This is the entire thesis on Homo domesticus, with special application to theology. oscar.carvajal@utoronto.ca

1. By Oscar Carvajal, PhD ABD
University of Toronto
© All rights reserved
HOMO DOMESTICUS:
AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF HUMAN DOMESTICATION
AND HOW IT MAY INFLUENCE
THE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF DOMINATION
INTRODUCTION
This thesis explores how understanding human domestication may influence the Christian
theological study of domination. This inter-disciplinary study identifies the notion of
human domestication, as a theoretical context and a critical tool, and explores its
implications on the Christian theological reflection on domination. It starts by
identifying key Christian theological scholarship on domination. It continues by
redefining the notion or metaphor of domestication as the conditioning influence of the
built environment.1 It then applies that enhanced notion of domestication to understand
the human condition and refers to the notion of human domestication, introducing the
term Homo domesticus. It ends by exploring how the previous analytical study of human
domestication may enhance and advance the Christian theological understanding and
critique of domination.
1
The term ―metaphor‖ here acknowledges that reality at times seems inaccessible; hence humans
use language, e.g., words and concepts, attempting to better grasp that reality. The metaphor of
domestication serves as a theoretical context and a tool to identify the condition that the built environment
imposes on organisms.
1

2. This is a parenthesis to include a word about me as author of this thesis in order to
assist in locating my ideas and bias. Even though the focus of this present study is not
autobiography, I acknowledge my human tamed and domesticated condition. I recognize
that my racial, religious, idiosyncratic, cultural, and gender condition and bias, in general,
the influence of taming ideologies, particularly as engineer, musician, and a mixture of
Latin American and North American Evangelical and Mennonite theologian. Over all,
the condition of the domesticating built environment shapes my perceptions and bias,
ideas, assumptions, analyses, critiques, and conclusions. My vital presuppositions are:
everything beyond survival is domination and anything short from eradicating the built
environment is domestication.
I define myself as a married father of three kids and older brother of two sisters. I
was born and I grew up in Cucuta, Colombia. Our family moved to Bogota when I was
seventeen. Spanish is my mother tongue, while I can barely communicate in English. At
the age of twenty six, I moved to the United States, where I lived undocumented for four
years. After spending two years in Kitchener and two winters in Winnipeg, I now live in
Kitchener. I have been living in Canada for the past eleven years, eight of them enrolled
in the Doctor of Philosophy in Theology program in the Toronto School of Theology; the
last five, writing my dissertation. Beyond a few years in Christian ministry, I have
worked in various general labour positions. I am currently a local semi-truck driver. My
ideas reflect my foreigner condition in North America, but mainly my experience as a
community volunteer among amazing Native friends in the Amazons.
This Introduction to the thesis presents its status quaestionis, setting a context to
make the thesis statement. It makes a brief reference to its contribution. It highlights the
2

3. relations between this thesis in Christian theological scholarship and other fields of
research. And it describes the methodology and procedure that this thesis follows.
Status quaestionis
The treatment of the notion of human domestication via the influence and condition of
housing, architecture, or the human built environment to understand social and ecological
domination is absent in Christian theological scholarship.
In terms of domination, scholars from different disciplines in the social sciences
debate social domination and exploitation. Also, during recent decades, Christian
theologies emerging from contexts of oppression argue for liberation from domination
and exploitation.2 Similarly, ecological scholarship examines and explicates the
relatedness and inter-relationship among the different systems of planet earth.3 Christian
theological research has been increasingly incorporating this approach and documenting
the social and ecological inter-relationships among humans, animals, and plants in
cosmological terms and in terms of suffering.4 Most of these authors argue that the
2
Ivan Petrella, ed., Latin American Liberation Theology: The Next Generation (Maryknoll, N.Y.:
Orbis Books, 2005); Marc H. Ellis, Toward a Jewish Liberation Theology: The Challenge of 21 st Century
(Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004); Marcella Althaus-Reid, From Feminist Theology to Indecent
Theology: Readings on Poverty, Sexual Identity and God (London: SCM Press, 2004), and The Queer God
(London; New York: Routledge, 2003); Peter C. Phan, Christianity with an Asian Face: Asian American
Theology in the Making (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2003); Kathleen M. Nadeau, Liberation Theology
in the Philippines: Faith in a Revolution (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2002); and Anthony B. Pinn, Moral
Evil and Redemptive Suffering: A History of Theodicy in African-American Religious Thought (Gainesville,
Fla.: University Press of Florida, 2002).
3
Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture (New York: Sierra Club
Books, 1978); Carolyn S. Vacca (Carolyn Summers), A Reform Against Nature: Woman Suffrage and the
Rethinking of American Citizenship, 1840-1920 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004); Eduardo A. Velazques,
Nature, Woman, and the Art of Politics (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000); and Susan Griffin,
Woman and Nature: The Roaring Inside Her (New York: Harper & Row, 1978).
4
Sharon Smith, Women and Socialism: Essays on Women‟s Liberation (Chicago, IL: Haymarket
Books, 2005); Maurice S. Lee, Slavery, Philosophy, and American Literature, 1830-1860 (Cambridge, UK;
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Edward A. Alpers, et al, eds., Slavery and Resistance in
Africa and Asia (London; New York: Routledge, 2005); Thomas Berry, The Dream of the Earth: Our Way
Into the Future (New York: Bell Tower, 1999), and Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Liberty for Latin America: How
to Undo Five Hundred Years of State Oppression (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005); Rosemary
Radford Ruether and Rita M. Gross, Religious Feminism and the Future of the Planet: A Christian-
3

4. different eco-systems, including the human, share in the suffering inflicted by human
domination, oppression, exploitation, and destruction. These scholars integrate
ecological studies and social analyses based on racial, economic, gender, and
cosmological perspectives in order to delve into a deeper understanding of human
suffering.5
As it conducts a critical analysis of human domestication and how it may
influence the Christian theological treatment of domination, this thesis considers
Christian theological explorations of domination which employ cosmological, ecological,
sociological, and anthropological approaches and follows a similar inter-disciplinary
method.
In terms of domestication, social and natural studies traditionally employ the
metaphor of domestication to understand relationships among human beings and other
organisms, things, and ideas. Baring in mind that this thesis considers the traditional
notion of domestication an understanding of taming, the following bibliographic survey
indicates the comprehensive way in which authors identify the implications of
domestication (taming).
Some authors apply the metaphor of domestication (taming) to animals and plants:
Darwin, to animals and plants;6 Raisor and Fox, to dogs;7 Price and Grandin, to animals;8
Buddhist Conversation (London: Continuum, 2001); Dieter Hessel, ed., Theology for Earth Community: A
Field Guide (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1996); and Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether,
eds., Christianity and Ecology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000).
5
Sallie Leonardo Boff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1997);
and Rosemary Radford Ruether, Ecofeminism: Symbolic and Social Connections of the Oppressions of
Women and the Domination of Nature (London: Huron College, 1991).
6
Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (London: J. Murray,
1868).
7
Michelle Jeanette Raisor, Determining the Antiquity of Dog Origins: Canine Domestication as a
Model for the Consilience Between Molecular Genetics and Archaeology (Oxford, England: Archaeopress,
2005); Michael W. Fox, The Dog: Its Domestication & Behavior (New York: Garland STPM, 1978), and
4

