Abstract
Sociologists have contributed to the development of the animal studies field in recent decades. However, many of these ventures have been anthropocentric, stopping short of sociological calls for animal liberation despite the fact that critical sociological concepts are often the (unspoken) antecedents of such work. Here, we present a systematic review of peer-reviewed sociological articles on human–animal relationships since 1979. Our analysis identified key themes supporting charges of anthropocentrism, but also aspects of politicised animal sociology. Based on this we call for sociological animal studies to incorporate a specifically Emancipatory Animal Sociology: an approach grounded in a social justice and emancipatory praxis that explicitly and critically engages with the material conditions of animals’ lives, taking into account the experiences and knowledge of activists and others working directly with animals and, where possible, centres the animals themselves.
Recent decades have seen the development of the field of animal studies. At its broadest this is an interest in human–animal relations that draws from multiple disciplines across the arts, humanities and social sciences (DeMello, 2012; Taylor, 2013). Sociology has played, and continues to play, a key role in this development, contributing theoretical, conceptual, empirical and, to a lesser extent, methodological insights that continue to enliven the field and test its boundaries (e.g. Arluke and Sanders, 1996; Crist, 1999; Flynn, 2012; Hamilton and Taylor, 2017). Similarly, the inclusion of a focus on other species in sociology also tests disciplinary boundaries in return, particularly in terms of problematising the binary assumptions that often underpin mainstream sociological thinking (e.g. social versus natural; human versus animal). In this respect sociological animal studies contributes to, and draws on, an intellectual legacy of critical theory including, but not limited to, (eco)feminism, actor–network theory and posthumanism.
While much of this work contains an implied criticism of the ways humans treat and impact other species, it often stops short of calling for advocacy on their behalf, possibly because of sociology’s difficult and contested history regarding what constitutes ‘knowledge’ and/or legitimate areas of study (Becker, 1967). We address this here by considering the kinds of sociological animal studies done to date before making our case for an Emancipatory Animal Sociology that has, as its central focus, advocacy for other species. We define advocacy in a broad sense, in terms of making animal lives better by identifying, challenging and ultimately preventing human (ab)uses of other animals, while recognising that this is a necessarily simplistic definition and not unproblematic. We argue from the position that all research is political, in that it either challenges or perpetuates normative relations, in this case, oppressive relations with nonhuman animals, thus researchers must carefully consider the positioning of their endeavours. In many ways our arguments echo those of Becker (1967) and Gouldner (1971) in that we are arguing against an ‘academic sociology’ and for an advocacy-based sociology where researchers acknowledge their own values and ethical positions. As Laue (1989: 110) argues ‘there are no neutrals in terms of their impact on given power configurations, and any sociologist claiming to be “neutral” in anything other than the strictest technical sense is naive, misinformed, and/or devious’. However, we extend this to other species in ways that these previous considerations did not. 1
The sociological animal studies field
While there were early arguments that sociological inattention to other species was the result of anthropocentrism (Bain, 1929), the few calls made to include other species in sociological understandings went largely unheeded until the late 1970s. Many sociologists working in the animal studies field read this back to Mead’s (1934) assertion that symbolic interaction could only take place when interactants possess a sense of self – and language to communicate about it – and moreover that only (adult) humans could possess this necessary sense of self (e.g. Carter and Charles, 2018; Irvine, 2008; Myers, 2003; Peggs, 2013; Wilkie, 2015a). However, Carter and Charles (2018: 81) note that this reflects the importance of symbolic interactionism to studies of human–animal relations in the US and is a narrow reading inasmuch as the whole sociological canon is based on human exceptionalism. They point out that it is unsurprising that sociology historically ignored other species given its dual preoccupations with distancing itself from biology and in understanding a social order constituted in terms of human social action.
In 1979, Clifton Bryant in his presidential address to the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society pointed out that: Sociologists … have tended not to recognize, to overlook, to ignore, or to neglect (some critics might say deservedly so) the influence of animals, or their import for, our social behavior, our relationships with other humans, and the directions which our social enterprise often takes. (1979: 399)
This is largely taken as the first (heeded) call for a distinctly sociological animal studies (Irvine, 2008; Peggs, 2012; Sanders, 2003). However, sociological animal studies did not begin to develop until a few decades later.
In the intervening years, the field of human–animal studies saw considerable growth with dedicated journals like Anthrozoös and Society and Animals being established (in 1987 and 1992 respectively). Wilkie (2014: 14–15) argues that a confluence of events led to the rise of human–animal studies: (1) an interest in animal-assisted therapies following the pioneering work of Levinson (1978), (2) the rise of the animal liberation movement and attendant philosophical considerations of the rights of other species, largely credited to the publication of Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975), 2 (3) developments in animal science demonstrating animal intelligence, sentience, emotion and communication disseminated to an interested public through television documentaries, and (4) food scares in the 1980s and 1990s that increased interest/concern in animal agriculture.
