done on Companion Animals, especially dogs, when looking at the 'partnership' between humans and horses. It is, of course, a human-dominated one. At the same time, the partnership involves motivating a half-tonne beast to do things which are within its range of behaviours, but which it may, or may not want to do today. Making a partnership with such a beast involves more than simple dominance. At the same time, the ludic moments of achieving satisfying jumps seems to provoke rewarded-behaviours in both the human and non-human animal. When writing a paper using the horse/human partnership as an example of Lefebvre's Rhythmanalysis, i found a lot of suggestive and productive research from psycho-acoustics -- concepts like isochrony, tactus, locomotor rhythymicity and other rhythmical structures which we share with horses, and which provide a basic for a non-word-based, haptic partnership. Those with superior 'communication' skills tend to build more successful 'partnerships'.

The other thing you spoke of, Stacy, which accords to how i see it, is the need to introduce environment (i would call it place) to provide the specificities of which you speak. If place is indeed passings, that is, imminent, iterative, polyvalent and at the same time an apotheosis of polyrhythymic complexity, then the relationship between humans and non-humans is also never fixed. Horses illustrate this well -- Temple Grandin's musings on what a white plastic bag in a hedge looks like to a cow come to mind. An equestrian rider apparently can never assume their horse's behaviour on the day. Yesterday's clear show jumping round may be followed by today's refusal on a cross country course. Indeed, a horse in the right mood can be almost impossible to muck out, never mind ride. This brings indeterminacy to the relationship and in this uncertainty, riders place a lot of emphasis on place. "It was the ring", "She doesn't like indoors arenas", etc. The three-part relationship -- human, horse, environment -- is built out of embodied interaction from three (or more) perspectives -- and in the case of successful partnerships, these perspectives create the places -- the equine landscapes which we are studying.

Finally, a question -- we can conceive of ways to deconstruct humanocentric ways of seeing the horse/human partnership, but can we ever step outside of ourselves and really understand a non-human way of being in the world? Certainly every attempt i have made to do so has taught me more about what it means to be human. But ultimately i still have yet to transcend my own humanness. I wonder if the binary implied in the idea human/non-human animal is misleading -- ultimately all i perceive is what i perceive -- not what the horse perceives. What kind of ways might we go beyond this?

cheers
rhys

[Francisco Duarte]

Hi! Great topic you have here!

I have a strong opinion about non-human anthropology and everything related. As an explanation, I sincerely don't believe that behaviours existing in humans would not be present in other animals, albeith in a diferent shape. Evolution is comulative. As so, other species would have, indeed, interesting interactions with humans, but also between themselves. This evolutive connection between species seems, to me, an wonderful way of exploring humans and their evolution, even if it can be, in some ways, dangerous, if we loose our focus. Anyway, I read somewere (its late and i'm not sure were that was) that wild elephants are suffering from some forms of social stress similar to human societies. It may be a little too much, but the Max Plank Society is making some very interesting researches with dogs. Give it a look:

http://www.mpg.de/english/search.php?ud=1&output=xml_no_dtd&...