Animal geographies I

Abstract

Globalizing animal geographies scholarship illuminates the complexity of human-animal relations and the variety of topical realms and contexts in which interspecies encounters take place. This report highlights the multitude of ways in which humans think about, place and interact with animals around the world, as well as the range of circumstances, experiences and lives of animals themselves. Decolonizing animal geographies raises questions regarding sub-disciplinary tendencies, practices and assumptions, and encourages alternative paths for knowledge construction. This report argues for investigating further the implications of colonial, racial and cultural dynamics for human-animal relations, and embracing subaltern perspectives – both human and nonhuman – to ensure a diverse global community of animal geographies.

Geografía de los animales: construcción filosófica de una subdisciplina científica a través de su historia

“…Se empezó a revelar el papel de los animales no humanos en la construcción espacial de la sociedad, su cultura, así como en la vida individual de los humanos, al tiempo que con las evidencias en la naturaleza de la subjetividad animal no humana se buscó ejercer agencia para lograrles condiciones de igualdad con los humanos (Hovorka 2017). Así, la nueva geografía de los animales, que toma en cuenta sus espacios vividos, sus territorios y sus interacciones, se perfiló hacia el entendimiento de cómo y por qué las relaciones entre animales humanos y no humanos han cambiado con el tiempo y el espacio, y cómo las ideas y representaciones que los seres humanos tienen de los animales no humanos les dan forma a su identidad personal y colectiva (Anderson 1997;Elder, Wolch y Emel 1998).…”

“Bushmeat Crisis” and “Cultural Imperialism” in Wildlife Management? Taking Value Orientations Into Account for a More Sustainable and Culturally Acceptable Wildmeat Sector

“…However, qualifying rural wildlife value orientations as merely utilitarian or domination oriented would be simplistic and fail to elucidate the complex, nuanced and varied relations that humans have with animals, and that animals have with humans around the world (Hovorka, 2017). In rural contexts, the use of wildlife serves multiple purposes depending on the specificities of each context, but usually include an important role as a source of food, a strategy to reduce costs in crop production, a source of income, a source of medicine, as a means to strengthen social bounds, or as part of a wider system of interconnected socio-physical relationships and identity (Nasi et al, 2008;Fischer et al, 2013;El Bizri et al, 2015;van Vliet et al, 2015b;Ichikawa et al, 2016;Alves and van Vliet, 2018).…”

Furthering post-human political ecologies

“…Given the aim and scope of this review, we avoid rehearsing at length the meritorious contributions posthumanism has made to human geographical thought over the past two decades. Discussions by a number of scholars articulate how post-human geographies help to resolve the false dichotomy of Ôsocio-natureÕ in critical geographical thought and to advance non-humans as legitimate subjects of social inquiry whose actions contribute to the co-production of more-than-human worlds (Braun 2004;Castree and Nash 2006;Lorimer 2005;Whatmore 2006;Panelli 2010;Anderson 2014;Sundberg 2014;Hovorka 2016;and Bastian et al 2016).…”