Sociologists contributed to the early growth of human–animal studies (e.g. Benton, 1993) but it wasn’t until at least the late 1990s/early 2000s that sociological animal studies could be considered a field within the discipline. This takes the growth of articles published in the discipline (see Figure 1) and the establishment of animal studies streams in professional sociological associations (e.g., American Sociological Association [2002], British Sociological Association [2006]) as markers. Sociological animal studies are theoretically and methodologically diverse and span the ideological spectrum with some drawing on critical and/or feminist ideas to advance an advocacy agenda (e.g. Cudworth, 2016; Nibert, 2003; Peggs, 2013; Taylor and Twine, 2014), while others instead contribute to empirical and/or theoretical considerations of other animals (e.g. Blok, 2007; Cerulo, 2009; Jerolmack, 2007). Cudworth (2016: 243) draws a distinction between a sociology which includes nonhuman animals, and ‘sociological animal studies which raises questions about the exploitation and oppression of non-human animals and is more reflective of critical traditions in sociological enquiry’. This distinction reflects a split in the human–animal studies (HAS) field generally, which provides important context for the politicisation (or lack thereof) in sociological animal studies discussed in later sections of the paper.
Number of articles by year.
Broader context: the animal studies field
Human–animal studies is effectively an umbrella term, encompassing a broad array of philosophical and ideological positions. The field is an increasingly fractured one, with ideological, political and/or methodological differences. As Wilkie (2015b: 212) notes, the tensions within the field are associated with ‘(1) the extent to which nonhuman animal scholars should be engaged with emancipatory-type research and (2) the emergence of the “animal as such–animal as constructed” axis’. These fractures have resulted in the emergence of different terminologies denoting particular approaches to the ‘question of the animal’, notably a mainstream/anthrozoological approach and critical/praxis 3 approaches which we introduce below.
Anthrozoology tends towards a scientific, often positivist, framing of human relations with other species. Work in this tradition is often anthropocentric, for example assessing the utility of animal-assisted therapies for specific groups of humans (e.g. O’Haire et al., 2013). Asymmetrical power between humans and other species tends not to be a focus with mainstream work, often positioning itself as the ‘reasonable and credible’ (i.e. politically neutral) counterpart to critical, activist scholarship (Wilkie, 2015a: 222).
Critical/praxis approaches almost exclusively focus on asymmetrical power relations between species. They are firmly located in the idea of activist scholarship and devoted to understanding, in order to stop, the mechanisms that allow humans to oppress and abuse other species (Nocella et al., 2014). A key idea in this tradition, drawing on ecofeminism, is that of intersecting oppressions, particularly between women, animals and nature (Taylor and Twine, 2014). Those working in this area often self-identify as ‘critical animal studies’ scholars and work in this area has, for example, drawn attention to similarities between the caged bodies of nonhuman and human animals (Morin, 2015).
Sociological animal studies, reflective of the broader field in which they are situated, similarly gravitate towards either mainstream or critical approaches, with existing overviews of the field highlighting key examples of both (see, for example, Carter and Charles, 2018; Cudworth, 2016; Wilkie, 2015a). However, the exact spread of peer-reviewed, sociological literature has not yet been systematically charted. To this end, our article has two main objectives. First, to map existing sociological animal studies efforts through a systematic review of relevant literature, identifying and analysing patterns within the body of work identified by the review. Second, to suggest fruitful ways forward for sociological animal studies, bearing in mind the gaps identified by the systematic review. We build on the notion of a sociology for animals, one that includes advocating for other species (Cudworth, 2016; Peggs, 2012, 2013), concluding with a call for an Emancipatory Animal Sociology that holds at its core a central commitment to identifying, challenging and ultimately removing the structures that maintain the oppressive positioning of animals in society.
Method
We conducted a systematic review of the literature following the procedures for critical reviews outlined in Xiao and Watson (2017).
Formulating the research problem
Given that Bryant’s 1979 address is widely recognised as one of the first calls for sociologists to consider other animals in their scholarship (Irvine, 2008; Peggs, 2012; Sanders, 2003), we opted to use this as our starting date in the search parameters. Our research question was: what is the treatment of animals in sociological literature from 1979 to present (11 April 2018)? We then devised a protocol for the data search and analysis that was agreed upon by both researchers before execution (Xiao and Watson, 2017).