5. Zohary, to plants;9 Simmons, to cattle;10 Schorger, to the turkey;11 Laufer, to the reindeer;12
Roberts, to turtles;13 and Matthew, to the horse.14 Other authors apply the metaphor of
domestication to different social aspects: Rogers, to women;15 Fadlon, to alternative
medicine;16 Gregoriou, to cosmopolitanism;17 Schneider, to [North] American
Methodism;18 Whitworth, to foreign corporations;19 and Berker, to media and technology.20
Canine behavior; a history of domestication, behavioral development and adult behavior patterns,
neurophysiology, psychobiology, training, inheritance, early experience and psycho-social relationships,
experimental neuroses and spontaneous behavioral abnormalities, congenital anomalies and differential
diagnosis of diseases (Springfield, ILL.: Thomas, 1965).
8
Edward O. Price, Animal Domestication and Behavior (Wallingford, England; New York: CABI
Pub., 2002); Temple Grandin, Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals (San Diego: Academic
Press, 1988); and Peter J. Ucko and G. W. Dimblebay, eds., The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants
and Animals [Research Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects (1968: London University)]
(London: Duckworth, 1969).
9
Daniel Zohary, Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated
Plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
10
Frederick J. Simmons, A Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Culture, and History,
with Notes on the Domestication of Common Cattle (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968); and
A.E. Mourant and F.E. Zeuner, eds., Symposium on Domestication, Royal Anthropological Institute of
Great Britain and Ireland, 1960, in Man and Cattle: Proceedings of a Symposium on Domestication at the
Royal Anthropological Institute, 24-26 May 1960 (London: Royal anthropological Institute of Great Britain
and Ireland, 1963).
11
Arlie William Schorger, The Wild Turkey: Its History and Domestication [1st ed.] (Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1966).
12
Berthold Laufer, The Reindeer and its Domestication (New York: Kraus Reprint, 1964).
13
Mervin F. Roberts, Turtles as Pets (Neptune City, N.J.: TFH [Tropical Fish Hobbyist]
Publications, 1960).
14
Matthew William Diller, Evolution of the Horse (New York: American Museum of Natural
History [AMNH], 1927).
15
Barbara Rogers, The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies
(London; New York: Tavistock Publications, 1981).
16
Judith Fadlon, Negotiating the Holistic Turn: The Domestication of Alternative Medicine
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005).
17
Zelia Gregoriou, ―Resisting the Pedagogical Domestication of Cosmopolitanism: From
Nussbaum‘s Concentric Circles of Humanity to Derrida‘s Aporetic Ethics of Hospitality,‖ Philosophy of
Education (2003): 257-66.
18
A. Gregory Schneider, The Way of the Cross Leads Home: The Domestication of American
Methodism (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993).
19
John Ford Whitworth, The creation of corporations for profit in Pennsylvania: under the
Corporation act of April 29, 1874, and its supplements, the merger, consolidation, judicial sale and
reorganization of such corporations, the domestication of foreign corporations, the practice in the office of
the secretary of the commonwealth relating thereto and a collection of forms (Philadelphia T. & J. W.
Johnson Company, 1906).
20
Thomas Berker, Domestication of Media and Technology (Maidenhead: Open University Press,
2006).
5

6. Some authors consider, in a traditional way of the notion, the domestication (taming)
of places and the physical world: Mannion, of carbon;21 Hann, of the Turkish state;22
Hodder, of Europe;23 Yener, of metals;24 and Rogachev, of outer space.25 Other authors see
domestication in human attributes, values, and interests: Dörfer, to glory;26 Brenner, to
desire;27 McCutcheon, to dissent;28 Cobb, to violence;29 Warner, to blue notes;30 Brock, to
the hero-figure;31 Godbout and Caille, to gift;32 and Regazzola, to movement.33 Finally,
authors apply the metaphor of domestication to certain religious concepts: Wentz, to the
divine;34 Placher and Young, to transcendence;35 and Roberts, to anti-Semitism.36
21
Antoinette M. Mannion, Carbon and its Domestication (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer,
2006).
22
C. M. Hann, Tea and the Domestication of the Turkish State (Huntingdon: Eothen Press, 1990).
23
Ian Hodder, The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies
(Oxford, England; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1990).
24
K. Aslihan Yener, The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in
Anatolia, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Vol. 4 (Boston: Brill, 2000); and Jak Yakar, ―The
Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia,‖ Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 324 (November 2001): 114-17.
25
Vladimir Rogachev, ―Free Discussion Planned at Intl Space Conference,‖ [Information
Telegraph Agency of Russia] ITAR - TASS News Wire, New York, April 2001: 1. So-called ―outer space‖
exploration actually undercover ―inner space‖ surveillance from outer space.
26
Ingemar Dörfer, System 37 Viggen; Arms, Technology and the Domestication of Glory (Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 1973).
27
Suzanne April Brenner, The Domestication of Desire: Women, Wealth, and Modernity in Java
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998); Evelyn Blackwood, ―The Domestication of Desire:
Women, Wealth, and Modernity in Hava,‖ The Journal of Asian Studies (JAS) 60, no. 3 (August 2001):
915-6; and Rene Devisch and Claude Brodeur, The Law of the Lifegivers: The Domestication of Desire
(Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hardwood Academics; Abingdon: Marston, 1999).
28
Russel T. McCutcheon, Religion and the Domestication of Dissent, or, How to Live in a Less
Than Perfect Nation (London; Oakville, Conn.: Equinox Pub., 2005).
29
Sara Cobb, ―The Domestication of Violence in Mediation,‖ Law & Society Review (LSR) 31,
no. 3 (1997): 397-440.
30
Naphtali Wagner, ―‗Domestication‘ of Blue Notes in the Beatles‘ Songs,‖ Music Theory
Spectrum (Spectrum) [official journal of the Society for Music Theory (SMT)] 25, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 353-
65.
31
Claire Brock, ―Rousseauvian Remains,‖ History Workshop Journal (HWJ) 55, no. 1 (Spring
2003): 134-42.
32
Jacques T. Godbout and Alain Caille, ―The World of the Gift,‖ Anthropos 98, no. 1 (2003): 237-
8.
33
Tomaso Regazzola, La Domestication du Mouvement: Poussées Mobilisatrices et Surrection de
l'État (Paris: Editions Anthropos, 1981).
34
Richard E. Wentz, ―The Domestication of the Divine,‖ Theology Today 57, no. 1 (April 2000):
24-34.
6

7. In terms of human domestication, as this next bibliographic survey indicates, various
social and natural science authors speak about the domestication of humans. However, their
contributions remain scattered, referring to domestication of separate dimensions of the
human experience, without providing an integrated theory regarding the domestication of
the human species, per se. While none of these authors employ the term Homo domesticus
explicitly or deal with the concept in a wholistic and rigorous manner, each one of them
contributes in part to this thesis on human domestication and Homo domesticus.37
Peter J. Wilson speaks of the domestication of the human species, investigating the
ethnographic implications of the formation of small villages and towns, particularly in the
Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition.38 Ruth Tringham refers to sedentism as the domestication
of humans.39 John A. Livingston refers to the role of ideology in the domestication of
humans.40 Jack Goody refers to the implications of the scribal culture in the development of
human domestication.41 Claude Lévi-Strauss speaks of the shift from myth to philosophy
and to science, and refers to human domestication from an ethno-cultural dichotomy
approach, contrasting the Neolithic humans as savage and the modern as domesticated.42
35
William Carl Placher, The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking About God
Went Wrong (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996); and Richard A. Young, ―The
Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking About God Went Wrong,‖ Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) 42, no. 3 (September 1999): 546-59.
36
Andrew Roberts, ―The Roots of Hitler‘s Murderous Anti-Semitism,‖ The Daily Telegraph,
London UK 8 November 2003: 04.
37
One author refers to Homo domesticus in his self-published electronic book, but his treatment of
it is limited to an application from a psychological perspective while his book lacks scientific rigor. Peter
Hercules, Liberating the Caged Human Animal (2002 copyright), [homepage of Dr. Peter Hercules]
[online], available: http://www.untamedlife.com/index.php [2006, January 15].
38
Peter J. Wilson, The Domestication of the Human Species (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1988).
39
Ruth Tringham, Unit Title: Life in the Neolithic 1 - Living in Houses (N.A.), [online], available:
http://www.mactia.berkeley.edu/aop/modules/Neo1_module_web.htm [2005, December 18].
40
John A. Livingston, Rogue Primate: An Exploration of Human Domestication (Toronto: Key
Porter Books Limited, 1994).
41
Jack Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977).
42
Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (London: Librairie Plon, 1962).
7

