Bees, Butterflies, and Bacteria: Biotechnology and the Politics of Nonhuman Friendship

Abstract

The author seeks to decentre some already familiar geographies of biotechnology. By asking, with respect to genetically modified (GM) crops, not ‘what is the new?’, but ‘where is the new?’, the intention is to redirect attention (at least briefly) away from the GM technique or genetically modified object and its supposed properties, to the world to which that technique or object is being added. This in turn allows the question concerning GM to be approached from new directions, for example, via the routes taken into the controversy by three specific organisms. Not fully taken into account in the calculations of the biotechnology industry, the honey bee, the Monarch butterfly, and the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis have all, in very different ways, made their presence felt as they literally and metaphorically encountered GM. In an attempt to do justice to these marginalised lifeforms, the forms of life of which they are part, and the biopolitical questions which they raise, the works of Jacques Derrida on friendship and animality, Jean-Luc Nancy on being with, and Bruno Latour on making things public, are brought into conversation. It is suggested that together what they offer is a way of thinking ourselves as collectively in the midst of things.

Ethics, Space, and Somatic Sensibilities: Comparing Relationships between Scientific Researchers and Their Human and Animal Experimental Subjects

“…Our focus on laboratory spaces leaves open the question, as noted above, of how this context and species-specific form of relating might compare to other spaces of human^animal encounter. (15) Recent work on human^nonhuman relations at other sites suggests that somatic sensibilities are also at work in the practices of field biology (Kohler, 2002), conservation (Hinchliffe et al, 2005), conservation science (Lorimer, 2008a), political debate (Bingham, 2006), and reindeer herding (Lorimer, 2006). Finally, there also remains an implicit emphasis within the concept of somatic sensibility on proximity (being within touching distance) as central to the recognition of and engagement with somatic sensibilities.…”

Geography, Death, and Finitude

“…In these latter aspects, Heidegger's distribution of finitude corresponds to certain vitalist writings' distribution of 'spirit' or élan vital (see Greenhough, 2010). More importantly, however, is that it is also a provocative statement for thinking about the kinds of politics and ethics that various forms of new materialism are seeking to create, and the philosophical histories that are being challenged and reworked in these projects (see for example : Bingham, 2006;Stoekl, 2007;Hinchliffe & Bingham, 2008;Bennett, 2010;Greenhough, 2010). This is because Heidegger's statement raises profound questions concerning the anthropocentric limits of ethical geographies of the non-human, care and responsibility.…”

Solidarity Between Human and Non-Human Animals: Representing Animal Voices in Policy Deliberations

“…Feminist care theory similarly avers the importance of restoring 'absent referents' to our shared discourse, inviting the potential for dialogue across species lines (Adams, 1991) To some, the tools are already largely in place for achieving solidarity as relation with animals through communication-including a 'special ability' on the part of humans to communicate with other forms of life (Deloria Jr, 1991); adequate knowledge of most animal interests and welfare (Smith, 2012); and semiotic analysis for decoding the diverse channels in which animals communicate with humans (Lind, 2012). These all denote ways in which we can become articulate with animals (Bingham, 2006). But others press for a necessary transcendence of manufactured and mediated representations and words toward greater imagination (Carbaugh, 2007) and caution against simply co-opting existing terms from human linguistics (ScottPhillips, 2015).…”

“…1080/17524032.2016.1269820 7 communicate with other forms of life (Deloria Jr, 1991); adequate knowledge of most animal interests and welfare (Smith, 2012); and semiotic analysis for decoding the diverse channels in which animals communicate with humans (Lind, 2012). These all denote ways in which we can become articulate with animals (Bingham, 2006). But others press for a necessary transcendence of manufactured and mediated representations and words toward greater imagination (Carbaugh, 2007) and caution against simply co-opting existing terms from human linguistics (ScottPhillips, 2015).…”