• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this document? Why not share!

372 s621

on

  • 478 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
478
Views on SlideShare
478
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    372 s621 372 s621 Document Transcript

    • 103Guest Editors IntroductionThrough the Geographical Looking Glass: Space,Place, and Society-Animal RelationsChris PhiloUNIVERSITY OF GLASGOWJennifer Wolch1UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAAs geographers interested in human-animal relations, a recent paper in Society &Animals immediately caught our eye on account of its main title, "Safe in UnsafePlaces" (Gillespie, Leffler & Lemer, 1996). The study explores how humaninteractions in certain types of places are altered by the presence of dogs popularlyperceived to be aggressive. Adopting a participant observation role as dog enthu-siasts travelling around the country attending dog shows with their own Rottwei lerdogs, the authors uncover a range of shifting relations involving people, dogs andspatial-temporal settings. For instance, spaces normally seen as threatening or"unsafe" (such as a beach late at night) became much safer with the Rottweilerspresent. Conversely, spaces normally assumed to be "safe" (such as a village duringthe day) suddenly became unsafe because the big dogs prompted unpredictablereactions from other humans and also from other animals (leading to the possibilityof pre-emptive strikes against both the researchers and their dogs). The researchersoffered the following conclusions: Thus our experience of travel with dogs problematized our ordinary conceptualizations of safe and unsafe places, situations and times; of public and private space .... The taken-for-granted boundaries between social spheres in daily life are ordinarily borderlines we treat as if they were impermeable and unchanging .... Work and leisure; public and private; and, most relevant for this paper, safe and unsafe places, times, and people are seen as immutable antipodes. In fact, of course, they blur, harden, and shift in the give and take of everyday life. (Gillespie, Leffler & Lerner, 1996, pp. 179, 185-186)
    • 104 In this special theme issue, we wish to expand upon such intriguing discussionsabout space, place, and human-animal relations. Specifically, our purpose is tointroduce the work of academic geographers interested in animals to a widerreadership beyond the discipline of geography itself, and demonstrate the value ofa geographical perspective to research on society-animal relations. In order to placesuch work in proper context, this introduction has two main components. First, weoutline the history and character of academic geographical interest in animals; andsecondly, we discuss some of the basic concepts, notably "place" and "space,"which geographers deploy when studying all manner of phenomena, animalsincluded. Against this backdrop, we preview the specific contributions comprisingthis issue.Geography and the Study of AnimalsAlthough never prominent in the discipline, academic geographers have longshown some interest in nonhuman animals. A glance through recent geographicaljournals reveals papers on regional patterns of koala habitat in Australia (Bryan. 1997), hog farming in North Carolina (Furuseth, 1997), horse-breeding in theHunter Valley, Australia (Robinson, 1996), late 19th century controversy over sealhunting in the Bering Sea (Castree, 1997), and tourist-wildlife interaction (Orams, 1996). This interest in animals is long-standing. Turn-of-the century geographicaljournals offered a not dissimilar range of topics, including papers on "the geogra-phy of mammals" (Sclater, 1894a, 1894b, 1895, 1896a, 1896b, 1897a, 1897b) aswell as, oddly enough, pieces on aquatic plants and animals by Guppy ( 1893), birdmigration by Eagle Clarke ( 1896) and the distribution and habits of whales byM6bius ( 1894)! Moreover, an identifiable branch of the discipline known as "animal geogra-phy" dates at least from Newbigins s 1913 text Animal Geography. Animalgeography was also accorded a role in Hartshornes classic 1939 survey The Natureof Geography, as one of the "systematic" subfields of the discipline (along withclimate, soils, plants, topography, etc.) allied outside the field to the "systematicscience" of zoology. According to Hartshorne, research from the various system-atic physical and human geographic subfields allowed the elucidation of "arealdifferentiation" or regional geographies serving to distinguish different areas orregions of the earths surface. Despite assessments of the status of animal geography from the 1940s throughto the 1960s (Bennett, 1961; Cansdale, 1949; Davies, 1961; Stuart, 1954), by the 1970s animal geography had all but disappeared from the discipline. Recently,
