Beasts and boundaries: An introduction to animals in sociology, science and society

Pru Hobson-West

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.3.1.03

Authors

Pru Hobson-West University of Nottingham, UK

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.3.1.03

Keywords:

Human-animal boundary, Boundary-work, Science & Technology Studies, Identity, Ambiguity, Actor Network Theory

Abstract

Traditionally, sociology has spent much more time exploring relationships between humans, than between humans and other animals. However, this relative neglect is starting to be addressed. For sociologists interested in human identity construction, animals are symbolically important in functioning as a highly complex and ambiguous “other”. Theoretical work analyses the blurring of the human-animal boundary as part of wider social shifts to postmodernity, whilst ethnographic research suggests that human and animal identities are not fixed but are constructed through interaction. After reviewing this literature, the second half of the paper concentrates on animals in science and shows how here too, animals (rodents and primates in particular) are symbolically ambiguous. In the laboratory, as in society, humans and animals have unstable identities. New genetic and computer technologies have attracted much sociological attention, and disagreements remain about the extent to which humananimal boundaries are fundamentally challenged. The value of sociologists’ own categories has also been challenged, by those who argue that social scientists still persist in ignoring the experiences of animals themselves. This opens up notoriously difficult questions about animal agency. The paper has two main aims: First, to draw links between debates about animals in society and animals in science; and second, to highlight the ways in which sociologists interested in animals may benefit from approaches in Science and Technology Studies (STS).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Pru Hobson-West, University of Nottingham, UK

Pru Hobson-West (PhD) is a postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Institute for Science and Society at the University of Nottingham. She holds an MA in politics from the University of Edinburgh and a PhD from Nottingham. Her PhD thesis looked at organised parental resistance to UK childhood vaccination policy. In 2006, Pru spend one semester as a visiting fellow at Harvard University. Funded through a Wellcome Trust Fellowship in Biomedical Ethics, Pru is currently investigating the controversy over the use of animals in laboratory science. Her research interests include human-animal relations, public understanding of science, risk and social movements.

References

Arluke, Arnold (1990) “Moral Elevation in Medical Research.” Advances in Medical Sociology 1:189-204.
Google Scholar

Arluke, Arnold (1992) “Trapped in a Guilt Cage.” New Scientist 1815:33-35.
Google Scholar

Arluke, Arnold (1994) “We Build a Better Beagle.” Qualitative Sociology 17 (2):143-158.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02393498

Arluke, Arnold (2002) “A Sociology of Sociological Animal Studies.” Society & Animals 10 (4):369-374.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936827

Arluke, Arnold and Julian Groves (1998) “Pushing the Boundaries: Scientists in the Public Arena.” Pp. 145-164 in Responsible Conduct in Research, edited by L. Hart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Bauman, Zygmunt (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. Oxford: Polity.
Google Scholar

Bauman, Zygmunt (1990) Thinking Sociologically: An Introduction for Everyone. Oxford: Blackwell.
Google Scholar

Bauman, Zygmunt (1991) Modernity and Ambivalence. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar

BBC (2000) “Cousins.” Retrieved February 23, 2007 http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/cousins/
Google Scholar

Birke, Lynda (1994) Feminism, Animals and Science: The Naming of the Shrew. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Google Scholar

Birke, Lynda (2003) “Who-or-What is the Laboratory Rat (and Mouse)?” Society & Animals 11(3):207-224.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853003322773023

Birke, Lynda, Arnold Arluke and Mike Michael (forthcoming) The Sacrifice: How Scientific Experiments Transform Animals and People. Indiana: Purdue University Press.
Google Scholar

Bloor, David (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

Brown, Nik and Mike Michael (2004) “Risky Creatures: Institutional Species Boundary Change in Biotechnology Regulation.” Health, Risk & Society 6 (3):207-222.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369857042000275632

Brown, Phil, Stephen Zavestoski, Sabrina McCormick, Brian Mayer, Rachel Morello-Frosch and Rebecca Gasior Altman (2004) “Embodied Health Movements: New Approaches to Social Movements in Health.” Sociology of Health & Illness 26 (1):50–80.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2004.00378.x

Buller, Henry and Carol Morris (2003) “Farm Animal Welfare: A New Repertoire of Nature-Society Relations or Modernism Re-embedded?” Sociologia Ruralis 43(3):216-237.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00242

