When Disaster Hits, Dissonance Fades

Abstract

This chapter develops understanding of human-animal work (HAW). Work with animals may include ‘dirty work’ laced by physical, social, moral, and emotional taints such as killing those cared for. Much animal care-based work includes a work calling to help animals while the reality can be conflictual for workers, creating paradox and dissonance. The chapter is based on an insider affective multispecies ethnography in an animal shelter when a sudden natural disaster hit the shelter, flooding the organization and forcing a sudden evacuation of animals and humans. The crisis reframed wellbeing for the multispecies organizational actors, leading to less dissonance as callings were enacted in that workers could save more animals than prior to the crisis. The chapter argues that wellbeing, especially in multispecies organizations, is entangled across species barriers. Adopting a posthumanist framing, the chapter argues for a need for multispecies organizations (especially those in the animal welfare sector), to better consider their organizational processes and policies through a lens of interconnected wellbeing among human and animal actors.

“I prefer working with mares, like women, difficult in character but go the extra mile”: A study of multiple inequalities in equine (sports) business

“…And yet, there was little to no questioning of human's right to own and ride horses. In fact, the question “whether they believed horses were equal to men?”, a question aimed at giving space to horse agency and individuality in a post‐humanist spirit (Tallberg & Hamilton, 2022), surprised and confused many of the interviewees. Denise explains how “ we ride them, we use them, we have fun with them, whereas with humans, say with a friend, I wouldn't be able to use them to my own benefit, would I?…”

“…Despite the numerous interesting stretches made by Ackerians, analyses so far have remained “single‐species” and anthropocentric, ignoring the important work animals do everyday side by side with humans. Consequently, here, we also consider relevant work in “animal organization studies” (Tallberg & Hamilton, 2022).…”

“…Yet scholars in gender, work, and organization are increasingly moving away from single‐species research (Clarke & Knights, 2019; Coulter & Fitzgerald, 2019; Finkel & Danby, 2019). The foundational work on animal organization studies (Tallberg & Hamilton, 2022) explores the complex entanglements and interactions that constitute multispecies encounters (Connolly, 2022; Dashper, 2014). Largely written from a posthumanist perspective, this literature further problematizes human/animal dualisms and unequal power relations, seeking to move beyond anthropocentrism.…”

Towards a biosocial turn in management and organization research? Proposals for a paradigm shift

“…The Handbook gives valuable insights and proposals on how to include multispecies of life in organization studies. In this approach, where ‘the relation to the animal as the primary ethical relationship’ (Tallberg and Hamilton, 2022: 11), more nuanced and complex analysis is necessary. The risk in animal-centred studies of organizations is that one’s perception may remain rooted in an anthropomorphic approach to nature, focusing only on certain parts of non-human life.…”

Avoiding unnecessary suffering: Towards a moral minimum standard for humans' responsibility for animal welfare

“…Linking the moral value of human behavior solely to its impact on, or relationship with, other humans—regardless of whether those humans have already been born or not—might also be interpreted as “speciesism”: that is, “the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species” (Horta, 2010, p. 1). Although animals can be considered dependent stakeholders (Janssens, 2022), or “defenseless Others” (Hatami & Firoozi, 2019), with legitimate claims to living well, it would appear that in the debate on animal welfare, human welfare is accorded considerably more weight, and it is the human species that is seen as deserving of greater attention when assessing the moral value of “responsible” human behavior towards animals (Browning, 2023; Labatut et al, 2016; Mellahi & Wood, 2005; Sayers et al, 2019, 2021; Tallberg et al, 2021; Tallberg & Hamilton, 2022; Thomas, 2022b).…”