Searching the literature
Both authors – who identify with critical and liberationist approaches to animal studies – are familiar with the field, collectively devised search terms thought likely to encapsulate the breadth of sociological animal studies works. These terms were tested in an initial database search (ProQuest) to make sure the search did not exclude any notable texts we had expected to find. The search was then expanded to Scopus, Social Science Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science and Wiley Online Library. Boolean terms used were: Human–Animal OR Humanimal OR Animal* OR multi-species OR multi-species OR nonhuman OR pet OR pets AND (Sociolog*). Articles were further limited to the dates 1979 to the present, and to those in English, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. The title and abstract fields were searched for relevant terms. The one exception was Web of Science, which did not have an abstract option so a general search was performed. The 2082 results that were imported to EndNote were as follows Scopus = 914; ProQuest = 394; Social Science Abstracts = 77; Sociological Abstracts = 199; Web of Science = 497; Wiley Online Library = 1.
Screening for inclusion
We then determined which articles should be included in our analysis. All duplicates (n = 626) were removed leaving 1456 articles. Remaining articles were analysed by both authors to assess if they met the inclusion criteria that (1) animals were a focus, and (2) they were sociological in nature. This removed articles that mentioned the term ‘animal’ without having a focus on nonhuman animals, for instance in describing ‘the human animal’, and those that did not have sociological content, for example, mentioning sociology as a contributing discipline to the growth of animal studies, but with no further mention of sociology. We deliberately excluded papers that had an environmental focus that did not address animals specifically, theoretically oriented papers that used animals as an example to discuss human behaviour, articles addressing veganism and identity or veganism and the sociology of food, sociological considerations of animal-based careers, and articles focusing on animal rights/advocacy social movements to the extent that these did not specifically include discussion of animals.
The remaining 139 articles therefore had one or more of the following characteristics: Sociological articles that addressed (1) nonhuman animals directly, (2) human experiences with nonhuman animals, (3) human attitudes towards nonhuman animals and (4) a sociology of nonhuman animals.
Assessing quality
We were unable to find the full text for 7 of the 139 articles, leaving 132 articles. A further 21 were cut from the sample after a full reading when they were found to be either non-sociological or did not significantly focus on animals (or both). This left 111 articles in the final sample (see Appendix 1 for a list of journals included in the sample).
Extracting data
Both researchers undertook a thematic analysis (Suri and Clarke, 2009; Xiao and Watson, 2017) of the remaining articles using NVivo 12 Pro. We deductively determined in advance the majority of the codes we would use (e.g. animal type). However, some codes were inductively created as the coding unfolded (e.g. topic focus – animal abuse, media representation, etc.).
Articles were coded according to the ‘animal type’ and the ‘topic’ they focused on as well as their (1) focus: anthropocentric, animal-centric or mixed animal/anthropocentric, (2) political orientation: politicised, depoliticised or mixed politicised/depoliticised, and (3) approach: empirical or theoretical in orientation, subcoded for method (e.g. interviews) and/or primary theoretical orientation (e.g. actor–network theory).
Articles were coded as animal-centric (n = 5; 5%) 4 if they explicitly focused on nonhuman animals, either considering issues from the position of the animals involved (e.g. Atkinson’s [2014] attempt to write from the perspective of the terrier dogs in his study) and/or methodological attempts to understand the inner lives of animals by specifically including them. For instance, Alger and Alger’s (1999) ethnographic study of a cat shelter explored the inner world of cats by observing how they negotiate their preferences with humans through interaction.
Articles were coded anthropocentric (n = 68; 61%) if they did not focus on animal perspectives, and instead centred human experiences (or constructions) of human–animal relationships. For example, Irvine’s (2013) consideration of how homeless people construct their animals as ‘lifesavers’ or ‘lifechangers’. Similarly, those articles that argued for the tacking on of animals to existing theoretical frameworks, without specifically considering the position of the animals, were coded anthropocentric (e.g. Carmeli, 2002). Many articles were mixed with a focus on both human and nonhuman animals’ perspectives, for example Ashal and Hobson-West’s (2017) consideration of canine blood donations that focused on both the good for other dogs and for humans who were ‘doing good by proxy’, and they were accordingly coded ‘mixed animal/anthropocentric’ (n = 38; 34%).
We coded as politicised (n = 20; 18%) articles that included overt or explicit calls to acknowledge, challenge and/or change the systemic material, and embodied oppression of nonhuman animals (e.g. Cudworth, 2016). Articles in this category tended to be located within emancipatory politics and theory and recognised the political nature of all research in either challenging or maintaining oppressive power structures. For example, Nibert’s (2003: 6, 21) critique of ‘the reluctance of most sociologists to recognize the elite-driven arrangements that oppress other animals’, and subsequent call for a paradigm shift in sociology that ‘should begin by treating other animals as subjects’. We coded as depoliticised (n = 72; 65%) articles that did not explicitly challenge and/or acknowledge the systemic material oppression of nonhuman animals (e.g. Sanders, 2007), or where challenges to the experiences of nonhuman animal lives were framed in welfarist terms that did not attempt to problematise the ideology of human supremacy over and/or use of nonhuman animals. For instance, Franklin’s (2006: 154) account of posthumanist housing highlights examples of multi-species cohabitation where ‘circumstances are not such that animals cannot express agency or that humans cannot relate to them as significant others’, concluding that ‘[h]umans and animals appear to make very good companions to each other’ while neglecting to acknowledge the structural oppression of nonhuman animals that makes these relationships possible.
