No longer the lonely species: a post‐mead perspective on animals and sociology

Abstract

Society’s relations to animals pose possible blind spots in sociological theory that may be revealed and illuminated by studying systems of human‐animal interaction. By investigating whether and how animals enter into key processes that shape self and society we may determine the ways in which animals might be included in the core subject matter of sociology. An earlier discussion of the role of animals in sociology initiated by Weber is reviewed. Issues that debate raised about the extent of linguistically‐mediated human‐animal intersubjectivity are updated. It is in principle difficult to rule out animal languages, and some animals have acquired human language. But sociology may follow a more fecund empirical route by examining successful human‐animal performances produced by enduring interspecies relationships. Following this route, this paper specifically argues that the human self should be seen to take root in the available mixed species community. To show this, the work of G.H. Mead is revisited and corrected in light of recent work on early human development, and conceptual analyses of language, the body, and the self. The formation of the self is not dependent on only linguistic exchanges; a nonverbal nonhuman other can contribute to the self‐reflective sense of being a human self. Based on this reasoning, examples of studies of humans with wild and domestic animals illustrate the potential for a human‐animal sociology.

Trust in Interspecies Sport

“…Scholars (Arluke & Sanders, 1996;Myers, 2003) have argued against this claim and illustrating that animals are capable of symbolic interaction is not my objective in this paper. I apply Mead's (1934) theory as a means of outlining interactional trust in the context of interspecies relations and argue that although this form of trust is sufficient for recreational horseback riding, in competitive equestrian sport, system trust is also required.…”

“…This line is represented by language, which has allowed humans but not animals to engage in intersubjectivity, or the use of the conscious mind. Scholars (Arluke & Sanders, 1996;Myers, 2003) have disputed Mead's claim that animals are incapable of symbolic interaction. Myers (2003) explains that intersubjective understanding across species is possible and the requirements for language-use are not distinctly human.…”

“…Scholars (Arluke & Sanders, 1996;Myers, 2003) have disputed Mead's claim that animals are incapable of symbolic interaction. Myers (2003) explains that intersubjective understanding across species is possible and the requirements for language-use are not distinctly human. Systems with linguistic properties have been documented in a variety of different species (Myers, 2003).…”

Budgie smuggling or doing bird? Human-animal interactions in carceral space: prison(er) animals as abject and subject

“…Prison dogs may experience prison programming in much the same way as domestic dogs experience being family pets, benefitting from human company and engaging in the kind of kinaesthetic empathy widely observed amongst companion dogs (e.g. Myers, 2003). In a rare study of the effects on the dogs themselves, Hennessy, Morris, and Linden (2006) found positive behavioural outcomes for shelter dogs in a prison socialisation program.…”

Pet therapy con adolescenti nel contesto familiare

“…Diversamente, Collins (1989) rifiuta tale assunto, affermando la distinzione tra interazioni tra esseri umani e gli altri animali non umani. Durante l'ultima decade affiorano diversi tentativi di cambiamento di tale prospettiva antropocentrica: Sanders (2003), insieme ad altri studiosi (Arluke 2003;Alger & Alger 1997;Myers 2003), afferma la non legittimità dello studio della natura di tale interazione in ambito sociologico, per collocarla piuttosto entro un approccio di studio fenomenologico e etno-metodologico che configura la mente come una costruzione sociale piuttosto che come un dato meramente biologico, ove il mondo sociale rappresenterebbe l'esito di un'esperienza intersoggettiva (Coulter 1989). Tale approccio, che vede un mondo intersoggettivamente costruito, include anche la presenza degli animali all'interno della cultura umana aprendo alla possibilità di potere studiare il loro ruolo nella società attraverso l'interazione uomo-animale: l'agire con gli animali è concepito come un incontro tra due mentalità interagenti (Taylor, 2007).…”