    • 105however, a new animal geography - almost exclusively conceptualized as part ofhuman ratherthan physical geography-has appeared, and revived the subspeciality.In order to unpack the dynamics underlying this change in direction and subsequentreinvigoration, we distinguish between the two chief lines of research conductedover the years under the heading of animal geography: zo6geography and culturalanimal geography.Zo5geograph-vWriting in 1949 for a popular geographical magazine, Cansdale noted that: One of the most fascinating aspects of natural history is animal geography - the why and wherefore of animal distribution .... In the thrush family, for instance, why do the blackbird, the song thrush and the mistle thrush stay here [in Britain] for most of the time and nest in our gardens and coppices while the redwing and fieldfare go far north to breed? And why does the blackbirds close relative the ring ouzel lead a fully migratory life and make its summer home in the moors and fells? These are small, rather local questions in animal ecology, but there are other and much wider problems. ( 1949, p.108)Animal geography was here cast as the study of animal distributions, asking aboutwhere different types of animals are to be found, whether at local or continentalscales, and the environmental correlates of these distributions. The majority ofwork referred to as animal geography has been of this sort, from Sclater ( I 894 efseq.), who sought to delimit the six main terrestrial regions of mammalian life, torecent papers published in the Journal of Biogeography. This work, based onconventional scientific research methods and models, was initially and remainsstrongly linked with the cognate scientific disciplines of zoology and (more widely) >ecology and biology. Early on, for example, Clark asserted in a review of"geography and zoology" that "there must be a much closer correlation betweenbiology and geography than has hitherto been suspected" (1927, p. 102), whileCansdale expressly regarded animal geography as "but one aspect of animalecology" (1949, p. 109). Moreover many of the practitioners of this approach toanimal geography would not warrant (or desire) the formal disciplinary designationof "geographer," since many of them arrived at their studies from disciplinarybackgrounds outside of geography. Although they produced geographies, "[m]ostzo6geographers were originally trained as systematic zoologists, paleontologists orecologists" (Stuart, 1954, p. 443), leading Davies to reflect that "[a]nimal geography
    • 106is perhaps the branch of geography least practised by geographers, and the one theymost cheerfully abandon to the systematic sciences" ( 1961, p.412). Even now. fewgeographers contribute zo6geographical studies to the Journal of Biogeography. We argue that the natural-scientific bent of this zo6geographical version ofanimal geography conspired to leave it saying little about animal interactions withhuman society. Rather, it became embedded within a scientific physical geographylooking to ascertain "natural" correlations and causations apart from the distur-bances occasioned by human influence. This is not entirely the case; some earlierwritings did reflect on "what all this complex distribution of animal life has meantand still means to [humans]" (Thomson, 1905, p. 118), and explored the relationsbetween animals and humans in terms of "competition, conflict, domestication andbiological control" (Cansdale, 1950, 1951a, 1951 b, 1951 c, 1951 d, 1952). Simi-larly, in more recent biogeographical papers the human influence is occasionallyassessed (Carter, 1997, p. 153). Nonetheless, the consideration given to society-animal relations in such work is patchy. The human dimension is introduced as anunwanted and alien intrusion, which remains wholly untheorized. At the same timethe animals themselves tend to be regarded with a detached scientific eye as thingsutterly unlike humans. Cast as purely natural objects to be tracked, trapped.counted, mapped and modeled, they are assumed devoid of any "inner life," anyform of experience, consciousness or sociability, which might be worth takingseriously. Cultural Animal GeographyAs late as the 1960s, zoogeography was "usually considered... too remote from thecentral problems of human geography" (Davies, 1961, p. 412), but an interest inanimals has not always been totally divorced from the more human end of thediscipline. Bennett offered the following observation: The author wishes here to propose [another] approach to the study of animal geography, an approach that is certain to be a rewarding area of research for geographers even though they are equipped with only a modest background in the biological sciences. The proposed field could well be termed cultural animal geography, for it would encompass those aspects of animal geography which accumulate, analyze and systematize data relevant to the interactions of animals and human cultures. ( 1960, p. 13; emphasis in original)Bennett raised the possibility of research on human-animal interactions, demonstrating