Nineteen papers (17%) explicitly challenged or highlighted the systemic oppression of nonhuman animals while at the same time reinforcing normative attitudes or practices. These were coded as ‘mixed politicised/depoliticised’. For example, Alger and Alger (1999) in their ethnographic study of a free-roaming cat shelter explicitly challenge the construction of cats as non-minded beings, but do not problematise normative petkeeping practices.
Analysing and synthesising data
Once the data was extracted we analysed our findings using NVivo 12 Pro to generate coding matrices and crosstabs. The results of our analysis will be explored in greater detail in the section that follows, and directions for future research will be discussed as we argue for the development of an Emancipatory Animal Sociology, one that actively and overtly advocates for nonhuman animals.
Limitations
A notable limitation to this method is that it does not include book chapters and/or books, as many of the databases searched do not cover them. It may be that more critical and/or radical statements are made in books or book chapters, particularly early in the development of new fields of research (Taylor and Fitzgerald, 2018). While certainly an important area for future study, this exclusion should not detract from the value of the current project, which maps the field of peer-reviewed journal articles – often held up as the most highly prized of research outputs in research metrics. We base this on the fact that many rankings only include peer-reviewed articles and actively exclude books and/or book chapters (ARWU, 2016). Generally, patterns in research published in these places (of any discipline/field) highlight important trends in the research ‘accepted’ into mainstream academic discourse, opening up potential future avenues to analyse how these might compare to research pushed to the ‘fringes’ in niche (but still academic) publications (e.g. Journal for Critical Animal Studies).
The treatment of animals in sociological literature since 1979
Our search shows a steady growth in the number of sociological articles that consider nonhuman animals as a central topic. Prior to 1997, articles were sporadic with only 1 in 1979, 1 in 1981, 1 in 1987, 2 in 1993, and 1 in 1994. From 1997 articles were published every year with the exception of 2001 and 2004, and there is a general upward trend over time, with publications increasing to as many as 10 (2012 and 2015) or 11 (2013) per year, see Figure 1.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the majority of articles were depoliticised (65%), in that they did not focus on the systemic material oppression of nonhuman animals. While that number appears to be growing over time, this is consistent with the growth of the number of articles published by year. Politicised papers appear to trend upwards over time slightly, which is likely a function of the establishment and growth of the sub-field of critical animal studies (from c. 2001). It is also likely that as the general field of animal studies has become more accepted in scholarly and sociological circles, scholars are able to find journals willing to publish more critical work.
Political orientation by year.
The majority of the papers were coded as anthropocentric (n = 68, 61%) with only five papers (5%) offering animal-centric perspectives. Many papers (n = 38, 34%) were mixed, for example Moore’s (2015: 890) work on horseshoe crabs that led to her becoming ‘more attuned to the crabness of these animals (what they are in and for themselves) and displaced, somewhat, my instrumental view of crabs (what are crabs to humans)’. While seemingly animal- (or crab-) centred, the stated aims of the article – to acquire knowledge for humans to inform accommodation of crabs and ‘other objects’ and contribute to multi-species ethnography – contain anthropocentric elements.
As can be seen in Figure 3, there is no apparent pattern over time to the animal-centric papers. This is due to the small portion of the sample that met the criteria (n = 5). Anthropocentric and mixed articles appear to follow the general upward trend reflecting more articles being published over time, with anthropocentric articles increasing at a slightly higher rate. Post-2005 there is a general upward trend in mixed articles that may be connected to the growth of politicised articles identified in Figure 2. However, anthropocentric articles notably remain the majority.
Focus by year.
Articles were also coded according to the kind of nonhuman animal(s) focused upon with companion animals (n = 37; 33%), free-living animals (i.e. ‘wild’) (n = 13; 12%), and animals exploited in circuses (n = 1; 1%), ‘farms’ (n = 16; 14%), laboratories (n = 3; 3%), and sport (n = 6; 5%) all being a central or sole focus of various articles. Articles that instead focused more generally on the sociological aspects of human relations with nonhuman animals (such as Nibert, 2003, outlined above) were coded as ‘general’ (n = 35; 31%). Companion animal and general animal papers were published most consistently over time. With the exception of 2010, in which no general papers were published, both categories have produced at least one paper per year since 2006. Both companion animal and general papers have steadily increased since 1979, with companion animal figures sitting slightly higher (<2 papers difference between them). The exceptions are 2003, when six general animal papers were published to one companion animal paper, and 2017 when six companion animal papers were published to two general animal papers. The next closest category of comparison was ‘farmed’ animal papers which have also increased on average over time but were published far more sporadically.