Callon, Michel (1986) “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fisherman of St. Brieuc Bay.” Pp.196-233 in Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge, edited by J. Law. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x

Collins, Harry M. and Steven Yearley (1992) “Epistemological Chicken.” Pp. 301-326 in Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar

Douglas, Mary (1966) Purity and Danger. An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

Eden, Sally, Andrew Donaldson and Gordon Walker (2006) “Green Groups and Grey Areas: Scientific Boundary Work, Nongovernmental Organisations, and Environmental Knowledge.” Environment and Planning A 38 (6):1061-1076.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a37287

Epstein, Steven (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar

Fleischmann, Kenneth R. (2003) “Frog and Cyberfrog are Friends: Dissection Simulation and Animal Advocacy.” Society & Animals 11 (3):123-143.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853003769233342

Franklin, Adrian (1999) Animals and Modern cultures. A Sociology of Human-animal relations in modernity. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Fudge, Erica (2006) “The History of Animals.” HNet. Retrieved November 23, 2006 http://www.h-net.org/~animal/ruminations_fudge.html
Google Scholar

Garner, Robert (2005) Animal Ethics. Cambridge: Polity.
Google Scholar

Gieryn, Thomas F. (1983) “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48:781-795.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325

Gieryn, Thomas F. (1995) “Boundaries of Science.” Pp. 393-443 in Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Peterson and T.J. Pinch. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Goulden, Murray (2007) “Boundary-Working the Human-Animal binary: Piltdown Man, Science and the Media.” Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Symposium of the Postgraduate Life Sciences and Society Network, January 14-17, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Google Scholar

Haraway, Donna (1989) Primate Visions. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

Haraway, Donna (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Haraway, Donna (1997) Modest witness@second millennium: Femaleman meets OncoMouse. London & New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Harbers, Hans and Sjaak Koenis (1996) “The Political Eggs of the Chicken Debate.” EASST Review 15(1) Retrieved February 19, 2007 http://www.easst.net/review/march1996/harbers
Google Scholar

Harvey, Matthew (2006) “Animal Genomes in Science, Social Science and Culture: A Review.” ESRC Genomics Policy and Research Forum Working Paper. Retrieved February 10, 2007 http://www.genomicsforum.ac.uk/documents/pdf/MH_workstream_summary_Feb15.pdf
Google Scholar

Hess, David. J. (2006) “Technology-and-Product Oriented Movements: Approximating Social Movement Studies and Science and Technology Studies.” Science, Technology & Human Values 30 (4):515-535.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905276499

Hobson-West, Pru (2005) “Understanding Resistance to Childhood Vaccination in the UK: Radicals, Reformers and the Discourses of Risk, Trust and Science.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Nottingham, Nottingham.
Google Scholar

Hoeyer, Klaus and Lene Koch (2006) “The Ethics of Functional Genomics: Same, Same, But Different?” Trends in Biotechnology 24:387-389.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.06.011

Home Office (2006) Statistics on Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain 2005. London: HMSO.
Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar

Jasanoff, Sheila editor (2004) States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Jasper, James M. and Dorothy Nelkin (1992) The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest. New York: Free Press.
Google Scholar

Konecki, Krzysztof T. (2005) “Editorial: Qualitative Understanding of Others and Qualitative Sociology.” Qualitative Sociology Review 1(1):1-4.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.1.1.01

Kruse, Corwin R. (2002) “Social Animals: Animal Studies and Sociology.” Society & Animals 10:375-379.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936836

Latour, Bruno (1990) “Drawing Things Together.” Pp. 19-68 in Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by M. Lynch and S. Woolgar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Google Scholar

Latour, Bruno (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Southampton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Google Scholar

Laurier, Eric, Ramia Maze and Johan Lundin (2006) “Putting the Dog Back in the Park: Animal and Human Mind-in-Action.” Mind, Culture & Activity 13:2-24.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1301_2

Lindemann, Gesa (2005) “The Analysis of the Borders of the Social World: A Challenge for Sociological Theory.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35(1):69-98.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8308.2005.00264.x

Lynch, Michael (1988) “Sacrifice and the Transformation of the Animal Body into a Scientific Object: Laboratory Culture and Ritual Practice in the Neurosciences.” Social Studies of Science 18 (2):265-289.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631288018002004