8. Helen M. Leach reconsiders human domestication in relation to biological variation
resulting from sedentism.43 Keiichi Omoto and Peter Sloterdijk refer to human
domestication through bio-physiological modification via genetic engineering.44
Christian theology has given no attention to the notion of human domestication. The
closest contributions in Christian scholarship regarding domestication would include: Peter
Roget’s study on animal and vegetable physiology published before Charles Darwin’s
On the Origins of the Species. Roget’s study focuses on animal and vegetable
physiology with reference to natural Christian theology.45 Robert McAlear studies
Christian animal ethics for a sociological Christian theology.46 Andrew Linzey presents
perhaps the best-known contemporary Christian theology regarding animals. Linzey
plays a leading Christian theological role within the movement of animal rights.47
Stephen Webb, develops a Christian theology that advocates compassion for animals (dogs)
grounded on an anti-sacrificial position which subsequently translates into a vegetarian
approach.48 F. LeRon Shults traces the categories of ―relation‖ from Aristotle49 to
43
Helen M. Leach, et al, ―Human Domestication Reconsidered.‖ Current Anthropology (CA) 44,
no. 3 (June 2003): 349-68.
44
Keiichi Omoto, Jinrui no Jiko Kachikuka to Gendai (Human Self-domestication and Modern
Society) (Kyoto: Jinbun Shoin, 2002); and Peter Sloterdijk, Regeln für den Menschenpark (Regulations for
the Human Park) (Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1999).
45
English physician and natural theologian Peter Mark Roget (1779-1869). Peter Mark Roget,
Animal and Vegetable Physiology Considered with Reference to Natural Theology (London: W. Pickering,
1834).
46
Robert Arthur McAlear, A Theological Encounter with Animal Ethology: A Consideration of
Animal Behaviour in Social Theology (Master‘s thesis, University of St. Michael‘s College, 1972).
47
English Anglican priest and theologian, and vegetarian Reverend Andrew Linzey. Andrew
Linzey, Animal Theology (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1994); After Noah: Animals and the Liberation of
Theology (London; Herndon, Va.: Mowbray, 1997), and Animals on the Agenda: Questions About Animals
for Theology and Ethics (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1998).
48
Stephen H. Webb, On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
49
Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE).
8

9. Levinas,50 experiments with structuralism, and suggests a functional Christian anthropology
based on Imago Dei.51
Based on the above survey, since none of these works treats the notion of human
domestication per se, and the notion in itself has not been treated in Christian theology,
this present study seeks to address these gaps. Arising within this situation,
acknowledging that the author assumes his human domesticated condition, this thesis
identifies the notion of human domestication and explores its influence to the Christian
theological study pertaining domination pondering the following questions:
When considering the means, particularly the built environment, that humans
employ to penetrate their ecological environments to control and to exploit
other beings, how can this assessment provide insight into the study of
domestication and domination? What insight can be gained from a study of
the domination and abuse of plants and animals by humans via domestication
in order to study the domination and abuse of humans?
How might the metaphor of domestication and the notion of Homo domesticus
influence a Christian study and understanding of domination, and serve as an
analytical context and critical tool for Christian research into the social and
ecological dynamics of domination and exploitation? How might such a study
inform the inter-disciplinary character of Christian theology as it seeks to
explore intercepting views and concerns from the cosmological, ecological,
social, and anthropological perspectives?
50
Lithuanian-French philosopher and Talmudic commentator Emmanuel Lévinas (1906-1995).
51
F. LeRon Shults is professor at Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota. F. LeRon Shults,
Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
W.B. Eerdmans, 2003).
9

10. Thesis statement
A theological understanding and critique of social and ecological domination can be
enhanced by understanding that the human species has been domesticated. As the
metaphor of domestication enhances a theological understanding of the human condition
and agency, the notion of the domestication of humans enhances a theological
understanding of domination by humans and of humans.
Enhanced definition of domestication
This thesis seeks to enhance the notion of domestication to gain an inside into the human
and human relations in order to enhance the Christian theological study of domination.
The enhanced notion of domestication includes a differentiation between taming and
domestication, considering the influence exercised by the physical built environment.
Domestication implies a direct influence of the built environment on organisms.
Taking housing as epitome of the built environment, domestication relates to housing.
Naturalist John A. Livingston contends that domestication literally means ―to bring it into
our house.‖52 Domestication refers to the conditioning influence the presence of housing,
architecture, or the built environment (used here interchangeably, in the broad sense)
imposes on organisms. Whether they are inside or outside the house, organisms are
conditioned by the built environment through the influence of its very presence. The
architectural presence domesticates living organisms.
Domestication and taming represent different dimensions of a similar
conditioning process. Domestication refers to the conditions imposed on organisms by
housing; taming refers to conditioning techniques other than housing employed on
organisms which reflect and reinforce housing. Taming refers to the utilization of the
52
Livingston, Ibid, 15.
10

11. immediate contexts and sets of ideologies, sciences, techniques, and technologies to
achieve, foster, and perpetuate relations of domination via sociological, psychological,
physiological, and biological conditioning (see Appendix 1: Methods of Taming). While
the built environment influences culture, culture influences ideology (which influences
physically and meta-physically, but originates meta-physically, as an idea) and vice
versa. The influence of the built environment refers to the influence (physical or meta-
physical) originated physically (as or in relation to a tangible thing) by the presence or
expectancy of built environments. Conditioning via methodologies (including ideology,
technology, and technique) represents taming and conditioning via the built environment
represents domestication.
Domestication refers to ontological distortion through the built environment. The
human built environment establishes the context for domestication. As humans build an
environment it in return domesticates. The house or domestic realm universally
materializes and epitomizes domestication. Domestication is the built environment
conditioning ontology. Humans have also undergone domestication for generations.
Domestication and the human
The notion of human domestication also becomes a theoretical tool to understand ancient
and modern earthly life. It assists in identifying social and ecological dynamics of
domination. Practically, every reality on earth evolves under the influence and condition
of domestication. Humans undergo the domesticating influence of the built environment.
There have been specific instances throughout history when humans have tamed
other humans in the sense of purposefully breeding and deliberately manipulating genetic
and/or behavioural patterns, and even though authors initially refer to that dynamic as
11

12. domestication, it refers to processes and methods of taming humans that mainly rely on
the science of human knowledge or ideology.53
One way to conceptualize the condition influenced by domestication on humans is
considering two human aspects: the ontological and the behavioural. Ontologically,
domestication refers to the ways the built environment shapes the genetic make up or
nature of humans. Human ontology (Greek, study of being) here, in the Platonic sense,
refers to the human being as an existent entity, and in the Aristotelian sense, to the
characterization of that human being as existent entity. That domestication influences the
very ontology of humans argues that domestication influences the very being of the
modern human as an existent entity. Domestication has moved from being an external
influence to the human to become a characteristic of the existent entity of the human.
That human domestication refers to the very ontological transformative distortion of the
human implies that the modern human can be regarded as an existent entity
characteristically domesticated. Humans can be considered domesticated beings.
Behaviourally, domestication refers to the ways the built environment shapes
structurally and functionally the human within the larger ecological environment.
Domestication influences the place of the human within the entire earthly and universal
system, structure, or organism. Domestication further influences the way the human
relates or functions in regards to themselves and other organisms or subsystems.
Domesticated humans shape nature in a domesticated way. Humans can be considered
domesticators.
53
Plato refers to the breeding of Spartan rulers or guardians. The Republic of Plato, Francis
McDonald Cornford, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941), 160.
12

13. Another way to conceptualize the condition influenced by domestication on
humans is considering four human dimensions, namely, anthropological, cosmological,
social, and ecological. Anthropologically, that humans are domesticated refers to humans
as beings that have been conditioned by the built environment, who reflect and reinforce
the characteristics of tamed organisms, and who display the capacity to tame and
domesticate other beings. Humans have become characteristically domesticated.
Modern humans are born, grew up, and die conditioned by the built environment.
Cosmologically, domesticated humans see the world around them with domesticated
eyes. Modern human perception refers to human domesticated perception. Modern
human science refers to human domesticated science. Human imagination refers to
human domesticated imagination. Human domesticated cosmology delineates framed
under the influence of the built environment. Domesticated humans display a
characteristic incapacity to appreciate their larger cosmos without a domesticating
perspective.
Socially, human societies reflect and reinforce the tamed and domesticated
characteristic of humans. Society refers to the association of humanity which
predominantly characterizes by its tamed and domesticated, taming and domesticating
condition. Modern society actually emerges as a product of human domestication,
fundamentally composed by domesticated humans. Human domesticated society follows
the condition of the built environment. Ecologically, domesticated humans approach and
relate to their larger natural environment from a domesticated point of view. The
ecological involvement of domesticated humans remarkably distinguishes by its
13

