This paper focuses on sociology and the study of human non-human animal relations. Using as a catalyst referees' comments on a previous paper about experiments using non-human animal subjects, in this present paper three problematics are identified and discussed. These problematics centre on the ‘acceptable’ content of sociological inquiry, the ‘permissibility’ of advocacy-oriented sociology, and the ‘admissibility’ of non-human animal-advocacy to advocacy-oriented sociology. The three problematics are explored through the lens of reflexive and critical sociology. Two central questions are raised: first, should sociology include the study of nonhuman animals and secondly, can sociology advocate for non-human animals? The paper concludes with an affirmative response to both of these questions. The paper ends by stressing that sociology has so much to offer the study of human non-human animal relations. Professional sociologists have a key role to play in enabling this work to move from margins to centre in published sociology.
AdamsC., (1995), Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals, New York: Continuum.
2.
AlgerJ.M. and AlgerS., (2003), ‘Drawing the line’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23 (3): 69–93.
3.
ArlukeA., (2002), ‘A sociology of sociological animal studies’, Society and Animals, 10 (4): 369–374.
4.
ArlukeA. and SandersC., (1996), Regarding Animals, Philadelphia: Temple University.
5.
BeckerH.S., (1967), ‘Whose side are we on?’Social Problems, 14: 239–247.
6.
BentonT., (1993), Natural Relationships, Ecology, Social Justice and Animal Rights, London: Verso.
7.
BlumF.H., (1964), ‘C Wright Mills: social conscience and social values’, in HorowitzI.L. (ed.), The New Sociology: Essays in Social Science and Social Theory in Honor of C. Wright Mills, 162–180, New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
BryantC.D., (1979), ‘The zoological connection: animal-related human behavior’, Social Forces, 58 (2): 399–421.
9.
BrymanA., (2008), Social Research Methods, 3rd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.
BurawoyM., (2005), ‘2004 American Sociological Association Presidential address: for public sociology’, The British Journal of Sociology, 56 (2): 259–294.
11.
BusfieldJ., (2006), ‘Pills, power, people: sociological understandings of the pharmaceutical industry’, Sociology, 40 (2): 297–314.
12.
CharlesN. and SmithD., (2010), ‘Editorial introduction: imagining the political’,The Sociological Review, 58 (4): 527–529.
13.
ColeE.R., (2009), ‘Intersectionality and research in psychology’, American Psychologist, 64 (3): 170–180.
14.
ComteA., (1975 [1851–54]), Auguste Comte and Positivism: The Essential Writings, ed. LenzerGertrude, New York: Harper Torchbooks.
15.
CudworthE., (2011), Social Lives with Other Animals: Tales of Sex, Death and Love, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
DupreJ., (2004), ‘Human kinds and biological kinds: some similarities and differences’, Philosophy of Science, 71 (5): 892–900.
17.
FranklinA., (1999), Animals and Modern Culture, London: Sage.
18.
GouldnerA.W., (1964), ‘Anti-Minotaur: the myth of a value-free sociology’, in HorowitzI.L. (ed.), The New Sociology: Essays in Social Science and Social Theory in Honor of C. Wright Mills, 196–217, New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
GouldnerA.W., (1970), The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, New York: Basic Books.
20.
GouldnerA.W., (1975), For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
21.
GuoG., (2006), ‘The linking of sociology and biology’, Social Forces, 85 (1): 145–149.
HardingS. and NorbergK., (2005), ‘New feminist approaches to social science methodologies: an introduction’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30 (4): 2009–2015.
24.
HarawayD.J., (1991), Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Press.
25.
HaylesN., (1999), How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
HollandsR. and StanleyL., (2009), ‘Rethinking “current crisis” arguments: Gouldner and the legacy of critical sociology’, Sociological Research Online, 14 (1): 1, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/1/1.html
27.
HorowitzI.L., (1971), ‘An introduction to The New Sociology’, in HorowitzI.L. (ed.), The New Sociology: Essays in Social Science and Social Theory in Honor of C. Wright Mills, 3–48, New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
HorowitzI.L., (1993), The Decomposition of Sociology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
IrvineL., (2003), ‘George's bulldog: what Mead's canine companion could have told him about the self’, Sociological Origins, 3 (1): 46–49.
30.
IrvineL., (2007), ‘The question of animal selves: implications for sociological knowledge and practice’, Qualitative Sociology Review, 3 (1): 5–22.
31.
KirkJ.A. and MillerM., (1986), Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research, London: Sage.
32.
KruseC.R., (2002), ‘Social animals: animal studies and sociology’, Society and Animals, 10 (4), 375–379.
33.
MeadG.H., (1934), Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist, ed. MorrissCharles W., Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
MillsC.W., (1970 [1959]), The Sociological Imagination, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
35.
NibertD., (2002), Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglement of Oppression and Liberation, Rowna and Littlefield: Plymouth.
36.
NibertD., (2003), ‘Humans and other animals: sociology's moral and intellectual challenge’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23 (3): 5–25.
37.
PeggsK., (2010), ‘Nonhuman animal experiments in the European Community: human values and rational choice’, Society and Animals, 18 (1): 1–20.
38.
PeggsK., (2012), Animals and Sociology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
PhiloC., (1998), ‘Animals, geography, and the city: notes on inclusions and exclusions’, in EmelJ.W. (ed.), Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands, 51–71, London and New York: Verso.
40.
RapoportA., (1964), ‘The scientific relevance of C Wright Mills’, in HorowitzI.L. (ed.), The New Sociology: Essays in Social Science and Social Theory in Honor of C. Wright Mills, 94–107, New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
SmithD.E., (1987), The Everyday World as Problematic, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
42.
StanleyL., (2000), ‘For sociology, Gouldner's and ours’, in ElderidgeJ.M.J. (ed.), For Sociology: Legacies and Prospects, 56–82, Durham: Sociology Press.
43.
StraussA., (1964), George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
TwineR., (2010), Animals as Biotechnology: Ethics, Sustainability and Critical Animal Studies, London: Earthscan.
45.
WilkieR.M., (2010), Livestock/Deadstock: Food Animals, Ambiguous Relationships, and Productive Contexts: Working with Farm Animals from Birth to Slaughter, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
46.
WilkinsonS. and KitzingerC., (1996), Representing the Other: A Feminism and Psychology Reader, London: Sage.
47.
WilsonE.O., (1978), On Human Nature, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
WolfeC., (2010), What Is Posthumanism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