    • 107how humans have exerted an influence upon animal "numbers and distributions" andexamining how animals respond to processes of domestication, practices of subsist-ence hunting and fishing, and also more indirect human impacts such as fire, war, andtravel. In addition, he argued fora focus on how animals influence dimensions of humanlife (destroying crops or carrying disease), and on their role as key elements of thenatural environment which "determine" the character of a regions human geography(the settlement, agriculture, and industry). Bennetts proposals effectively dovetailed with Sauers approach to under-standing the cultural landscape, set forth in Seeds, Spades, Hearths and Herds( 1952), which documented the role of animal domestication in the conversion ofnatural into cultural landscapes. Sauers Berkeley School of cultural geography.which dominated much of North American geography during the first half of the20th century, inspired such work as Isaacs (1970) study of the geography ofdomestication and the Simoonses ( 1968) research on the ceremonial uses of the oxin India. A noteworthy aspect of this approach has been its resistance to a simplisticeconomic explanation of society-animal relations, and the recognition of non-economic roles of animals in human societies (as companion animals or for use inreligious ceremonies; Donkin, 1991, p. ix; Donkin, 1985, 1989). While this stresson the non-economic origins of animal domestication has itself been criticized(Rodrigues, 1992, p. 366), what matters here is the contemplation of an enlargedcultural realm in which animals are more than the "resources" studied byzoogeographers or the units of production investigated by agricultural geogra-phers. This conceptual space opened the way for the utilization of animals byhuman society to be scrutinized by geographers as something other than natural andunproblematic (Yarwood, Evans & Higginbottom, 1997, p. 17). In recent years there has been a definite revival of interest in animal geography,one securely anchored in the orbit of human geography. This new turn has beeninspired by the encounter between human geography and a range of new conceptualnotions derived from political economy, social theory, cultural studies, feminism.post-colonial critique, psychoanalysis, and anthropology, as well as a partialretrieval of older Sauerian traditions. This "new" cultural animal geographyreflects upon situations where people and animals coexist in particular sites andterritories, and ponders the social interactions between the people and certain non-human groupings in the vicinity. For example, Wolch, West and Gaines propose a "transspecies urban theory"alert to the realities of a city built to accommodate not only humans but also "ashadow population of non-humans spanning the phylogenetic scale" ( 1995, p.736). It is this theoretical window which also informs Wolch, Gullo and Lassiters «
    • 108( 1997) analysis of changing attitudes toward cougars in California. In a similarvein, Philo ( 1995) inquires into the plight of livestock animals directed by humansinto the live meat markets and slaughterhouses of 19th century London. Suchstudies point to how particular human societies wish to exclude certain types ofanimals from their homes and neighborhoods (because they are regarded as "wild.""unclean," "unhygienic") while choosing to include other types of animals (be-cause they are regarded as "tame," "clean," or "charismatic"). If Philo and Wolch stress the exclusions in their work, Tuan ( l 984) traces theinclusions-embedded within inherently unequal and "paternalist" power relations- entailed in the keeping of pets within the domestic milieux of human society. Suchwork also signals the more symbolic dimensions of the encounter between humansand animals. Animals in general (as well as specific species) often become codedas dirty and polluting, thus feeding a common impulse to exclude them from therealm of everyday human life. Such codings become intimately bound up in theidentity politics of human groups, in that metaphors and images of animality, of thebestial and the savage, are often deployed by mainstream society to represent thoseregarded as marginal, misfit or deviant. Sibley develops this theme when consid-ering the socio-spatial exclusions endured by "outsiders" such as EuropeanGypsies and other ethnic minorities, and he writes that "[t]o dehumanize throughclaiming animal attributes for others is one way of legitimating exploitation andexclusion from civilized society" (1995, p. 27). Emel (1995) has excavated thecross-currents running between representations of the wolf in the United States.ensnared in connotations of the wild, darkness or evil, and representations of"native Indians." The chief claim we make at this point is that a new cultural animal geographyhas emerged within the discipline. This emergence is marked by a recent themeissue of the journal Society and Space (Wolch & Emel, 1995), by forthcomingbooks on animal geography (Wolch & Emel, 1998), and by the running of specialistsessions at professional geography conferences in both the United Kingdom and theUS.Some Basic Geographical Concepts and Animal GeographyWhat possibilities arise from adopting a geographical perspective in researchinganimals and society-animal relations? To address this question, we sketch the basicconcepts which frame Anglo-American geographic research, and then suggest howthey can illuminate the "animal question."