We also considered whether animal type affected whether the article was anthropocentric, animal-centric or mixed. Companion animals were the focus of most papers where an animal type was specified (n = 37). Within these papers the approach was predominantly anthropocentric (n = 29; 78%), with six articles (16%) coded as mixed and two (5%) coded as animal-centric. Articles with a general animal focus (n = 35) were slightly more likely to have a mixed (49%; n = 17) rather than anthropocentric (46%; n = 16) focus, with animal-centrism still rare (6%; n = 2). Articles that focused on ‘farmed’ or ‘free-living’ animals were more likely to be anthropocentric (56%; n = 9/54%; n = 7 respectively) than mixed (44%; n = 7/39%; n = 5 respectively) or animal-centric (0%; n = 0/8%; n = 1 respectively). Other animal types more or less followed this pattern but due to the low number of sources in the sample it is difficult to classify this as a trend.
The political slant of articles tended to follow a similar, though not identical, pattern. Companion animal articles were overwhelmingly depoliticised (87%; n = 32) rather than politicised (3%; n = 1) or mixed (11%; n = 4). General animal articles were more likely to be politicised (43%; n = 15), with 40% (n = 14) coded as depoliticised and 17% (n = 6) as mixed. ‘Farmed’ and ‘free-living’ animal papers were more likely to be depoliticised (both 69%; n = 11/9 respectively) than politicised (13%; n = 2/8%; n = 1 respectively) or mixed (19%; n = 3/23%; n = 3 respectively).
As can be seen in Figure 4, while there is a correlation between anthropocentrism and a depoliticised stance, and between animal-centrism and increased politicisation, this wasn’t clear cut. While anthropocentric papers were overwhelmingly depoliticised (84%; n = 57) with only 3% coded as politicised (n = 2) and 13% as mixed (n = 9), animal-centric papers were still equally as likely to be depoliticised (40%; n = 2) or politicised (40%; n = 2), with 20% coded as mixed (n = 1). The articles coded most as politicised were those that were a mixture of anthropocentric and animal-centric, with 42% of these papers coded as politicised (n = 16), compared to 34% which were depoliticised (n = 13) and 24% which were mixed (n = 9).
Focus by political orientation.
Finally, as can be seen in Figure 5, articles based on empirical data were significantly more likely to be depoliticised (75%; n = 52) than theoretical papers (43%; n = 15), and theoretical papers which also drew on empirical case studies (58%; n = 7). It was this latter category that was most likely to be coded as politicised (33%; n = 4) though, notably, the majority of theoretical papers were either politicised or had elements of both politicised and depoliticised arguments (58%; n = 20), indicating that theoretical papers are currently the site most likely to explicitly engage in at least some politicised argument around animals.
Approach by political orientation.
From our analysis it is clear that sociological animal studies, to date, tends towards the anthropocentric and depoliticised, although there are exceptions here (e.g. Cudworth, 2015, 2016; Peggs, 2013). It is also clear that sociological animal studies are very much differentiated along Cudworth’s lines of ‘a sociology which includes nonhuman animals as worthy of sociological attention’, and a sociological animal studies that outlines and critiques the exploitation and oppression of nonhuman animals (Cudworth, 2016: 243). We hereby respectively refer to these as a sociology of other animals and a sociology for other animals (Peggs, 2012, 2013) and use this distinction to advance our argument for an Emancipatory Animal Sociology.
Discussion
Sociological animal studies and the anti-animal status quo
The vast majority of articles in the sample were both anthropocentric and depoliticised, meaning not only did they centre humans, but they also overwhelmingly reinforced the marginalised social positioning of animals in society. These articles tended to be empirical, with studies of companion animal interactions with humans proving to be the most anthropocentric and depoliticised group. This depoliticisation occurred regardless of terminology. That is, papers overwhelmingly used both ‘pet’ and ‘companion animal’ interchangeably when it might be thought (as raised by a reviewer in line with Irvine, 2004) that more politicised articles would adopt ‘companion animal’. Instead, this depoliticisation seemed to be more to do with the presentation and pursuit of research that was focused on human perceptions of these relationships and welfarist critiques (e.g. Sanders, 1993). None of these articles, for example, considered whether animal ownership per se is worthy of sociological problematisation and thus did not challenge prevailing anthropocentric attitudes about the ‘value’ of companion animals. None of the articles focused on companion animals were coded as both animal-centric and politicised. We accept that authors writing articles that fit into this category often appear to have animal interests at heart and might be seeking to improve animals’ lives. However, we note that there is a difference between acknowledging the importance of animals and challenging their oppression. As Cudworth puts it, ‘simply including non-human animals as a sociological subject does not a critical sociology make’ (2016: 243). Anthropocentric and depoliticised considerations were not limited solely to companion animals and spanned the full spread of topics. These articles – albeit largely unintentionally we suspect – reinforce animals’ subordinate social positioning through depicting human–animal entanglements as unproblematic. Far from being benign, depoliticised animal sociology contributes to a broader knowledge pool which does not recognise or meaningfully engage with the asymmetrical power relations between humans and other animals, and thus perpetuates, rather than challenges, nonhuman animal oppression.