14. domesticating nature. Earthly ecology evolves under the domesticating penetration and
control of the human built environment.
Domestication characterizes relations of domination among humans and the
human relation to the larger environment. For instance, palaces are architectural
constructions that establish the existence and presence of empires, hence of emperors.
Facing the presence of a palace, people can establish their social value in relation to the
palace. The palace defines who is inside and who is outside, who rules and who is ruled.
And rule refers to domination; in this case, it clearly refers to human domination. People
who live in palaces are evidently separated by the walls of the palace from their natural
environment. This separation affects human relation with the environment. Since
humanity has evolved in the context of domestication, understanding the social and
ecological character of domestication enhances a Christian theological understanding of
both humanity and domination. This thesis considers the general influence of
domestication on humanity, but focuses on exploring how an understanding of human
domestication informs a Christian understanding and critique of domination.
Human domestication and domination
Domination refers to the control against individuals, species, or environments. It has
been exercised by different means, one of them conditioning, which refers to an external
influence on organisms. One of such external influences can be regarded as
domestication. There are and have been other forms of domination besides
domestication, especially since sociologists, anthropologists, ethnographers,
palaeontologists, and archaeologists argue that methods of domination existed long
before human-made housing was developed. They speak of band formation, sporadic
14

15. attacks, tool and fire making, hunting, and collection among nomad societies.54
Domestication functions, among other forms of domination, as one way of domination.
It is widely known and accepted that domestication (taming) mediates a
domination of animals and plants that can be denominated ecological domination. The
human built environment conditions the survival of numerous species of animals and
plants. And humans also undergo domestication. The built environment also conditions
the survival of modern humans. Hence domestication refers to a dynamic of survival and
domination also at the anthropological, cosmological, sociological, and ecological levels.
Thus domestication underlies ecological and social domination.
Architecture generates and intensifies domestication mediating power
accumulation and ecological and social domination. Marvin Harris has identified similar
political-economical systems in ancient China, India, Mesopotamia, Cuzco, and Egypt.55
These systems were characterized by the presence of highly centralized bureaucratic
classes and hereditary despotic overlords. These elites claimed divine mandates and
mediating powers, even divinity, using architecture.56 Palaces, temples, and tombs were
of particular importance, embodying architecturally dominating social institutions. Such
rulers organized society architecturally and maintained order using plain force to demand
submission of underlings. Mesopotamians and Incas resettled defeated troops as peasant
force and indoctrinated enemy leaders with imperial politics and religion. Domestication
builds empire. Great architecture is synonym of great empire and vice versa.
54
Rosen considers that ―the presence of small arrowheads (fragments) and microlithic
lunates…suggests a continued role for hunting in this early [the Camel Site, Negev Early Bronze Age]
pastoral society, or perhaps low level warfare.‖ Steven A. Rosen, ―Early Multi-resource Nomadism:
Excavations at the Camel Site in the Central Negev,‖ Antiquity 77, no. 298 (December 2003): 749.
55
North American anthropologist Marvin Harris (1927-2001).
56
McMillan speaks of progressive politics as the taming of power, and refers to the United States‘
social structure ―by far the greatest concentration of organized power in the modern world.‖ Joyce
McMillan, ―Blair‘s High-Risk Strategy: The Taming of America,‖ The Scotsman (February 2003): 14.
15

16. The process of architecture, indeed of domestication, refers to a process of
ecological and social domination. Humans rely on and favor the development of
architecture to maintain and advance the taming and domestication of animals and plants,
indeed of other humans. Through housing, humans challenge the elements. Shelters alter
time cycles (day and night), influence sources of energy (diurnal food and nocturnal
sleep), and disturb life moods (awaken and asleep). By altering life cycles, energy
sources, and organic moods, housing alters the human condition, including its feelings,
needs, etc. Furthermore, elites would strive to control the housing or architectural
domain and its industry. Social elites would reinforce housing as a human need for social
domination and the sake of power.57
Human domestication established through architecture has evolved to such a
degree that it has been taken for granted and even desired. The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR) by the United Nations (UN) in 1948 claims: ―Everyone has the
right to a standard of living,‖ including housing.58 It is estimated housing appeared
40,000 years ago. Within the 2.5 million years of human history, housing represents a
relative recent development, popularized in the last 10,000 years (see Appendix 2: A
History of Pre-Human Life).
57
English anthropologist Ruth Tringham designed at the UC-Berkeley Archaeological Research
Facility (ARF) a module for sixth grade students at UC-Berkeley/Roosevelt Middle School Oakland,
intended to help them think ―about humans domesticating plants and animals, as well as how the humans
themselves become domesticated through learning to live with each other in confined spaces
(architecture).‖ ―The Neolithic is a time when people began to settle down and construct and live in
dwellings, which would last not only throughout the year but also for many years, perhaps many
generations. This change that archaeologists call ‗sedentism‘ is an important prelude to some other
significant changes. Some of us think this is the most important change since it means the domestication of
humans.‖ Tringham, http://www.mactia.berkeley.edu/aop/modules/Neo1_module_web.htm.
58
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 25 (1), adopted and proclaimed by General
Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR]
(2000-2006), United Nations [online], available: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [2006, March
20].
16

17. Dynamically changing and mutating limited and exclusive social circles of
humans, both concentrated and dispersed throughout the world, here denominated elites,
dominate human populations through the built environment. The United Nations
reaffirmed on June 15, 2006, its study released on March 25, 2004, by the Population
Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), which projected
that the fifty percent of the human population would live in urban settings in 2007;59 by
2030 five billion humans would live in cities, two billions of whom would live in
slums.60 Shelters represent a cultural development or created need rather than a natural
need. Elites take advantage of housing for status and control purposes. Powerful
multinational corporations in cooperation with state governments and other political,
economic, financial, industrial, and commercial groups seek to control the construction,
and particularly the housing, market.61
An obvious observation from daily life, it is neither a secret nor is it a naïve
coincidence that the socio-geographic landscape of modern, as well as ancient,
settlements corresponds to a planned, executed, and controlled process of architectural
imbalance of social stratification. One can tell the difference between impoverished
neighborhoods and privileged zones by noticing their architectural differences. Present
human life seems impossible without housing, provided and regulated by human elites.
59
[United Nations] UN Report Says World Urban Population of 3 Billion Today Expected to
Reach 5 Billion by 2030 (2004 copyright), United Nations Information Service (UNIS) [online], available:
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2004/pop899.html [2006, July 6].
60
Guardian Unlimited: Urban Population to Overtake Country Dwellers for First Time (2006
copyright), Guardian Newspapers Limited [online], available:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1798774,00.html [2006, July 6].
61
Biles studies the case of Soul City in North Carolina and reveals the intricate alliances between
public and private organizations managing housing. Roger Biles, ―The Rise and Fall of Soul City:
Planning, Politics, and Race in Recent America,‖ Journal Of Planning History (JPH) 4, no. 1 (February
2005): 52-72.
17

18. Domestication represents a pervasive underlying dynamic of domination. Even
more, housing design and building technology tend to self-replicate. Domestic humans
understand and behave according to a conditioning situation represented by housing and
architecture.62 Domesticated humans replicate social and ecological structures and
systems that have been historically developed to frame their existence. They build their
life experience on the principles laid down for them, in many ways corresponding to
architectural design. They replicate their condition in every aspect of their ontological,
cosmological, social, and ecological experience. They carry on their life experience
within the constraints of specific functions designed and imposed on them.
The functionality of domestic humans responds to the structural domesticated
condition. Domesticated humans reflect a conditioned ontology, articulated in disturbed
cosmology, and imbued in their own artificiality, reflected in a deformed social
arrangement and dysfunctional ecological presence. Domesticated humans search for
survival under the shadows of their built environment, deceived by power and
domination.
Christian theology and domination
The Christian theological critique of domination has focused on ideology (see Appendix
3: Ideology as a Taming Methodology). There are four main ideologies treated in
Christian theology when analyzing domination, namely, racism, patriarchy, classism, and
anthropocentrism. The Christian theological study of domestication follows its
traditional understanding, which leans towards defining taming rather than domestication,
62
Lawson argues that most humans live in social clusters, interpreting life styles that reflect their
housing conditions. Julie Lawson, ―Comparing the Causal Mechanisms Underlying Housing Networks
Over Time and Space,‖ in Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (HBE) 16, no. 1 (March 2001):
29-52.
18