    • 109Space, Distribution and LocationPhilosophers perennial disagreements over the nature of space have led to differentways of understanding space within academic geography (Gregory, 1994 ; Pickles, 1985; Sack, 1980). For many geographers, however, space is a relative concept.referring to relations between phenomena distributed across a range of identifiablydifferent locations. Such phenomena might be features of the natural world such asmountains and forests, or features of the human world such as settlements andfactories. At base, the relations between these phenomena, spatial relations, areconceived of in terms of proximity and distance, direction of one from others, andconnective travel routes. Such an understanding can lead to highly geometricconceptions of space and abstract notions of spatial relations, suggesting theexistence of fundamental spatial laws governing the distribution and location ofmany different kinds of phenomena both natural and human. In the search todiscover such spatial laws, some geographers have looked for quantifiable corre-lations between spatial patterns (on maps) displayed by different variables thoughtto be causally related (say, fertile land and rural settlement). Such a spatial science approach to geographical inquiry became influentialduring the 1950s and 1960s in reaction to the regional geography of Hartshorne(Cloke, Philo & Sadler, 1991), but soon earned serious criticism from Marxist,feminist, and humanist geographers. Continuing to probe human spatial relations.but with a more qualitative eye, such geographers have focused on how theserelations are themselves indelibly embedded within a maze of economic, political,social, and cultural processes, forces, and structures (Gregory & Urry, 1985). Usingvarious theoretical lenses, spatial relations between wealthy "cores" and impover-ished "peripheries," for example, have been explained as manifestations of capital-isms tendency to geographically uneven development (Smith, 1990). At themetropolitan scale, spatial relations between central cities and suburbs have beenunderstood as structured in part by patriarchal gender divisions of urban space(McDowell, 1983). Even spatial relations between self and other, or us and them.have been seen as integral to how personal identities (situated "here") are built upin mirror-image to the often negative projections of attributes placed on others(over "there"; Sibley, 1995). Animal geographers (especially zo6geographers) have often incorporatednotions of space, spatial patterns, and spatial relations into the heart of theirresearch, as revealed in maps of lairs, nests, flocks, herds, colonies and evenmigration tracks of particular species. Such mapping, frequently linked to quanti-tative techniques such as point pattern analysis, typically strive to correlate animal
    • 110distributions with patterns of climatic variation, geologic formations, and vegeta-tive cover, in a search for general zoogeographical laws of how animals (individu-als and species) arrange themselves across the earths surface. Work undertaken by cultural animal geographers has focused on space, but notin the conventional scientific sense of searching for spatial laws. Indeed, of keyconcern are spatial relations between people and animals, thought of in terms ofeither exclusion or inclusion (managing physical distance between people andcertain animals). At a macro-scale these relations effectively consign animalsidentified as wild to a wilderness beyond human civilization; their transgressionsof the wilderness boundary - a case of matter "out of place" (Cresswell, 1996) - canlead to murderous reprisals from the human community (Emel, 1995; Wolch et al., 1995). Alternatively, these relations can entail the welcoming of animals conceivedto be tame into the home, yard, and immediate residential neighborhood ascompanion animals. Curiously, should such animals escape to the wild and becomeferal, they are typically regarded as transgressive. Between these two extremes liethose animals regarded as domesticated, possessing utility as food and otherproducts, which are allocated to such specialist locations as farms, fields, markets,and abattoirs where they are supposed to spend their days from birth to death. Suchspatial relations are made more complex in many ways, not least by the agency ofanimals themselves. It is one task of the new animal geography to explore the complex nexus ofspatial relations between people and animals. The goal is to tease out the myriadeconomic, political, social, and cultural pressures shaping these relations withreference to both particular groupings of people and particular species of animals.Thus Anderson (1997) reassesses the traditional geographical interpretations ofdomestication and reinterprets some of this deeply entrenched pattern of human-animal relations through a political and socio-cultural lens. Looking at the geogra-phy of domestic animals in the late 20th century, Ufkes (1995) explains dramaticlocational shifts in the US livestock sector on the basis of globalization-drivenintensive farming and new levels of consumer demand for both lean meat and cheapmeat (the latter associated with increasing income disparities). She also zeroes inon corporate efforts at harnessing biotechnology "to build a better pig" - leaner andfaster growing. Such efforts to alter the interior geography of the animal body havedevastating implications for animal well-being. Other researchers focus on deep-seated politico-religious conflicts around society-animal relations. Robbins ( 1998)explains how the ancient religious ideals of Hindu vegetarianism have becomeideological weapons in an ongoing (and often violent) struggle over politicalcontrol in Rajistan. Muslim livestock farmers and butchers in Rajistan, who have