Some of this work also appeared to be diametrically opposed to acknowledging the material oppression of other animals. For example, Carmeli (2002), in his consideration of the role of the travelling circus in creating and maintaining social boundaries, argued that cruelty to animals in these circuses could be understood by ‘a cognitive and phenomenological view, one that deals with performance and illusion rather than “facts”, and that puts the public’s participation and experience of “cruelty” in a historical context’ (2002: 78). Thus, for Carmeli, animals in the circus were ‘experienced as tortured because they are expected to be … they may be experienced as actually tortured because they are perceived as symbolically denatured’ (2002: 78). It is precisely this kind of staunchly depoliticised, anthropocentric refusal to engage with the material conditions of animal oppression and exploitation that Best et al. (2007: 4) characterise as ‘debilitating theory-for-theory’s sake’ and is, we note with relief, now drawing criticism from critical scholar-activists on a wide scale (e.g. White, 2015).
These depoliticised endeavours did certainly have something to contribute to sociology, with many significantly making a case for the inclusion of nonhuman animals in the discipline (though not necessarily based on any benefit to animals) (e.g. Arluke, 2003). However, the majority of articles ‘tacked’ animals on to existing sociological frames/areas/theories in moves reminiscent of earlier work in feminism and women’s studies that sought to add women to existing frameworks and theories rather than reworking knowledge from the standpoint of women (see Carter and Charles, 2018; Cudworth, 2016; Harding, 2004; Peggs, 2013; Smith, 1990). This appears to be delaying the inevitable, that is, a discipline that has deliberately excluded animals until very recently requires a radical rethinking of its theories and framing before it can adequately pursue their inclusion.
Lessons from politicised endeavours
There has been steady growth over time of papers that take either a wholly or partially politicised stance to sociological animal studies. Topics such as animals’ role in promoting a sense of community (Colomy and Granfield, 2010), in sports (Atkinson and Young, 2005) or stratification (Deemer and Lobao, 2011) all showed evidence of a politicised orientation. In such articles authors are clear about the deleterious effects of human activities on nonhuman animals. For example, Cudworth and Hobden (2015: 514) argue that war should be considered in posthuman terms, as ‘it is an indication of the deeply human-centred character of the discipline that almost none of the central texts even make a mention of the very significant roles that non-human animals have in the conduct of war’. There was also evidence of attempts to invert traditional scholarship to try and take nonhuman animals’ points of view, as in Atkinson’s (2014) attempts to consider blood sports from the point of view of the terrier dogs involved. There was a clear distinction between empirical and theoretical papers, in that all wholly politicised empirical papers were both animal and anthropocentric in their focus (often dedicating more space to human perspectives). What set these articles apart from depoliticised or mixed political endeavours was a prioritisation of animals’ struggles and experiences over human interests. For instance, Taylor’s (2010) ethnography of an animal shelter discusses the emotion work of (human) volunteers but argues that emotion talk between humans is integral to discursively (re)constructing the animals in care, and thus ‘challenged the status of animals as property and redefined them as minded creatures to whom humans owe a duty of care’ (2010: 98). While human volunteers were centred in the data, the focus is placed on critiques of, and effects on the normative construction of animals as goods, with the analysed conversations all centring on the animals. This then results in an article that physically centres humans by focusing largely on their verbal participation, but discursively centres nonhuman animal experiences. However, this finding does raise methodological questions around whether centring animals (physically) in research is an important element of research advocacy and, if so, how this should be accommodated in empirical studies due to the entangled relations with humans many animals experience.
Also prominent among the articles we reviewed (politicised, depoliticised and mixed) were theoretical considerations of how animals do/can shape sociological thinking, and how sociological theories might allow us to expand our thinking about other species. Articles in this group tended to acknowledge that an expansion of sociological thinking might help animals by, for example, providing sociologists with the tools to outline their material realities by opening up theories to legitimately include other species for example (e.g. Blok, 2007; Gunderson, 2014). However, these articles, often characterised by creative uses of traditional sociological methods and theories, tended to stop short of a prescriptive call for action on behalf of nonhuman animals. Again, we point out that there is a difference between acknowledging the material oppression of other animals and actively challenging that oppression.