19. as explained above. Christian theology has not theorized about domestication via the
built environment. The notion of human domestication is also absent in Christian
theology.
When adopting the above enhanced definition of domestication and the notion of
human domestication, the Christian theological critique of domination enhances by
differentiating between domination via human taming and domination via human
domestication. Through addressing ideologies of domination via taming, Christian
theology has made important contributions regarding human taming. The four ideologies
mentioned above that have been used throughout human history have exercised taming
conditionings over humans and the larger environment. These conditions reflect and
reinforce the condition established by the built environment or domestication. Feature
characteristics of human domestication are addressed when challenging ideologies of
domination, namely, racism, patriarchy, classism, and anthropocentrism. But the very
condition of the built environment remains unchallenged.
When adopting the enhanced definition of domestication and the notion of human
domestication, Christian theology realizes the domesticating influence of the built
environment. The Christian theological critique of domination enhances by recognizing
that modern humans are fundamentally domesticated, that human philosophy and
cosmology are particularly domesticated, and that the social and ecological context is
eminently domesticated. Christian theology realizes that domestication, and particularly
human domestication, represents an important context where earthly life develops.
Christian theology also realizes that the notion of human domestication represents a
valuable theoretical tool to identify dynamics of domination perpetrated against human
19

20. individuals, society in general, and the ecological environment at large. Such dynamics
include traditional symbolism, social stratification, confinement, the extremes of privacy,
and ecological devastation, in particular, the domination of plants and animals. These
issues will not be adequately addressed by changes in building, no matter how well
intentioned and radical they may seem. For instance, ecologically friendly buildings,
unfortunately, do not carry the capacity to address the very unfriendliness of the human
built environment per se. This is not to oppose such wonderful initiatives, given the
situation, but to alert to the deficiencies of such initiatives when confronted with the
pervasive and devastating context of social and ecological domination shaped by
domestication.
To explore the positive contributions of domestication and the built environment
may fill up myriads of theses but goes beyond the purpose of this thesis concerned with
understanding domination. Certainly, domesticated humans would find infinite features
in domestication that they would understand as enriching earthly life, particularly the
modern human mode of life. In fact, human domesticated science is devoted to this end.
In many ways, we domesticated humans do not know and cannot appreciate other modes
of life beside the domesticated one. I do not think we domesticated humans have the
ability, for instance, to chose a nomad life style; if needed, it would remain a choice
forced by the larger ecological environment.
The notion of human domestication assists Christian theology to realize its own
emergence and development within the context of domestication. Religion at large and
theology in particular, including Christian theology, has developed in the process of the
domestication of humans. The wider Christian tradition, the biblical tradition refers to
20

21. about 4,000 years of history, while domestication to about 10,000 years of development
(se Appendix 4: Beginnings of Domestication). When the biblical tradition emerged
human domestication was well developed.
The Neolithic witnessed the transition from proto-religion to religion as we know
it. From the age of shamanic mysticism in the Paleolithic develops more formally
structured and institutionalized religion. Theology emerges both under the condition of
domestication and in response to the shortcomings of domestication. Religion refers
characteristically to a practice of domesticated humans. Hence religion can be
understood as part of the problem as well as part of the solution regarding domination via
domestication. While Christian theology and religion in general has developed elements
to counteract deficiencies identified in the age of domestication, its theoretical elements
appear bounded by the frame of the established context of domestication.
Beside appealing to general axioms that claim intermediacy, alleging access to
divine revelation from beyond the mundane and finite through notions of illumination
and the like, religion and theology exhibits no elements to deal with the problem of
domestication. Notions of heavenly afterlife are plagued with domesticated provisions
like mansions with rooms and heavenly homes. Theology takes domestication for
granted, as the way of life on earth with no intention to challenge its legitimacy. This
indicates that theology emerges among domesticated humans interested in challenging
the shortcomings of domestication but not to eliminate domestication in itself.
I was hoping to identify some elements in Christian theology to address human
domestication in itself unsuccessfully. I explored some biblical scriptures seeking some
hints to challenge human domestication unsuccessfully. Most key passages challenge the
21

22. intensification of human domestication, e.g., empire, but leave general domestication
untouched. Nehemiah puts the biblical and hence the Christian building enterprise rather
succinctly: ―Let us start rebuilding.‖63 Or as expressed to the Israeli kingship tradition by
the prophet Nathan: ―the LORD will build a house for you.‖64 Christian theology leans
toward significant social developments that challenge key ideologies of domination hence
ideologies of human taming. Unfortunately, the challenge to domestication and
particularly human domestication remains unresolved, at least for me. Hopefully in the
future somebody will be able to find some solutions.
A preliminary word regarding ethics, even though my main interest with this
thesis is Christian theology in general. Peter J. Wilson provides perhaps the key
conclusion about ethics in his comparison between nomad and sedentary societies. For
him, the change was from ethics in the Paleolithic to altruism in the Neolithic. He goes
further to argue that Neolithic or domesticated humans talk about ethics while Paleolithic
humans did ethics. The change can be perceived in the transition from relational ethics to
institutional altruism. Among nomads, ethics seems a given, while, with the
preoccupation for domesticated relations or institutionalization under the built
environment, ethics becomes a topic in the age of human domestication.
For instance, would domesticated humans consider leaving the sick, the lame, and
the old to die by themselves—practices not uncommon among nomads—ethically sound?
Would individual ethics take precedence over the ethics of the group or vise versa? If
yes, for instance, would the freedom of the individual override the freedom of the group
or vice versa? We domesticated humans seek to elucidate such questions but end up in
63
Nehemiah 2:18, New International Version (NIV).
64
1 Chronicles 17:10, NIV.
22

23. eternal debates, often resolved via ethical imposition based on the amount of accumulated
domesticated authority or supremacy, usually following institutional procedures that obey
particular traditional and legal measures.
Ethical advances among domesticated beings remain focused on addressing the
symptoms of conditioning dynamics, among them obvious and scandalous inadequacies
of domestication, but without challenging the very legitimacy of those dynamics,
particularly of domestication. The said symptoms and inadequacies are inevitably judged
from a domesticated view point by domesticated humans. That situation occurs mainly
because human life has evolved to such a degree under domestication that eliminating
domestication would imply eliminating the human itself.
Christian theology does not represent the exception to the above mentioned
domesticated phenomenon regarding ethics. Christian theological ethics, for instance,
refers to notions of love, truth, mercy, justice, and peace. However, to be more accurate,
these ethical notions refer to domesticated love, truth, mercy, justice, and peace. Perhaps
the most widely known Christian version of love finds itself epitomized in the figure of
the Good Shepherd. This figure is clearly adopted from a taming and domesticating
dynamic: in the best sense, taking care of the sheep; in the worse, dominating the sheep.
The dilemma becomes evident when compared to Christian claims to eternal and
universal principles of divine love. Has this Christian notion of love the adequate
potential to address shortcomings in societies that reject to take care of the sheep as
ecologically profane? What does it says about Christian ethical claims? Do they obey
truly to universal and eternal decrees or they really remain private and individual
experiences and understandings that have been generalized traditionally and
23

24. institutionally? Christian theology in particular and biblical theology in general does not
seem to offer clear alternatives to this inquiry. The classical Christian admonition
referring to the eternal ubiquitous gracious God assists in addressing the shortcomings of
human domestication but do not assist in challenging its very existence. Modern human
life outside the realm of domestication seems practically unviable.
My purpose with this thesis is to address the influence on the Christian study of
domination when adopting the notion of human domestication. Unfortunately, I leave
this discussion truncated at the point of explaining the Christian theological contribution
in terms of addressing ideology and a limited exploration of some hints of ideas that at
the end become recurrent of previous theological works and do not suggest an effective
potential to address the very existence and reality of human domestication. Finally, but
implicitly from the beginning, my most significant realization throughout this theoretical
enterprise remains reflexive: to acknowledge that this thesis emerges as an ideology in
the context of human domestication, elaborated by a human domesticated person.
Contribution
This thesis advances the Christian theological study regarding domination. It offers an
additional approach, namely, human domestication. It advances Christian scholarship by
proposing the metaphor of domestication and the term Homo domesticus in order to
understand the human condition and agency. It integrates insights from the social and
natural sciences regarding human domestication with relevant research in Christian
theological studies. It gains insight into a Christian theological understanding of the
underlying dynamics of social and ecological domination.
24