    • 111few alternatives to entering a globalizing meat industry, are caught in the middleof this Hindu-Muslim power struggle. Employing both metaphoric and material conceptions of space, other culturalanimal geographers seek to illuminate human-animal relations. One approach is totrace the pervasive but often hidden networks binding an animal shot in the wild.a science laboratory, a variety of corporate offices great and small, a high streetretail outlet, a private kitchen and the like. Such research, inspired by Latours «actor-network theory (Whatmore, 1997; Whatmore & Thome, 1998), deploys astrong sense of spatial relations while also illuminating the myriad documents andmultiple devices which enable such relations to be traced across the globe. A furtherline of inquiry has narrowed the lens to more intimate spaces such as home, garden,and neighborhood park, asking about their roles in shaping society-animal rela-tions. Wolch (1996) suggests that contemporary cities, which exclude so manyanimals from their midst, promote a profound emotional distanciation betweenpeople and animals that under-girds routine practices of extermination and habitatdestruction. Recreating small-scale urban sites where people and animals mightinteract on a daily basis, forging what Wolch terms "zoopolis," would enableresidents to adopt "animal standpoints" and enter into interspecific networks offriendship capable of breaking down city-country dualisms so destructive of animal llife-chances.Place, Region and LandscapeA second geographical concept is place, deployed to capture the situated, materialdimensions of space. The concept of place is not relative, but absolute: it describesthe particularities of singular, unique, nameable settings where phenomena, naturaland human, together create a distinctive assemblage which is clearly "this place"(Manchester, the Algarve, Las Vegas) rather than any other. Although notions ofplace have also been debated within academic geography (Duncan, 1994; Entrikin, 1991; Relph, 1976), the tradition of focusing on differences between places, andspotlighting place-specific features, has an even older pedigree than does the spatial ltradition. Thus geographers have often paid special attention to the diverseelements which combine to create the visual impression of distinctiveness for agiven place, and one result is interest in the visible landscape as an object to beperceived, enjoyed, and analyzed. As spatial science grew more dominant in the 1960s and 1970s, the analysis ofplace receded, regarded as merely descriptive and thus pre-scientific. By the 1980s,however, energized by trends in psychology, the philosophies of meaning and
    • 112cultural studies, fresh ideas about the centrality of place to human experience,emotion, and ideology began to influence human geography (Ley & Samuels,1978). Questions to do with place, region, and landscape have acquired newrelevance to human geographers, stimulating research aimed at teasing out themeanings - deeply existential and more overtly politicized, loving and antagonis-tic, shared and conflicting - which people attach to places where they live, work,play, and travel. Linked to recent work on spatial relations, contemporary geo-graphical studies show how place-based struggles, identities, and politics areintegral to wider societal processes, forces, and structures (Agnew, 1987). Animal geographers have often incorporated notions of place and relatedcategories into their research. For instance, zobgeographers look in detail at theassociations of particular animal species found in particular places of the world.Intriguingly, Davies ( 1961, p. 415) distinguishes between ecology as the study ofplace - those local mixes of environmental factors attracting given animal speciesto settle in given places - and geography as the study of space. Quite a fewzo6geographical studies do indeed concentrate on particular places, sometimes atthe regional scale but more commonly focussing on smaller habitat patches. Oneexample is Carters ( 1997) recent inquiry into the wedge-tailed shearwaters ofHeron Island, off the Australian coast, in which she also focuses on the very specificnest-site selections of these puffins (thus drawing attention to even smaller placeson this island). Work undertaken by cultural animal geographers has also given considerationto place. Several such studies emphasize how environmental, economic, political.social, and cultural contexts underlie place-specific society-animal relations andhow they are negotiated and transformed over time. The argument is that theserelations are differentially constituted in different places, forming a complexgeography which can, in principle, be mapped out onto the places, regions, andlandscapes spread across the earths surface. Especially illustrative of such work is Matless ( 1994) detailed research on the"place" of animals in the Norfolk Broads, a series of shallow lakes with their linkingrivers in eastern England, often used for sailing, cruising, shooting, and birdwatching. Drawing on the idea of a "moral geography," Matless investigates theconstellations of ideas about how human life should be lived in relation to givenenvironments, i.e. specific blueprints or codes for local conduct. He documents thecross-cutting "cultures of nature" - some predicated on violence and hunting.others on a preservationist approach "warranting quiet observation rather than loudkilling" (1994, p.141 ). Both have decisively shaped local society-animal relationsin the Broadlands for much of the present century.