We pick up on these difficult questions in this final section of the paper where we outline our vision of an Emancipatory Animal Sociology (EAS) for future sociological considerations of human–animal relations.
For an Emancipatory Animal Sociology
Nonhuman animals are systematically and devastatingly oppressed in our human-dominated society. Killed by the billions for food, fur, testing, entertainment, to name but a few of the many exploitative practices we humans expose them to, animal entanglements with humans are often structurally and/or materially oppressive and almost always deadly (Taylor and Twine, 2014). This warrants consideration when we remember Burawoy’s (2005: 39) question, ‘for whom and for what do we pursue sociology?’ Sociology, with its capacity to analyse the complex structural and interpersonal dynamics of power, is well placed not just to conceptualise the mechanisms which serve to keep animals in a subordinate position in society but also to contribute effectively to future social movements aiming to end them (Cudworth, 2016). Piven (2005: 163) argues for the necessity of a ‘dissident and critical sociology’, specifically describing a public sociology that pushes to ‘address the public and political problems of people at the lower end of the many hierarchies that define our society’. While she did not explicitly include nonhuman animals in her works, many scholars have convincingly situated nonhuman animals within such hierarchies in society (e.g. Cudworth, 2011; Nibert, 2003). This leads us to argue that sociology can not only offer an emancipatory lens through which to challenge the social positioning of animals, but also that it should.
Following Cudworth (2016) and Peggs (2013), we make a distinction between a sociology of other animals and a sociology for other animals, and draw on their conceptualisations of the latter to inform future EAS efforts. A sociology for other animals overtly challenges nonhuman animal oppression. This sociology is firmly located in critical theoretical approaches that centre and question the operation of power in maintaining oppression and normalising exploitation. It is a body of work that ‘seeks to unsettle ontological frameworks (used in sociology and beyond) that divide humans and non-human animals along hierarchical lines; frameworks that underpin yet render invisible the human oppression of non-human animals’ (Peggs, 2013: 602) that is part of a larger emancipatory project for sociology (e.g. Cudworth, 2016; Peggs, 2013; Pendergrast, 2018; Taylor and Twine, 2014). As such a sociology for other animals is a systemic project that acknowledges the way violence and abuse are embedded in and often justified by social systems and their authorities. After all, ‘identifying the ideological mechanisms used to uphold socially sanctioned regimes of power is important if we are to have any hope of untangling and dismantling them’ (Taylor and Fraser, 2017: 189).
Building from this we argue there is a need for a distinctly Emancipatory Animal Sociology. This differs slightly from Cudworth’s (2016) schema in two important ways. The first is that we argue for the need to critically attend to the implicit, everyday subjugation of nonhuman animals in their relations with humans, alongside the more overt and violent oppressions visible in practices like meat eating, cautioning that a failure to do so feeds into a normalisation of asymmetrical relationships that are fundamentally problematic. We agree that, ‘[a]n adequate sociological understanding of systemic domination cannot elide different forms of domination’ (Cudworth, 2016: 252), particularly if we are to take into account lifeforms such as intestinal flora with which a much different level of interaction is possible than between humans and the animals we ‘use’. However we would be hesitant to classify ‘used’ animals as experiencing higher or lower, ‘degrees of exploitation and oppression’.
While it may be true from a human perspective that the oppression of ‘farmed’, working or companion animals appears very different, it is problematic to make an a priori assumption that these situations are experienced as better or worse for the animals, or that the mechanisms of oppression within these relationships are more or less ‘benign’. Cudworth (2011, 2016) certainly acknowledges the entanglement of companion animals in systems of oppression, but we argue that more could be done to highlight the everyday, implicit exercises of (human) power that reproduce inequality between species, for it is these everyday practices that normalise their oppression (Sutton and Taylor, forthcoming). We must be particularly mindful of the representation of human–animal entanglements as unproblematic, given that we humans, as the oppressing species, have a vested interest in their continuation. The anthropocentric and depoliticised skew in companion animal research identified in our review is cause for concern, and to us indicates that an Emancipatory Animal Sociology needs to attend to the embeddedness of power relations in everyday life.
The second point of difference of EAS from a sociology for other animals is that, as we have raised above, there is a difference between acknowledging animal oppression and challenging it. We acknowledge that awareness leads to activism but, in the majority of articles reviewed in our data, authors implied that their acknowledgement of animal suffering was part of their attempt to develop an ethically oriented sociology (e.g. Peggs, 2013). They rarely, if at all, explicitly stated how this connection works. The first step for an EAS might be to consider how awareness begets activism: what are the conditions that facilitate and the barriers that prevent scholarly inclined activism, and what is its link with real-world change? One strategy is to ground EAS in a social justice and emancipatory praxis that explicitly and critically engages with the material conditions of animals’ lives, taking into account the frontline experiences and knowledge of activists and others working directly with animals and, where possible, centring the animals themselves (see, for example, Coulter, 2016). An important part of this would be to consider how the findings might contribute to efforts to challenge and eradicate animal suffering and oppression. And, while we recognise that this opens scholars to charges of bias, and relatedly of ‘poor research’, we point detractors to Becker’s observation that scholars are most likely to be accused of bias ‘when the research gives credence, in any serious way, to the perspective of the subordinate group in some hierarchical relationship’ (1967: 240).