25. To assert its Christian theological contribution, this thesis explores some Christian
theological treatments of domination. It draws upon the work of Cone, Daly, Gutiérrez,
Berry, and McFague to highlight the importance of the contribution of the notion of
human domestication to enhance the Christian theological understanding of domination.
It pays special attention to Berry‘s work and seeks to enhance its anthropological and
sociological perspective.
This thesis explores Cone‘s work, which seeks the liberation of black peoples
from the dynamics of racism;65 Daly‘s work, which opposes patriarchy and defends the
emancipation of women;66 Gutiérrez‘s work, which condemns classist ideology and
argues for the liberation of the poor, using a theory of dependency;67 Berry‘s work, which
criticizes anthropocentrism and proposes a new cosmology to advance the emancipation
of the earth and its bio-systems;68 and McFague‘s work, which critiques domination
integrating a critique of racist, patriarchal, classist, and anthropocentric ideologies to
argue on behalf of social and ecological emancipation.69
Similar to the above Christian theological works, this thesis critiques the
dynamics of domination. It adds to the above analyses the use of the metaphor of
domestication. While these authors examine domination based on race, class, gender,
and genus, this thesis suggests that domestication, and particularly human domestication
(Homo domesticus), uncovers a seemingly subtle and foundational dynamic of
domination based on housing or architecture or the built environment.
65
James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation [2nd Ed.] (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1986).
66
Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978).
67
Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation (Maryknoll, New
York: 1971).
68
Thomas Berry, The Great Work: Our Way Into the Future (New York: Bell Tower, 1999).
69
Sallie McFague, The Body of God: An Ecological Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
25

26. Christian scholarship benefits from engaging in conversations with other
disciplines. Research benefits from openness, discussion, and collaboration rather than
parochialism, suspicion, and competition among disciplines. Ultimately, but beyond this
present project, this thesis stimulates Christian theology to move toward an unavoidable
self-assessment regarding its own position on the domesticating structures that govern its
social and ecological functioning vis-à-vis systems of domination.70
In summary, through the notion of human domestication, and with special
attention to intersections of the cosmological, anthropological, social, and ecological
realms, this thesis identifies a context and a critical theoretical tool, which, when taken
into account by Christian theology, advances the Christian reflection on and response to
domination.
Methodology outline
The methodology of this study has several aspects:
First, this study develops a critical Christian theological analysis of the human
condition by employing the metaphor of domestication.
Second, this work includes a certain degree of comparative studies, especially in
relation to recent Christian theologies that highlight awareness of both the contextual
condition of doing Christian theology, and the situation and concerns of society and
ecology. It pays special attention to the works of Cone, Daly, Gutiérrez, Berry, and
McFague.
70
Smith, John A., and Chris Jenks, Qualitative Complexity: Ecology, Cognitive Processes and the
Re-emergence of Structures in Post-humanist Social Theory (London; New York: Routledge, 2006).
26

27. Third, this study is both inductive and deductive. It draws insight from
conclusions submitted in different areas of the social and natural sciences in order to
apply the metaphor of domestication to relationships between humans.
Fourth, as implied above, this thesis is inter-disciplinary, manifested in two ways:
(1) the enrichment of Christian theological studies through the consideration of
ecological and social studies; and (2) the enhancement of the relationship between
Christian theology and the social and natural sciences. This thesis particularly employs
the work of Thomas Berry regarding the emergence of sedentary life as a context to
explore the implications of domestication on humans and of human domestication on the
Christian theological study of domination.
Fifth, perhaps needless to make explicit, this work is characterized by academic
synopsis and analytical condensation. It avoids any pretence of treating the topic and the
sources exhaustively. Realizing the limitations that time, space, and resources impose on
this venture, this thesis exercises an extremely selective methodology with respect to the
scholarly body it reviews, the topic it treats, the academic tools it employs, and the
perspectives it adopts.
Sixth, the conclusions and suggestions of this study remain at best tentative. They
distance from any trend that claims objectivity. Any deduction or induction to issue from
this thesis responds to a very subjective engagement with the contribution of varied
authors regarding the subject matter. This thesis interprets the work of a domesticated
human. This modest contribution, if any at all, is one hundred percent subjective.
Seventh, my view is somewhat gloomy regarding the ecological crisis, alerting
theology to the built environment conditioning both deterministically and with hesitancy.
27

28. Reflecting somehow our modern cynicism, my recognition of the impossibility of
undomestication presents my reading of such critic reality as indictment of domination.
In general, this study advances Christian scholarship by pursuing a dialogue with
other academic disciplines; by integrating research from the social and natural sciences to
elaborate an analytical and critical assessment regarding the domestication of humans;
and by considering some of the implications of human domestication on the Christian
theological understanding of social and ecological domination.
Thesis outline
After this Introduction and the following Prologue, this thesis continues by exploring
how some well-known Christian theological works examine and respond to the issue of
domination in order to introduce the notion of human domestication. It proceeds by
exploring the metaphor of domestication, and continues by examining how this metaphor
may assist in understanding the human species. It concludes by assessing some of the
implications that an understanding of human domestication may present to Christian
theology by exploring the dynamics of domination in a social and ecological context.
The outline of the thesis is:
Introduction: This section presents the status quaestionis and a thesis statement.
It describes the contribution of this thesis. It outlines its methodology and its content.
Prologue: This section delineates the sociological scholarship that provides the
academic framework in which this thesis arises. It presents a working definition of
domestication and argument of this thesis and a brief explanation of the relationship
between domestication and domination.
28

29. Chapter One: The first chapter is named ―Christian Theological Critics of
Domination.‖ It sets a theological context by reviewing the contributions of certain
Christian theological positions on human domination. It considers contributions from
contextual Christian theologies on domination and emancipation from Black, feminist,
Latin American, and deep ecology Christian theological perspectives. It contains a
treatment of the works of James H. Cone on racism, Mary Daly on patriarchy, Gustavo
Gutiérrez on classism, Thomas Berry on anthropocentrism, and Sallie McFague on
domination. It suggests a preliminary discussion on the possible implications that the
notion of the domestication of humans may present to Christian scholarship on
domination.
Chapter Two: The second chapter is named ―Human Domestication.‖ It revisits and
redefines the metaphor of domestication. It explores the difference and similarities between
taming and domestication. It provides an account of the historical development of taming
and domestication, the role of food supply in the emergence of taming and domestication,
domestication in terms of storing information. It constructs the notion of the domestication
of human beings via the built environment or Homo domesticus. It presents an account of
the development of human domestication, an introduction to the notion of human taming via
ideology, an account of human domestication in relation to settlement and the human built
environment (concretely to shelters and houses), and an analytical study of the implications
of human domestication in relation to the issue of domination. It provides a historical
context for understanding human domestication, denominating ideology a method of taming
that reflects and is reflected by domestication, and discussing the notion of human
domestication in the context of sedentary vis-à-vis nomadic culture. It discuses the concrete
29

30. case of the invention of shelters or houses, marking the emergence and development of the
built environment, and refers to the subsequent intensification of human domestication as
empire. It names human domestication Homo domesticus.
Chapter Three: The third chapter is named ―Christian Theological Critique of
Human Taming.‖ It explores the implications that the notion of human domestication
represent for Christian theology. It adopts the notion of human domestication and revisits
the theological contributions by Cone on racism, Daly on patriarchy, Gutiérrez on
classism, Berry on anthropocentrism, and McFague on domination, assessing their
important challenges to domination as addressing human taming, which reflects and is
reflected by human domestication. It discusses human domestication in the context of the
cosmological, ecological, sociological, and anthropological perspectives of Thomas
Berry‘s work. It finally explores the implications and some elements for a Christian
theological view of domination.
Chapter Four: The fourth chapter is named ―Homo Domesticus and Christian
Theology.‖ It presents an account of human emergence in theological narrative. It reviews
religion and Christianity in the context of human domestication. It explores the influence of
human domestication in biblical theology. It presents a history of Christianity in the context
of human domestication. It explores the influence of human domestication in the
theological method. It explores how theology addresses the intensification of human
domestication. It enquires on the contribution of mystic spirituality when facing
domesticating religion. And it makes a reference to Christian ethics from a human
domestication view point.
Conclusions: It recapitulates the main tentative concluding remarks of the study.
30