    • 113 Philo ( 1995) and Gullo, Lassiter and Wolch (1998), who set their studies in 19th century London and late 20th century southern California respectively, do notoffer such a sustained place-centered account. Nonetheless, their findings areintimately wrapped up in the details of place. Philos place is a crazily congestedVictorian commercial capital faced with the unsettling sights and sounds of livemeat markets, with their cursing drovers and stampeding bullocks. In contrast.Gullo et al. focus on an exploding American "exopolis" swiftly encroaching onnearby chaparral wildlands and pine-forested mountains, home to cougars, coyo-tes, and bears. Similarly, Proctors (1998; Proctor & Pincetl, 1996) work on thecontroversy surrounding spotted owls and old growth forest is not only rooted inthe actual landscape of the Pacific Northwest, complete with its declining timberregions, but also in the moral geography discursively created around the owl itself.In late 20th century Pacific Northwest, the owl symbolizes the sagacity of naturefor some but the collapse of community for others (the latter being used tolegitimate killing individual owls). In her study of culture and nature at the AdelaideZoo, Anderson explicitly states that "[i]f the zoo is a space, Adelaide Zoo is a`place" (1995, p.280). By this, she indicates a parallel movement betweenadvancing claims about zoos as pivotal sites in the cultural construction of nature.and also of colonial and ultimately national identity, and grounding particularclaims in the historical-geographical specificity of the Adelaide enterprise. Paralleling research on the more intimate spaces of society-animal relations.other cultural animal geographers have considered how small-scale places shapethe emotional bonds between people and animals, influencing larger politicalspheres in which decisions about conservation and habitat protection are made.Michel (1998) highlights the case of volunteers working to rehabilitate goldeneagles in the fast-shrinking chaparral wildlands of San Diego, California. Drawingupon feminist insights, Michel reveals how an alternative "politics of care"emerges from the daily practices of rehabilitation far removed from the publicrealm of land-use planning, so dominated by a technocratic discourse alienatedfrom the realities of injured and dying eagles. This place-based politics of care isplayed out in local schools and other community institutions - in the form ofenvironmental education - and serves to prompt new directions for environmentalactivism in general.The Present Special Theme IssueThe four articles that constitute this issue approach animal geographies at multiplespatial scales, viewed through several theoretical lenses, and with varying empha-
    • 114sis on animals as active subjects, elements of nature, and cultural symbols.Anderson reconsiders the geography of animal domestication, situating certainchapters of the domestication story in European political discourses about humanuniqueness. Arguing that domestication cannot be fully understood by recourse totraditional cultural ecology frameworks that treat animals as natural resources, shedraws upon theories of power and identity to make sense of this process. Ultimately,she contends that domestication concretized a dualistic model of human and animal lin western cultures, with the case of the Adelaide Zoo highlighting how domesti-cation underlies contradictory human-animal relations played out at various spatialscales and in particular geographic places. The second paper deals with specific domesticated animals and their changingrelationship to people in rural Britain. Yarwood and Evans consider how recent andfundamental shifts in capitalist agricultural systems have stimulated rural declineand, in response, efforts to reinvigorate the countryside economy throughagrotourism. In this context, family farms have become theme parks and resorts,where old, rare, and endangered breeds of livestock are not only star attractions (andthus, increasingly, precious commodities) but also powerful - and fungible -symbols of cultural heritage. Strategies for the protection of rare breeds, along withthe rise of agrotourism, have altered the spatial distribution of rare breeds andtransformed the links between breeds, place, and culture. Next, Thome moves us down and around the globe to the Antipodes, with heranalysis of the worldwide trade in kangaroo bodies. Justified by their historicalconstruction as a "pest" species by rural farmers, along with a popular "spatialimaginary" or conception of kangaroos - fecund and abundant - roaming a vast.empty and uninterrupted national territory, tens of thousands of kangaroos are shoteach year. This is despite increasing loss and fragmentation of kangaroo habitat.and despite the animals status as a powerful tourist attraction and symbol ofAustralian nationhood familiar worldwide. Drawing on Latours actor networktheory, Thorne traces the set of complex relations that bind kangaroos to each other.and link their slaughter to a wide range of far-flung human actors and institutions.Ironically, the perceived abundance of kangaroos makes them a non-issue forconservationists, whose frameworks for wildlife protection only bestow value onthe rare or endangered. In the final contribution, Elder, Wolch and Emel consider how culture-specifichuman-animal relations or, simply, animal practices are molded by place andenvironment, and legitimated over time. They argue that as the "empire comeshome" in the form of international migration to the west, and as cultural diversityincreases under conditions of postmodemity, decontextualized "out-of-place"
