Views from many worlds: unsettling categories in interdisciplinary research on endemic zoonotic diseases

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research on zoonotic disease has tended to focus on ‘risk’ of disease transmission as a conceptual common denominator. With reference to endemic zoonoses at the livestock–human interface, we argue for considering a broader sweep of disciplinary insights from anthropology and other social sciences in interdisciplinary dialogue, in particular cross-cultural perspectives on human–animal engagement. We consider diverse worldviews where human–animal encounters are perceived of in terms of the kinds of social relations they generate, and the notion of culture is extended to the ‘natural’ world. This has implications for how animals are valued, treated and prioritized. Thinking differently with and about animals and about species' boundaries could enable ways of addressing zoonotic diseases which have closer integration with people's own cultural norms. If we can bring this kind of knowledge into One Health debates, we find ourselves with a multiplicity of worldviews, where bounded categories such as human:animal and nature:culture cannot be assumed. This might in turn influence our scientific ways of seeing our own disciplinary cultures, and generate novel ways of understanding zoonoses and constructing solutions.This article is part of the themed issue ‘One Health for a changing world: zoonoses, ecosystems and human well-being’.

Risk practices for bovine tuberculosis transmission to cattle and livestock farming communities living at wildlife-livestock-human interface in northern KwaZulu Natal, South Africa

“…The poor practices might also be linked to the socio-economic status of the farmers whereby soured milk is readily available and cheap. Indeed, in contexts of fragile livelihoods, disease risk might not be people's sole concern, or they might not have the resources to take up protection measures such as wearing protective clothing during slaughter [40]. The groups that were dominated by males, i.e.…”

Risk practices for bovine tuberculosis transmission to cattle and livestock farming communities living at wildlife-livestock-human interface in northern KwaZulu Natal, South Africa

“…The poor practices might also be linked to the socio-economic status of the farmers whereby soured milk is readily available and cheap. Indeed, in contexts of fragile livelihoods, disease risk might not be people’s sole concern, or they might not have the resources to take up protection measures such as wearing protective clothing during slaughter [34]. The groups that were dominated by males, i.e.…”

“…Using disease risk as a departure point in One Health studies of zoonoses is very pertinent as reducing risk has a real public health, economic and social rationales. However, it is very important to avoid that people’s cultural logics or social practices are cast in negative terms, as ignorance or superstition, or behaviors that exacerbate risk and require changing [34]. Furthermore, how risk is perceived by livestock owners or by animal and human health workers are not necessarily the same [50].…”

One Health for a changing world: new perspectives from Africa

“…Embracing uncertainty-and indeed ignorance-and avoiding closing down around narrowly specified risk predictions can enhance a more productive debate about alternatives [42], allowing, as McGregor & Waldman [30] suggest, 'a view from different worlds', and not just one. As Waltner-Toews [43] argues in this Special Issue, when system complexity cannot be reduced to quantitative frameworks, complementary narrative approaches can be useful to uncover uncertainties and complexities, and explore complex processes of change.…”

“…and 'whose health?' policy is aimed at focuses attention on gender dynamics and wider social inequalities, as well as the cultural and social dimensions of disease response and health-seeking behaviours [30].…”