Introduction: The ‘More-Than-Human’ Condition

Asdal, Kristin; Druglitrø, Tone; Hinchliffe, Steve

doi:10.4324/9781315587639-1

Cited by 16 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biopolitics addresses new forms of power or aspects of power previously unknown, in the context of phenomena as diverse as concentration camps, migratory processes, cognitive capitalism, domestication, sovereignty, the immunitary paradigm of modern politics, the relationship of humans with others animals and with technology, the state of exception, and power/knowledge relationships (4,(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37). Such diversity brings ambivalence and contradiction as well as negative (marginalizing, excluding, repressing) and positive (affirmative, productive, empowering) perspectives.…”

Section: More-than-human Biopoliticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Health of Peripheries: Biopolitics, Social Determination, and Field of Praxis

Baquero

2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amid the urgency to solve countless and severe health problems, asking what is health or who can and must have it may seem like a waste of time. However, some responses can reveal prevailing practices that divert attention from fundamental problems, thus maintaining privileges and deepening health inequities. One Health of Peripheries arises from these questions and takes three interdependent senses. The first refers to attributes determining the well-being and suffering of peripheral multispecies collectives: a state, a process, the realization of capacities. The second problematizes marginalizing apparatuses that define health and who can and should have it. The third encompasses practices in more-than-human social spaces in which, and through which, One Health is experienced, understood, and transformed. The qualification of health as “one” does not refer to the lack of plurality, nor to the simple aggregation of health fragments (human + animal + environmental), but to the complexity of health in a field with peripheral places, ensuing from margins to privilege those who are inside and legitimize the exploitation of those who are outside. The interaction among margins creates degrees and kinds of privilege and vulnerability that materialize epidemiologic profiles while articulating different peripheral strengths and needs supports a collective resistance to break margins. Social determination, a key concept in the (Latin American) collective health movement, underlies such profiles. However, this movement overlooks the more-than-human dimension of social determination; that is to say, One Health of Peripheries is a blind spot of collective health. The cartography of One Health of Peripheries has unique needs regarding participation, research, and inclusive policies for the decolonial promotion of healthy lifestyles.

show abstract

Section: More-than-human Biopoliticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

One Health of Peripheries: Biopolitics, Social Determination, and Field of Praxis

Baquero

2021

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This problem is diagnosed as one rooted in a misreading of Foucault which "stresses the disciplining of subjects and the development of what are understood to be essentially repressive techniques." 25 In this way, biopolitics can slide into an essentially "negative" reading of power. For Asdal et al a biopolitical analytic informed by ANT helps to avert this by reading biopolitics as a methodological rather than philosophical injunction; that is, biopolitics is better understood as an invitation to trace how biopolitical collectives are formed, held together, stabilised and disassembled, rather than as a substantive assertion about anthropocentric biopolitics as pre-constituted or determinate.…”

Section: Reassembling Biopoliticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biopolitics and Becoming in Animal-Technology Assemblages

Nimmo

2019

HoST - Journal of History of Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically explores Foucauldian approaches to the human-animal-technology nexus central to modern industrialised agriculture, in particular those which draw upon Foucault’s conception of power as productive to posit the reconstitution of animal subjectivities in relation to changing agricultural technologies. This is situated in the context of key recent literature addressing animals and biopolitics, and worked through a historical case study of an emergent dairy technology. On this basis it is argued that such approaches contain important insights but also involve risks for the analyses of human-animal-technology relations, especially the risk of subsuming what is irreducible in animal subjectivity and agency under the shaping power of technologies conceived as disciplinary or biopolitical apparatuses. It is argued that this can be avoided by bringing biopolitical analysis into dialogue with currents from actor-network theory in order to trace the formation of biopolitical collectives as heterogeneous assemblages. Drawing upon documentary archive sources, the article explores this by working these different framings of biopolitics through a historical case study of the development of the first mechanical milking machines for use on dairy farms.

show abstract

“…In this section, we would like to focus on other forms of human power over animals that involve working with animals’ mobilities. Here we borrow from recent engagements in animal studies with Foucault’s concepts of disciplinary power and biopower (Chrulew and Wadiwel, 2016), where the former is concerned with human shaping of individual animal mobilities, while the latter focuses on the modification and modulation of aggregations of animal bodies and their collective properties (Biermann and Mansfield, 2014; Asdal et al, 2016). Those working in animal studies were initially wary of applying Foucauldian concepts of disciplinary power (and governmentality) to animals.…”

Section: How Animals’ Mobilities Are Governedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animals’ mobilities

Hodgetts¹,

Lorimer

2018

Progress in Human Geography

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper draws together animal and mobility studies to develop the concept of animals’ mobilities. It identifies the parallel intellectual interests in these fields that provide the intellectual foundations for this synthesis, in mobility (over movement), affect, relational space, and ordering practices. It explores what configures an animal’s mobility, knowledge practices for researching and evoking animals’ mobilities, and how animals’ mobilities are governed. The conclusion highlights what these fields gain from this synthesis, and identifies the empirical, political and conceptual contributions that this concept makes to geographical research. The argument is illustrated with examples of large, terrestrial mammals, especially bears.

show abstract

Introduction: The ‘More-Than-Human’ Condition

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

One Health of Peripheries: Biopolitics, Social Determination, and Field of Praxis

One Health of Peripheries: Biopolitics, Social Determination, and Field of Praxis

Biopolitics and Becoming in Animal-Technology Assemblages

Animals’ mobilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About