Animal Studies Bibliography
Wolch, Jennifer. 2002. Anima urbis. Progress in Human Geography 26(6): 721-742.
(Summarized by Megan Shelly, Animal Studies Program, Michigan State University)
The author of Anima urbis, Jennifer Wolch, clearly states her purpose in writing this article as the following: “In this article, I want to focus attention on the issue of animals in the city. My purpose is to encourage geographers to include animals in their studies of urbanization, and suggest why it might be important, not only for intellectual reasons but also for ecological and moral reasons, to re-imagine the anima urbis – the breath, life, soul and spirit of the city – as being embodied in its animal life” (pg. 722).
She speaks of a discussion that took place in LA, in 2002, at which the issue of how race and class effect access to urban parks. Lewis McAdams courageously pointed out that perhaps the question “whose urban nature?” should adequately embody all of those interested, including the “four-leggeds”, no-leggeds, and the wingeds. The problem is illustrated as our lack of figuring animals into the theories and planning that go into developing urban geographical studies. Animals are seen as parts whose value is connected heavily, if acknowledged at all, to “powering the growth of great industrial cities.”
A growing recognition for animals has been spurred by the increased awareness of the lives faced by food animals, and has triggered somewhat of a chain reaction in terms of recognizing animals and the struggles they face in general. This increased awareness has led to a likewise increase in the consideration they receive from geographers and the like. The author notes that animals as a geographical subfield (in the twentieth century) have been somewhat of a fashion trend, coming and going; acknowledged as early 1913, and nearly disappeared by the 1970s. Animal studies were reflected by two disciplines in the first half of the twentieth century as zoogeography (focused on animal distributions), and a more culturally oriented version that focused on domesticated animals and was rooted in the social sciences.
Zoogeographers are described as being a scientific, empirical examination of things such as migration patterns, however Wolch makes clear that the discipline was concerned with human impacts on animals. The cultural study of animals took into consideration the domestication and role of animals in place and time, as well as pet keeping, but traditionally approached the animals’ roles as “cultural artifacts.” The extinction of zoogeography ironically crosses paths with the birth of the environmental movement of the 1970s, however was recovered as recently as 1990 with developments of GIS technology, as they were able to better document spatial patterns. The reemergence of the field was further strengthened by the growing power of animal groups formed as a result of the environmental movement (PETA, Animal Liberation Front, Greenpeace), which made cultural connections to the Holocaust and genocide, as well as feminism and postmodernism.
Furthered scientific research in cognitive studies regarding animals made headway as it undermined the notion that humans were the only species with “sophisticated cognitive abilities,” giving birth to even more activists, social theorist, scientists, and environmentalist demanding that we look more closely at human-animal relationships.Wolch, Jennifer. 2002. Anima urbis. Progress in Human Geography 26(6): 721-742.
(Summarized by Megan Shelly, Animal Studies Program, Michigan State University)
The author of Anima urbis, Jennifer Wolch, clearly states her purpose in writing this article as the following: “In this article, I want to focus attention on the issue of animals in the city. My purpose is to encourage geographers to include animals in their studies of urbanization, and suggest why it might be important, not only for intellectual reasons but also for ecological and moral reasons, to re-imagine the anima urbis – the breath, life, soul and spirit of the city – as being embodied in its animal life” (pg. 722).
She speaks of a discussion that took place in LA, in 2002, at which the issue of how race and class effect access to urban parks. Lewis McAdams courageously pointed out that perhaps the question “whose urban nature?” should adequately embody all of those interested, including the “four-leggeds”, no-leggeds, and the wingeds. The problem is illustrated as our lack of figuring animals into the theories and planning that go into developing urban geographical studies. Animals are seen as parts whose value is connected heavily, if acknowledged at all, to “powering the growth of great industrial cities.”
A growing recognition for animals has been spurred by the increased awareness of the lives faced by food animals, and has triggered somewhat of a chain reaction in terms of recognizing animals and the struggles they face in general. This increased awareness has led to a likewise increase in the consideration they receive from geographers and the like. The author notes that animals as a geographical subfield (in the twentieth century) have been somewhat of a fashion trend, coming and going; acknowledged as early 1913, and nearly disappeared by the 1970s. Animal studies were reflected by two disciplines in the first half of the twentieth century as zoogeography (focused on animal distributions), and a more culturally oriented version that focused on domesticated animals and was rooted in the social sciences.