    • 115animal practices risk being interpreted as transgressions of the human-animaldivide. Divergent animal practices and norms of cruelty and harm can thus triggersocial conflict and racialization of subaltern groups. To counter such marginal ization.Elder, Wolch and Emel recommend a "pratique sauvage" or radical democracy thatencompasses not only subaltern people but animals too. We hope that the readers of Society & Animals will agree that a geographicalperspective can make important theoretical, empirical, and policy-relevant contri-butions to research on society-animal relations. It is in this spirit (rather than anysense of disciplinary imperialism) that the current theme issue has been assembled.We trust that in the articles which follow, readers will find much of intrinsic interestbut also discover what a cultural animal geography can achieve.Note1. Correspondence should be directed to Jennifer Wolch, Department of Geography.University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, California 90089-0255.ReferencesAgnew, J. A. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical mediation of state and society. Boston: Allen & Unwin.Anderson, K. ( 1995). Culture and nature at the Adelaide Zoo: at the frontiers of "human" geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 20(ns), 275-294.Anderson, K. (1997). A walk on the wild side: a critical geography of domestication. Progress in Human Geography, 21, 463-485.Bennett, C. F. ( 1960). Cultural animal geography: an inviting field of research. Professional Geographer, 12(5), 12-14.Bennett, C. F. (1961). Animal geography in geography textbooks: a critical analysis. Professional Geographer, 13, 13-16.Bryan, B. A. (1997). A generic method for identifying regional koala habitat using GIS. Australian Geographical Studies, 35, 125-139.Cansdale, G. S. (1949). Some problems in animal geography. Geographical Magazine, 22. 108-109.Cansdale, G. S. (1950). Animals and man, I: the results of competition and conflict. Geographical Magazine, 23, 74-84.Cansdale, G. S. (1951a). Animals and man, II: domestication - providers of food and clothing. Geographical Magazine, 23, 390-399.Cansdale, G. S. (1951 b). Animals and man, III: domestication -transport animals, pets and allies. Geographical Magazine, 23, 524-534.Cansdale, G. S. (1951c). Animals and man, IV: chance and deliberate introductions. Geographical Magazine, 24, 155-162.
    • 116Cansdale, G. S. (1951d). Animals and man, V: biological control. Geographical Magazine. 24, 211-217.Cansdale, G. S. (1952) Animals and man. London: Hutchison.Carter, J. (1997). Nest-site selection and breeding success of wedge-tailed shearwaters Puffinus pacificus at Heron Island. Australian Geographical Studies, 35, 153-167.Castree, N. (1997). Nature, economy and the cultural politics of theory: the "war against the seals" in the Bering Sea, 1870-1911. Geoforum, 28, 1-20.Clark, A. H. (1927). Geography and zoology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 17, 101-145.Cloke, P., Philo, C. & Sadler, D. (1991). Approaching human geography: An introduction to contemporary theoretical debates. London: Paul Chapman.Cresswell, T. (1996). In place/out of place: Geography, ideology and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Davies, J. L. (1961) Aim and method in zoogeography. Geographical Review, 51, 412-417.Donkin, R. A. (1985). The peccary: With observations on the introduction of pigs to the new world. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Donkin, R. A. (1989) The muscovy duck, cairina moschata domestica: Origins, dispersal and associated aspects of the geography of domestication. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.Donkin, R. A. (1991) Meleagrides: An historical and ethnogeographical study of the guinea fowl. London: Ethnographica.Duncan, J. (1994). Place. Entry in R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory & D. M. Smith (Eds.), The dictionary of human geography (Third Ed.) (p.442). Oxford: Blackwell.Eagle Clarke, W. ( 1896). Bird migration in the British Isles: its geographical and meteoro- logical aspects. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 12, 616-626.Emel, J. (1995). Are you man enough, big and bad enough? ecofeminism and wolf eradication in the USA. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 707-734.Entrikin, J. N. (1991). The betweenness of place: Towards a geography of modernity. London: Macmillan.Furuseth, O. W. (1997). Restructuring of hog farming in North Carolina: explosion and implosion. Professional Geographer, 49, 391-403.Gillespie, D. L., Leffler, A., & Lerner, E. Safe in unsafe places: Leisure, passionate avocations. and the problematizing of everyday public life. (1996). Society & Animals. 4(2). 169-189.Gregory, D. & Urry, J. (Eds.) (1985). Social relations and spatial structure. London: Macmillan.Gregory, D. (1994). Space. Entry in R.J. Johnston, D. Gregory & D. M. Smith (Eds.). The dictionary of human geography (Third Ed.) (pp. 573-575). Oxford: Blackwell.Gullo, A, Lassiter, U. & Wolch, J. (1998). The cougars tale. In J. Wolch and J. Emel (Eds.) Animal geographies: Place, politics and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. London: Verso Press.Guppy, H. B. ( 1893). The distribution of aquatic plants and animals. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 9, 28-33.