31. PROLOGUE
In preparation for the interdisciplinary and particularly Christian theological discussion in
this work, this Prologue discusses the broader scholarly context and reviews the state of
current scholarship in social and natural sciences concerning human domestication via
housing, architecture, or the built environment, in the broad sense. It addresses the use of
the metaphor of domestication for understanding domination. It includes a working
definition of domestication and its argument and a statement regarding the relationship
between domination and domestication, particularly of humans.
This thesis explores a social-anthropological question, the domestication of
humans, within a cosmological and ecological perspective.71 For that purpose, this
section introduces the main disciplines regarding social anthropology in dialogue in this
thesis, particularly Charles Darwin‘s work.72
71
This section adapts materials from: American Sociological Association (2006, January 19),
[online], available: http://www.asanet.org/index.ww [2006, January 19]; Anovasofie [Analyzing and
Overcoming the Sociological Fragmentation in Europe]: European Virtual Library of Sociology (2004-
2006), [online], available: http://www.anovasofie.net/ or http://www.anovasofie.net/vl/ [2006, January 19];
Antrobase.com: Searchable Database of Anthropological Texts (N.A.), [online], available:
http://www.anthrobase.com/ [2006, January 19]; and American Anthropological Association (AAA) (1996-
2004 copyright), [online], available: http://www.aaanet.org/ [2006, January 19].
72
Marvin Harris‘s description of competing anthropological approaches seems instructive:
Sociobiology and Biological Reductionism, a research strategy that seeks to explain human social life by
means of the theoretical principles of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology; Dialectical
Materialism, often known as Marxists, focus on the importance of infrastructure with a dialectical view of
history developed by philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, which plays a central role in Marxist
theories; Structuralism, in spite of the proponents of structuralism declarations of the primacy of the
infrastructure, structuralism places more importance on words and ideas, and resists scientific method;
Structural Marxism, combining aspects of structuralism with aspects of dialectical and historical
materialism, heaps scorn on cultural materialists as ―mechanical,‖ ―vulgar,‖ and ―so-called Marxists;‖
Psychological and Cognitive Idealism, that the mental, emic (insider view), and personality aspects of
socio-cultural systems determine the etic (outsider view) and behavior aspects; Eclecticism, ―By picking
and choosing epistemological and theoretical principles to suit the convenience of each puzzle, eclecticism
guarantees that its solutions will remain unrelated to each other by any coherent set of principles;‖ and
Obscurantism, ―a research strategy whose aim is to subvert the possibility of achieving a science of human
31

32. Currents in social anthropology
Anthropology refers to the study of humans. Historically, anthropologists started by
examining traditional non-Western peoples. Analytically, anthropology may be regarded
as a holistic and comparative branch of sociology. Holistically, anthropologists seek to
connect the various parts that make up a social and cultural whole, rather than
specializing on one specific subsystem within the whole. Comparatively, anthropology
describes the diverse cultures, subcultures, groups and institutions, building up a rich
databank of human cultural and social forms to compare, contrast, and to bring out
specificities and social idiosyncrasies. Methodologically, anthropology advocates for a
qualitative approach to uncover through fieldwork what things, relationships, persons,
and activities mean to people, rather than what these phenomena are in themselves.
The notion of human domestication emerges in the context of social
anthropology, which developed in different ways. Social Anthropology (SA) developed
as a scholarly discipline in the 1900s in Great Britain, influenced by French sociological
ethnologie theory. The movement was led by Émile Durkheim, father of modern
sociology.73 He focused on forms of social integration (solidarity), collective
representations, and ritual. It was also led by Marcel-Israël Mauss, father of modern
French anthropology.74 Of particular importance is Mauss‘ Essay Sur le Don (1923-24),
translated into English as The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic
Societies (1954), a comparative essay on gift-giving and exchange in primitive societies.
social life.‖ Marvin Harris (2005 copyright), The Realm of MacGoddess [homepage of Nancy G.
McClernan] [online], available: http://www.voicenet.com/~nancymc/marvinharris.html [2006, January 15].
73
French-Jewish sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917).
74
French-Jewish anthropologist and sociologist Marcel-Israël Mauss (1872-1950) founded the
Institute d‟etnologie at the University of Paris.
32

33. Social anthropology was inspired by the methodological ideals of fieldwork
pioneered by Bronislaw Malinowski, spreading from Britain to such countries as
Norway, Sweden, and Holland.75 Social anthropology is often contrasted to the North
American cultural anthropology developed by Franz Boas.76 Cultural Anthropology
(CA) is considered less sociologically inclined and more influenced by linguistics and
history.77
Domestication and natural selection
This thesis on domination and particularly on human domestication emerges chiefly in
the context of and as a critique to the natural selection theory (see Appendix 5: Modern
Synthesis and Domestication). Since Charles Darwin‘s On The Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life (1859) deeply informs current scientific discussions on evolutionary history (see
Appendix 6: Human Evolution), including human emergence and development, this
thesis includes an interpretation of Darwin‘s ideas.78 Darwin put forward a notion of
75
Polish-Austrian anthropologist Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski (1884-1942).
76
German-Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas (1858-1942).
77
Traditionally, while the anthropological school in the U.S. refers to cultural studies, the
anthropological school in the United Kingdom (UK) refers to social studies. The UK school is now known
as socio-cultural anthropology. Social scientists frequently refer to Applied Anthropology (practical
research), Academic Anthropology (theoretical research), Cultural Relativism (suspended field work
judgment), Cybernetics (information flow in complex systems), Evolutionism (gradual organization
complexity), Neo-evolutionism (multilinear evolution), Scientific Dialectical Materialism (organic society
and power accumulation), Neo-Marxism (production beyond economy), Functionalism (integrated social
whole), Structuralism (complexity of structural meaning), Structural Functionalism (social function and
social system), and Postmodernism (deconstruction of knowledge); Peter Metcalf, Anthropology: The
Basics (London; New York: Routledge, 2005); Barbara D. Miller, Penny Van Esterik, and John Van
Esterik, Cultural Anthropology. 3er Canadian ed. (Toronto: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2007); and Louis
Dumont, [Introduction à Deux Théories D'anthropologie Sociale. English] An Introduction to Two
Theories of Social Anthropology: Descent Groups and Marriage Alliance, Robert Parkin, trans. and ed.
(New York: Berghahn Books, 2006).
78
English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin‘s (1809-1882) On The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) established
evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific theory of diversification in nature. Charles
Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in
the Struggle for Life, ed. J. W. Burrow (London: Penguin, 1985); On the Origin of Species by Means of
33

34. domination based on domestication (taming) but camouflaged with naturism. Darwin‘s
methodology is deeply influenced by experimentation on taming. His method superposes
sociological projections onto ecology.
This general introduction refers to some aspects of Darwin‘s theory on natural
selection, common descent, and some general laws, ―taken in the largest sense,‖ acting
around us.79 As Darwin summarizes,
Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction;
Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life,
and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for
Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of
Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms… On these principles, I
believe, the nature of the affinities of all organic beings may be explained.80
Searching to explain those principles of organic affinity, Darwin traveled
extensively to explore nature in exotic regions, including his famous expedition to the
Galapagos Islands. However, his method of experimentation was greatly influenced by
his understanding of and familiarity with taming, which Darwin denominates
domestication, following the traditional custom to refer to taming. He observed
―variation under domestication‖ and extended it to illustrate natural selection, to explain
Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (2005, May 23),
Literature.org: The Online Literature Library [online], available: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-
charles/the-origin-of-species/preface.html [2005, December 18]; The Origin of Species (2004 copyright),
The Free Library by Farlex [online], available: http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species
[2005, December 18]; and Charles Darwin (1809-1882) (2004 copyright), The Free Library by Farlex
[online], available: http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/domestication [2005, December
18].
79
George John Romanes, Darwin and After Darwin: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and
a Discussion of Post-Darwinian Questions (London: Longmans Green & Co., 1893); Thomas Henry
Huxley, ―Obituary of Charles Darwin,‖ Proceedings of the Royal Society (RS) 44 (1888); Daniel C.
Dennett, Darwin‟s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster,
1995); Dennis F. Bratchell, The Impact of Darwinism: Texts and Commentary Illustrating Nineteenth
Century Religious, Scientific and Literary Attitudes (London: Avebury Publishing, 1981); and A.J. Cain,
―The True Meaning of Darwinian Evolution,‖ in Evolution and Its Influence, Alan Grafen, ed. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1989).
80
The Origin of Species: Chapter IV.-Natural Selection, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-
Origin-of-Species/4-1-2.
34