Zoogeographers are described as being a scientific, empirical examination of things such as migration patterns, however Wolch makes clear that the discipline was concerned with human impacts on animals. The cultural study of animals took into consideration the domestication and role of animals in place and time, as well as pet keeping, but traditionally approached the animals’ roles as “cultural artifacts.” The extinction of zoogeography ironically crosses paths with the birth of the environmental movement of the 1970s, however was recovered as recently as 1990 with developments of GIS technology, as they were able to better document spatial patterns. The reemergence of the field was further strengthened by the growing power of animal groups formed as a result of the environmental movement (PETA, Animal Liberation Front, Greenpeace), which made cultural connections to the Holocaust and genocide, as well as feminism and postmodernism.
Furthered scientific research in cognitive studies regarding animals made headway as it undermined the notion that humans were the only species with “sophisticated cognitive abilities,” giving birth to even more activists, social theorist, scientists, and environmentalist demanding that we look more closely at human-animal relationships.increase of city identity, but certainly impacts human animal relations. Another example of how certain animals are viewed as out of place in urban areas, is a survey of feelings toward feral cats where local residents “promoted ideas of feral cats as either legitimately wild or domestic ‘convicts on the loose’, ultimately engendering urban social conflict” (730). On the flip side of this perspective, grass roots activism has led to such things as reclaiming a deteriorating park and turning it into a dog-human park, and urban restoration efforts reintroduce wild species to the areas, however, the author notes that this leads to conflicting ideas, and highlights what “restoration implies for human dominance.”
The urban-wild ecotone most heavily reveals the complexity surrounding the human-animal relation conflict. Zoning typically designates animals and people to specific areas, and land use and planning maps divide developed and undeveloped areas with straight borders, lines that also divide wildlife, national forests, and wilderness areas. It is easily recognized that defining such areas so distinctly does not accurately represent true interactions between humans and wildlife inhabitants. Despite the out right slaughter of animals in what are now many urban areas, the formerly decimated wolves, elk, moose, etc, are gradually making there way back across the imaginary city lines. Endangered species become a prevalent point of contention as urban areas grow, and neighboring animals experience more habit loss, as the author points out that “wild animals tend to obtain value through death and extinction” (736).
A disturbing, but undeniably interesting, example of a curious human-animal interaction event within an urban setting is the case of the California Presa Canaria whose owner was subsequently charged for the crime (murder) the dog committed against an apartment neighbor. In the distant past, animals were put on trial for crimes, however, in seemed an interesting murder trial in current times. An incidence such as this forces animal geographers to consider the urban-wildlife dynamic from a moral standpoint as questions of human dominion and animal subjectivity and agency are raised. The act of considering morally what cities mean for others is a very new area of thought. The question is raised, for instance, that in determining water quality, is it truly acceptable to consider only human beings, when so many animals rely on a more fragile system that requires additional measures (e.g. frogs). Measures regarding animal consideration on issues such as dog fighting and rodeo turned out results that tolerance was fairly low, however, varied immensely across ethnic/racial boundaries, that is not to mention that bringing into moral consideration lacks the ability to actually include animals (their viewpoint) in such opinions. The author makes an important point in that although we cannot truly know what an animal is thinking/feeling, we likewise cannot truly know everything other human beings are thinking and feeling.
Wolch provides suggestions on how we can go about reinventing the cultural construction of urban theory, with an agenda outlining four major goals: To understand urbanization from the perspective of its meaning for animal life; to trace how and why attitudes and practices toward animals and patterns of urban human- animal interactions change over time and space; to explore how urban animal ecology is produced by science, social discourse and political economic forces; to grasp how human-animal relations as an urban practice are shaped by managerialplans, grassroots activism and the agency of animals. Quests to bring back nature to areas where wildlife has been destroyed are cropping up all over due to a change in people attitudes toward nature. She offers many ideas for bringing animal recognition to the forefront; dog parks, river restorations, nature trails, etc. indicating that perhaps the idea that capitalism by its very nature produces suffering, is one we have more control over than previously believed.