    • 117Hartshorne, R. (1939). The nature of geography: A critical survey of current thought in the light of the past. Lancaster, PA: Association of American Geographers.Isaac, E. (1970). Geography of domestication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Ley, D. & Samuels, M. (Eds.) (1978). Humanistic geography: Prospects and problems. London: Croom Helm.Matless, D. (1997, January). Animals cultures in the Norfolk Broadland, 1945-1965. Paper presented RGS-IBG Conference, University of Exeter.McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender division of urban space. Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 1, 59-72.Michel, S. ( 1998) Golden eagles and the environmental politics of care. In J. Wolch and J. Emel (Eds.) Animal geographies: Place, politics and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. London: Verso Press.Möbius, C. (1894). The geographical distribution and habits of whales. Geographical Journal, 4, 266-268.Newbigin, M. I. (1913). Animal geography: The faunas of the natural regions of the globe. Oxford: Clarendon.Orams, M. B. (1996). A conceptual model of tourist-wildlife interaction: the case for education as a management strategy. Australian Geographer, 27, 39-51.Philo, C. (1995). Animals, geography and the city: notes on inclusions and exclusions. Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 655-681.Proctor, J. (1998). The spotted owl and the contested landscape of the Pacific Northwest. In J. Wolch and J. Emel (Eds.) Animal geographies: Place, politics and identity, in the nature-culture borderlands. London: Verso Press.Proctor, J. D. & Pincetl, S. (1996). Nature and the reproduction of endangered species: the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest and southern California. Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 14, 683-708.Pickles, J. (1985). Phenomenology, science and geography: Spatiality and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.Robbins, P. (1998). Shrines and butchers: animals as deities, capital and meat in contem- porary North India. InJ. Wolch and J. Emel (Eds.) Animal geographies: Place, politics and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. London: Verso Press.Robinson, G. M. (1996). Stud farming in the Hunter Valley: expansion in the equine industry. Australian Geographer, 27, 133-148.Rodrigues, C. M. (1992). Can religion account for early animal domestications ? A critical assessment of the cultural geography argument based on Near-Eastern archaeological data. Professional Geographer. 44(4), 417-130.Sack, R. D. (1980). Conceptions of space in social thought. London: Macmillan.Sauer, C. O. (1952). Seeds, spades, hearths and herds. American Geographical Society.Sclater, W. L. (1894a). The geography of mammals, No. I: introductory. Geographical Journal, 3, 95-105.
    • 118Sclater, W. L. ( 1894b). The geography of mammals, No. II: the Australian region. Geographical Journal, 4, 35-52.Sclater, W. L. (1895). The geography of mammals, No. III: the Neotropical region. Geographical Journal, 5, 471-483.Sclater, W. L. (1896a). The geography of mammals, No. IV: the Ethiopian region. Geographical Journal, 7, 282-296.Sclater, W. L. (1896b). The geography of mammals, No. V: the Oriental region. Geographi- cal Journal, 8, 378-389.Sclater, W. L. (1897a). The geography of mammals, No. VI: the Nearctic region. Geo- graphical Journal, 9, 67-76.Sclater, W. L. (1897b). The geography of mammals, No. VII: the Palaearctic region. Geographical Journal, 10, 84-91.Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the West. London: Routledge.Simoons, F. & Simoons, E. (1968). A ceremonial ox of India. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Smith, N. (1990). Uneven development: Nature, capital and the production of space (Second Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Stuart, L. C. (1954). Animal geography. In P. E. James & C. F. Jones (Eds.), American geography: Inventory and prospect(pp. 442-451). New York: Syracuse University Press.Thomson, J. A. (1905). How to teach the geographical distribution of animals. Geographi- cal Teacher, 3, 116-119.Tuan, Y.-F. (1984). Dominance and affection: The making of pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Ufkes, F. M. (1995). Lean and mean: US meat-packing in an era of agro-industrial restructuring. Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 683-706.Whatmore, S. (1997). Dissecting the autonomous self: hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics. Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 15, 37-53.Whatmore, S. & Thorne, L. B. (1998). Wild(er)ness: reconfiguring the geographies of wildlife. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bristol, Department of Geography.Wolch, J. (1996). Zoöpolis. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 7, 21-48.Wolch, J, Gullo, A., Lassiter, U. (1997). Changing attitudes toward Californias cougars. Society & Animals. 5(2), 95-116.Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (Eds.) (1995). Theme issue on "Bringing the animals back in." Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 631-760.Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (Eds.) (1998). Animal geographies: Place, politics and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. London: Verso.Wolch, J., West, K. & Gaines, T. E. (1995). Transspecies urban theory. Environment & Planning D: Society and Space, 13, 735-760.Yarwood, R., Evans, E. & Higginbottom, J. (1997). The contemporary geography of indigenous Irish livestock. Irish Geography, 30, 17-30.