Lynch, Michael and Harry M. Collins (1998) “Introduction.” Science, Technology & Human Values. Special Issue: Humans, Animals and Machines 23 (4):371-383.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399802300401

Macnaghten, Phil (2004) “Animals in Their Nature: A Case Study of Public Attitudes on Animals, Genetic Modification and ‘Nature’.” Sociology 38(3):533-551.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038504043217

Maehle, Andreas-Holger and Ulrich Tröhler (1987) “Animal Experimentation from Antiquity to the End of the Eighteenth Century: Attitudes and Arguments.” Pp. 14-47 in Vivisection In Historical Perspective, edited by N.A Rupke. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Google Scholar

Michael, Mike (2000) Reconnecting Culture, Technology and Nature: From Society to Heterogeneity. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Michael, Mike (2001) “Technoscientific Bespoking: Animals, Publics and the New Genetics.” New Genetics & Society 20 (3):205-224.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14636770120092985

Michael, Mike and Lynda Birke (1994) “Accounting For Animal Experiments: Identity and Disreputable ‘Others’.” Science, Technology & Human Values 19 (2):189-204.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399401900204

Munro, Lyle (2005) “Strategies, Action Repertories and DIY Activism in the Animal Rights Movement.” Social Movement Studies 4:75-94.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830500051994

Rader, Karen (2004) Making Mice: Standardizing Animals for American Biomedical Research, 1900-1955. Princeton, MJ: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691187587

Raman, Sujatha (2005) “Introduction: Institutional Perspectives on Science-Policy Boundaries.” Science & Public Policy 32(6):418-422.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154305781779245

Rees, Amanda (2001) “Anthropomorphism, Anthropocentrism and Anecdote: Primatologists on Primatology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 26 (2):227-247.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600205

Regan, Tom (1984) The Case for Animal Rights. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar

Ritvo, Harriet (1995) “Border Trouble: Shifting the Line Between People and Other Animals.” Social Research 62:481-499.
Google Scholar

Ritvo, Harriet (1997) The Platypus and the Mermaid and Other Figments of the Classifying Imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar

Rupke, Nicholas A. (1987) “Introduction.” Pp. 1-13 in Vivisection in Historical Perspective, edited by N.A Rupke. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
Google Scholar

Ryder, Richard (2005) “All Beings That Feel Pain Deserve Human Rights.” The Guardian, August 6. Retrieved December 8, 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1543799,00.html
Google Scholar

Sanders, Clinton (2003) “Actions Speak Louder than Words: Close Relationships Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals.” Symbolic Interaction 26:405-426.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.3.405

Singer, Peter (1975) Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. New York: New York Review/Random House.
Google Scholar

Star, Susan L. and James R. Griesemer (1989) “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-1939.” Social Studies of Science 19:387-420.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

Strum, Shirley and Bruno Latour (1999) “Redefining the Social Link: From Baboons to Humans.” Pp. 116-125 in The Social Shaping of Technology: Second edition, edited by D. MacKenzie and J.Wajcman. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Google Scholar

Thomas, Keith (1983) Man and the Natural World: Changing attitudes in England 1500-1800. London: Allen Lane.
Google Scholar

Tovey, Hillary (2003) “Theorising Nature and Society in Sociology: The Invisibility of Animals.” Sociologia Ruralis 43:196-215.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00241

Turkle, Sherry (2006) “A Nascent Robotics Culture: New Complicities for Companionship.” On-line article. Retrieved January 6, 2007 http://web.mit.edu/sturkle/www/nascentroboticsculture.pdf
Google Scholar

Urbanik, Julie (2006) “Geography and Animal Biotechnology: How Place and Scale are Shaping the Public Debate.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Clark University, Worcester, MA.
Google Scholar

Weatherall, David (2006) The Use of Non-Human Primates in Research. A Working Group Report Chaired by Sir David Weatherall FRS FMedSci.
Google Scholar

Whatmore, Sarah (2002) Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces. London: Sage.
Google Scholar

Yates, Roger (2004) “The Social Construction Of Human Beings And Other Animals In Human-Nonhuman Relations. Welfarism and Rights: A Contemporary Sociological Analysis.” Retrieved December 9, 2006 http://roger.rbgi.net/
Google Scholar