The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
AbstractThe UK is widely regarded as a nation committed to animal welfare. On the other hand, the precarious lives of India's stray dogs have attracted a considerable amount of international animal activist attention, and raised questions about the nation's indifference to these animals. Furthermore, animal welfare practice and policy in India are significantly shaped by British law and practice, which is often considered superior. While these contrasting reputations appear reasonable, a closer inquiry reveals complexities that belie an easy relegation to 'cruel' and 'kind'. Bringing together Foucauldian scholarship on power with legal and more-than-human geographies, this paper examines state and civil society discourse relating to the companion species, 'dog', an animal that is protected as a pet if in human homes, and controlled as a pest if out of place. In particular, this inquiry examines the discursive formations of dog control law and welfare practice in the UK and India to interrogate conventional understandings of dog (well)being. This analysis is then used as a foundation to conceptually develop Foucauldian work on biopower for the study of more-thanhuman relationships. The paper also draws out, from the above examination, insights connected to the political question of how humans might share physical and ethical space with animals, even those that do not enjoy the status of 'protected' or useful species.
12 . This paper explores turtle conservation in Odisha, India, to map the complicated manners in which animal well-being is pursued in the contemporary world. Using insights from Foucault's work on biopolitics, it offers an account of conservation as population politics, questioning the entanglement of harm and care that infuses this space of more-thanhuman social change. In doing this, the paper elaborates the concept of agential subjectification in order to track the mechanisms that underlie the asymmetric circulation of biopower in human-animal interactions and to develop Foucauldian scholarship for the examination of present-day manifestations of the 'will to improve'.
The sub-discipline of Political Ecology devotes much critical attention to the complex and often pernicious socio-ecological impacts of mainstream development-developmentality-across the world. However, despite the 'ecology' in its name, Political Ecology continues to be predominantly anthropocentric which, we contend, compromises its critique of developmentality's excesses. Drawing on recent literatures in philosophy, political theory, and human geography, we argue that both the more-than-human and social impacts of developmentality are enabled by zoöpolitical logics of human exceptionalism which support anthropocentrism. We suggest that the adverse effects of development are co-constituted with the positive vision of human wellbeing which runs through developmentality. Thus, an effective critique of development will necessarily have to address the zoöpolitical logics that underpin anthropocentrism. Doing so will strengthen the rigour of political ecology's engagement with developmentality and widen its attention to the diversity of life harmed by mainstream development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.