Concluding thoughts
It is not our intention to detract from the insights that mainstream sociological animal studies can give us about human relationships with animals. However, we also think it is important to encourage internal and external (i.e. from those doing the research and those consuming it) critique of depoliticised sociology for its role in maintaining oppressive relations between human and other animals. Parallels can be drawn here with critiques of sociological work that (inadvertently) legitimate sexist and/or racist relations, even if solely by refusing to engage with the issues (see e.g. Harding, 2004). The role of sociologists in highlighting oppressive relations and challenging them is contentious, and even more so when considering species. Our position, then, is that all knowledge is political, and that claims to neutrality are ‘misinformed or devious’ (Laue, 1989: 110), simply enjoying the privilege of masquerading as objective or neutral. 5 As a result, we argue that sociologists cannot maintain a veneer of neutrality. We encourage scholars to give more thought to what it means to advocate for other animals, to tease out how it actually helps other animals, and to consider how the methods and theories we choose to work with might unwittingly underscore a mainstream approach despite avowed intentions otherwise. We have offered some initial ideas that we hope will be a starting point. We acknowledge that our arguments are confronting and contentious but believe this to be a hallmark of both good public sociology and strong scholar-advocacy. We also accept that there are many who will take issue with our claim for an overt, advocacy-oriented sociology for other animals. Considering how to engage with detractors needs to be a key future endeavour for those in EAS. We therefore acknowledge that our contentious position is not without risk. As Wilkie notes (2015b: 214), this kind of scholar-advocacy is a form of academic dirty work that offers the ‘creative marginality … to engage in pioneering work’. At the same time, however, she notes that this comes with the potential price to scholars that ‘being associated with this politicized mixed-species field can tarnish their professional credibility’. Bearing this in mind, we note that forming alliances within and without the academy is key to EAS (and critical scholarship more generally). These alliances can act as a buffer against unfounded critique, a place to brainstorm new ideas, and somewhere to develop our thinking and realise our aims of identifying, challenging and changing systemic oppression of other animals.
Footnotes
Appendix
| Journal title | Number of articles |
|---|---|
| Ageing & Society | 1 |
| American Sociological Review | 1 |
| Animals | 1 |
| Annual Review of Sociology | 1 |
| Anthrozoös | 2 |
| BioSocieties | 1 |
| Canadian Journal of Sociology | 1 |
| Children’s Geographies | 1 |
| City and Community | 2 |
| Critical Public Health | 1 |
| Deviant Behavior | 1 |
| Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory | 1 |
| Environmental Management | 1 |
| European Journal of Social Theory | 1 |
| Housing, Theory and Society | 1 |
| Humanity & Society | 1 |
| International Journal of Sociology | 1 |
| International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy | 7 |
| International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food | 1 |
| International Review for the Sociology of Sport | 2 |
| Irish Journal of Sociology | 1 |
| Italian Sociological Review | 1 |
| Journal of Bioethical Inquiry | 1 |
| Journal of Contemporary Ethnography | 3 |
| Journal of Rural Studies | 1 |
| Journal of Sociology | 1 |
| Mind, Culture, and Activity | 1 |
| Nature and Culture | 1 |
| New Zealand Sociology | 1 |
| Proteus | 1 |
| Qualitative Social Research | 1 |
| Qualitative Sociology | 1 |
| Rural Sociology | 3 |
| Security Dialogue | 1 |
| Social Forces | 1 |
| Social Science Information/Information sur les Sciences Sociales | 1 |
| Society | 1 |
| Society and Animals | 12 |
| Sociologia Ruralis | 9 |
| Sociological Focus | 1 |
| Sociological Forum | 3 |
| Sociological Inquiry | 1 |
| Sociological Perspectives | 1 |
| Sociological Quarterly | 3 |
| Sociological Research Online | 4 |
| Sociological Spectrum | 1 |
| Sociological Theory | 2 |
| Sociology | 4 |
| Sociology Compass | 2 |
| Sociology of Health & Illness | 1 |
| Sociology of Health and Illness | 1 |
| Sociology of Religion | 1 |
| Sociology of Sport Journal | 3 |
| Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association | 2 |
| Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy | 1 |
| Symbolic Interaction | 2 |
| The Sociological Review | 5 |
| Theory In Action | 1 |
| Visual Studies | 1 |
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
