Invasive species in penguin worlds: An ethical taxonomy of killing for conservation

Dooren, Thom van

doi:10.4103/0972-4923.92140

Cited by 58 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Killing is not necessarily antithetical to care, as care is constituted by multiple objects and multiple subjectivities, “holding together that which does not necessarily hold together” (Law, , p. 10). As others have argued (van Dooren, ; Ginn et al., ), killing and death circulate alongside care in complex and/or awkward ways and for some to live and flourish may necessarily involve a constitutive violence. Animals have to be made “killable” (Crowley et al., ; Haraway, ) and death has to be constructed as valid (Meurk, ) in order for this complex ethical terrain to map onto effective and socially agreed management strategies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between disgust and indifference: Affective and emotional relations with carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia

Atchison

2019

Trans Inst British Geog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the product of not always rational human thought, emotions are either excluded from or considered to be barriers to effective invasive species management. In a context where fish are still disregarded, in this paper I consider the affective and emotional geographies of the world's most broadly distributed freshwater fish, carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia, in emerging sites of management that involve killing. Invasive species management is yet to reconcile emotion and the affective politics of killing invasive animals as a normative and ongoing practice of care for the environment. This paper advances animal geographies by developing a conceptual understanding of the biopolitics of invasive life and invasive species management by thinking through carp as affective and emotional subjects. To do this I look to feminist approaches that conceptualise emotion as relational, including Ahmed's analysis of emotion as movement, and visceral geographies' extension of embodied meaning-making beyond the human. Drawing on original empirical analysis of managing carp, I identify how carp are performed as collectively disgusting or monstrous objects and how emotions are submerged and people can become indifferent to, or "pull away" from, ethical deliberation. However, attending to affect and emotion beyond the human subject also allows carp to emerge as different kinds of "spooky" subjects who, through conflicting, constantly changing, and more-than-invasive relationships, resist singular and hegemonic understandings. Taking a feminist approach allows me to consider how carp have affective biopolitical agency, in life and death, across these multiple subjectivities with power to transform human relationships with nature by situating and re-engaging people in the problems of the world. Indeed, I argue that it is through the affective and emotional practices of managing carp that people might also begin to apprehend their responsibilities and limitations in the Anthropocene. K E Y W O R D S affect, carp (Cyprinus carpio), disgust, emotion, feminist methodology, invasive species management

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Between disgust and indifference: Affective and emotional relations with carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia

Atchison

2019

Trans Inst British Geog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, categorical 830 killing has been associated with the objectification and de-individualisation of those 831 killed, which can result in uncompassionate and even cruel practices. For example, 832 toads in Australia would "never be tolerated in relation to native or domestic animal 834 species" (p1278: see also Parker, 2007;Potts, 2009;van Dooren, 2011). However, 835 categorical approaches to management are more readily translated into policy and 836 law than the complex, context-dependent rationales of other modes, and lend 837 themselves to simple 'educational' messages and powerful rhetorical strategies.…”

Section: Concluding Discussion 756mentioning

confidence: 99%

Killing squirrels: Exploring motivations and practices of lethal wildlife management

Crowley

Hinchliffe

McDonald

2018

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

4Wildlife management, pest control and conservation projects often involve killing 5 nonhuman animals. In the United Kingdom, introduced grey squirrels Sciurus 6 carolinensis are killed in large numbers to protect remnant populations of European 7 red squirrels Sciurus vulgaris. Grey squirrels are also killed outside of red squirrel 8 areas to protect broadleaved trees from squirrel damage, and as part of routine pest 9 control, opportunistically, and sometimes recreationally. In order to investigate the 10 ways in which this killing is conceived and practised in the UK, we conducted semi-11 structured interviews with practitioners and undertook participant observation of 12 squirrel management activities, including lethal control. Analysing these field data, 13we identified important variations in practitioners' approaches to killing squirrels, and 14 here we outline three 'modes of killing' -reparative/sacrificial, stewardship, and 15 categorical -which comprise different primary motivations, moral principles, ultimate 16 aims, and practical methods. We explore both productive alliances and possible 17 tensions between these modes, and propose that clear, explicit consideration of how 18 and why animals are both killed and 'made killable' should be a key component of 19 any wildlife management initiative that involves lethal control. There's more than one way to kill a squirrel. In the United Kingdom (UK), people 24 bring about the deaths of thousands of grey squirrels Sciurus carolinensis every 25 year: in houses, gardens, barns and woodlands; on public and private land; and with 26 guns, traps, weighted priests, and water. Killing is an occasional pot-shot from the 27 window, or a full-time occupation; it is distressingly difficult and/or a matter of routine. 28 29The killing of nonhuman animals (hereafter 'animals') is ubiquitous in human 30 societies (The Animal Studies Group, 2006), and "fundamental to the creation of the 31 social order between sets of creatures" (Marvin, 2006, p20). Nevertheless, despite 32 an abundance of theoretical and philosophical discussions of the ethics of killing, 33 comparatively little empirical social scientific research has examined how nonhuman 34 killing is practised and performed. Exceptions include work in the 'domestic killing' 35 spaces of slaughterhouses, research laboratories and animal shelters, where people 36 who routinely kill animals face a range of psychological and emotional challenges 37 (Dillard, 2008;King, 2016), and anthropological research investigating hunting 38 practices amongst 'Western' and indigenous peoples, which indicates that 'wild 39 killing' can be experienced as positive and/or rewarding (Cartmill, 1993; Ingold, 40 2000;Knight, 2012;Marvin, 2010;Watson and Huntington, 2008). More recently, 41 there has been increasing academic interest in how killing and death "circulate 42 alongside care and life" (Ginn et al., 2014, p113), addressing the 'violent-care' of 43 killing in conservation (Clark, 2015;van Dooren, 2015), rescue shelter...

show abstract

“…Whether critical (Rose ) or in favor of eradication (Rolston ), work in the social sciences and humanities has implicitly shared this assumption— that eradication always works. Building on seminal work in environmental history (Cronon , ), scholars have argued that these interventions often hinge on a rigid temporal divide that separates nature (in the past, to be reverted to) and culture—the time when European settlers arrived (Brockington ; Low ; van Dooren ). To be sure, desires to eliminate all forms of anthropogenic nature sustain conservation on the Galápagos too: a World Wildlife Foundation report (Bensted‐Smith ) stated that conservation's goal is to revert ecosystems to their state prior to the islands’ discovery in 1534.…”

Section: Mattering Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be sure, desires to eliminate all forms of anthropogenic nature sustain conservation on the Galápagos too: a World Wildlife Foundation report (Bensted‐Smith ) stated that conservation's goal is to revert ecosystems to their state prior to the islands’ discovery in 1534. Environmental humanities scholars have mainly focused on the ethical implications, or lack thereof, of invasive‐species management (Clark ; Ginn, Beisel, and Barua ; van Dooren ). They have argued that the labeling of undesired animals and the practices that target them, such as invasive species or humane killing and euthanasia , obscures the moral implications of conservation (Clark ; van Dooren ).…”

Section: Mattering Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Environmental humanities scholars have mainly focused on the ethical implications, or lack thereof, of invasive‐species management (Clark ; Ginn, Beisel, and Barua ; van Dooren ). They have argued that the labeling of undesired animals and the practices that target them, such as invasive species or humane killing and euthanasia , obscures the moral implications of conservation (Clark ; van Dooren ). Though I second this line of critique, I investigate eradication not only for what it stands for but also for what it does.…”

Section: Mattering Carementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tangles of Care: Killing Goats to Save Tortoises on the Galápagos Islands

Bocci

2017

Cult. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If calls to care for other species multiply in a time of global and local environmental crisis, this article demonstrates that caring practices are not always as benevolent or irenic as imagined. To save endemic tortoises from the menace of extinction, Proyecto Isabela killed more than two hundred thousand goats on the Galápagos Islands in the largest mammal eradication campaign in the world. While anthropologists have looked at human engagements with unwanted species as habitual and even pleasurable, I discuss an exceptional intervention that was ethically inflected toward saving an endemic species, yet also controversial and distressing. Exploring eradication’s biological, ecological, and political implications and discussing opposing practices of care for goats among residents, I move past the recognition that humans live in a multispecies world and point to the contentious nature of living with nonhuman others. I go on to argue that realizing competing forms of care may help conservation measures—and, indeed, life in the Anthropocene—to move beyond the logic of success and failure toward an open-ended commitment to the more-than-human.

show abstract

Invasive species in penguin worlds: An ethical taxonomy of killing for conservation

Cited by 58 publications

References 45 publications

Between disgust and indifference: Affective and emotional relations with carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia

Between disgust and indifference: Affective and emotional relations with carp (Cyprinus carpio) in Australia

Killing squirrels: Exploring motivations and practices of lethal wildlife management

Tangles of Care: Killing Goats to Save Tortoises on the Galápagos Islands

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About