35. coadaptation, ―the case of the coadaptations of organic beings to each other and to their
physical conditions of life,‖ and to make his fundamental critique of Christianity: that the
belief ―that each species has been independently created—is erroneous.‖81 He concluded
that the best suited or adapted—i.e., the fittest82—dominates and survives.83
We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the
common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups,
which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species.84
Some studies before Darwin‘s argued that species suit their context over
generations.85 But Darwin saw it with particular intensity through the lenses of
domination. His notions of strength, superiority, and fittest-ness refer to projections upon
nature elaborated by human subjectivities seeking to standardize the appreciation of
81
However, he closes his introduction with both a strong claim and a humble acknowlegement. ―I
am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.‖
―Introduction,‖ The Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/0-1.
82
Although Darwin used it, the phrase ―survival of the fittest‖ was originally applied to economics
and coined by English philosopher and liberal political and sociological theorist Herbert Spencer (1820-
1903) in his Principles of Biology of 1864. Spencer led classical Social Darwinism. However, some think
Spencer applied more principles of ―use and disuse‖ (Lamarkism) than of ―natural selection‖ (Darwinism).
Herbert Spencer, The Principles of Biology (London: Williams and Norgate, 1864-1867).
83
A similar approach has been promoted in recent decades in North America. As a critique of that
theory, Jared Diamond would argue that, for instance, the dominance of the peoples from the Fertile
Crescent in ancient times and from the United States in modern times do not occur due to their ―biological
superiority,‖ but rather to ―an accident of biogeography.‖ Jared Diamond, ―The Erosion of Civilization;
The Fertil‘s Crescent Fall Holds a Message for Today‘s Troubled Spots,‖ Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles,
15 June 2003: M 1. Proquest Information and Learning Company (2006 copyright), [online], available:
http://proquest.umi.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/pqdlink?index=209&did=347367111&SrchMode=1
&sid=1&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1111674494&clientId=12
520 [2006, January 20].
84
The Origin of Species: Chapter IV.-Natural Selection, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-
Origin-of-Species/4-1-3.
85
Darwin‘s theories follow a long standing trend of research. James Hutton (1726-1797), known
as the father of modern geology, spoke of gradual development over aeons of time (uniformitarian theory);
Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) established the principle of ―unity of composition‖ arguing
that species are various degenerations of the same type; Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), grandfather of
Charles Darwin, referred to organisms passing changes to offspring (common descent theory); Dr. W. C.
Wells‘s (1813) ―An Account of a White female, part of whose skin resembled that of a Negro;‖ Jean-
Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), first to use the term biology, thought of acquiring and passing on needed
traits (Lamarckism); Robert Edmund Grant (1793-1874) developed others theories of transmutation; and
that The Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) showed that human populations increase to exceed
resources (Whig Poor Law). ―Chapter XIV.-Recapitulation and Conclusion,‖ The Origin of Species,
http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/14-1-2.
35

36. natural processes from a privileged position. John A. Livingston refers to Darwin as an
artifact of the ideology of his time.86 Darwin imposed his thought on his view of nature,
thought that was shaped by the culture of his time, in general, and by his experimentation
on taming, in particular. Nature clearly transcends the laboratory, which represents a
main context for taming, which consequently refers to Darwin‘s starting point.
Darwin assumed the natural context as a battlefield; ―the struggle for existence‖
was a ―war.‖ ―Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals,
directly follows.‖87 One difficulty with Darwin‘s notion is the blurredness between his
notion of fittest and a notion of ―fiercest.‖ While many argue for a very pessimistic
diagnostic of war, Darwin envisioned how nature‘s war improves ecological reality.
―Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable
length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all
corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.‖88 In his own
words, ―This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural
Selection.‖89 It reveals a principle based on fiery domination rather than fitness.
Darwin valued adaptability, fitted-ness, and ultimately survival, all of which
relate to reproduction. He would value a defective survivor to an ideal extinct. However,
he fails to identify an implicit anthropomorphic determinism and favoritism in his
approach. He deals poorly with the pervasive and predatory human power and its
86
Livingston, Ibid, 76.
87
―Chapter XIV.-Recapitulation and Conclusion,‖ The Origin of Species,
http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/14-1-2.
88
Ibid, 14-1-2.
89
―Chapter VI.-Natural Selection,‖ The Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-
Origin-of-Species/4-1-3.
36

37. epicenter among elites. His portrayal of natural adaptation reveals a sort of ―anthropo-
elite-centric‖ selection appeal. He clearly struggled with dominant Victorian descriptions
of nature.90 Darwin challenges common Christian theories of divine design, focusing on
origin or genesis, replacing the agent (nature for the divine) and its method (selection for
design).91
Darwin crafted the notion of ―natural selection‖ and characterized it to an extreme
where the species are disavowed of their agency. Seeking to rescue Darwin from this
pitfall, Richard Richards disassociates causality and immutability: ―the causal efficacy‖
Darwin attributed to natural selection does not suggest ―the immutability of species.‖92
Richards aims precisely at correcting Darwin‘s strong impression in this regard. Instead,
Alanna Mitchell prefers to see this agency as transformational; a ―Darwinian endeavor of
metamorphosis.‖93
In the struggle for survival and reproduction (transcendence), species seem to
adapt, vary, and survive. Seen from a non-Darwinian angle, species collectively present
life conditions. Species incarnate the conditions of life. Species mutually condition one
another. The dichotomy Darwin enforces between nature and life conditions seems a
fallacy. Darwin pictures a nature selecting the fittest species which exist and live within
life conditions. Darwin redesigns nature. ―Selection‖ and ―the fittest‖ correlate. On the
contrary, argues this thesis, while species naturally struggle for survival, the fittest neither
necessarily nor naturally survive. Sometimes the fiercest, the luckiest, and the weakest
90
William Irvine, Apes, Angels and Victorians: The Story of Darwin, Huxley and Evolution
(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1955).
91
M. Midgley, Evolution as a Religion (London: Methuen, 1985).
92
Richard A. Richards, ―Darwin and the Inefficacy of Artificial Selection,‖ Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science (SHPS) 28, no. 1 (March 1997): 75-97.
93
Alanna Mitchell, Dancing at the Dead Sea: Tracking the World‟s Environmental Hotspots
(Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2004), 18.
37

38. survive. But when the survivor is not the fittest, which happens often, selection does not
correlate. Selection does not explain all natural survival.
The fittest survivor notion seems contextual and subjective. Species represent
natural agents. Rather than selection in the abstract, survival seems the species‘ concrete
natural agency. As Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra, Gabriel Marais, and Brian Charlesworth insist,
species adapt; they recombine in order to survive.94 Species survive. But some species,
notably the human, do not simply survive; they destroy and, worse, enjoy doing it. They
seem capable of dominating for domination‘s sake. In this context, the notion of natural
selection disguises and perpetuates domination.
Darwin projected his social theories onto his observations of nature, which
noticeably reflect his experimentation on taming. Selection, as a working metaphor,
could make sense from a taming viewpoint or selection by human agency and under
human standards. But such selection misrepresents nature and rather reflects human
artificiality. While humans may value selection (e.g., taming), survival does not
necessarily happen directly proportional to adaptability and variation. The notion of
selection emerges by human conception and imposition primarily through taming.
Darwin failed to recognize that he observed nature with a domesticated and
domesticating eye. Selection not necessarily reflects nature at large but the development
of human behaviour in particular.
94
Ross-Ibarra uses plant cytogenetical literature to explore the implications of the theories of
recombination and preadaptation. Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra, ―The Evolution of Recombination Under
Domestication: A Test of Two Hypotheses,‖ The American Naturalist (AN) 163, no. 1 (January 2004):
105-15. Marais and Charlesworth, at the Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of
Edinburgh, research on the impact of recombination on the evolution of genome. Gabriel Marais and Brian
Charlesworth, ―Genome Evolution: Recombination Speeds Up Adaptive Evolution,‖ in Current Biology
(CB) 13, no. 2 (January 2003): R68-R70.
38

39. Overemphasizing selection forces Darwinian theories to become selective,
oversimplifying the role of random probabilities and of context in natural processes.
Darwin eventually foresaw a cease to the struggle for adaptation.
That the struggle between natural selection on the one hand, and the tendency to
reversion and variability on the other hand, will in the course of time cease; and
that the most abnormally developed organs may be made constant, I can see no
reason to doubt.95
Whether Darwin foresaw a total domination of the fittest or not, nevertheless,
adaptation, variation, and survival represent perhaps Darwin‘s most influential and best
documented ideas of his common descent theory. They have revolutionized the sciences,
as Darwin fervently prophesized.
In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches.
Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement
of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the
origin of man [humans] and his [their] history.96
Darwin‘s influential formulation in natural and social science, particularly
regarding the origin of humans, indicates that species reproduce (simple and hybridized
or mongrelized) and reach reproductive rates that prompt life struggle (facing conditions
of their environments). Life struggle occurs under a generational cumulative dynamic
(i.e., natural selection), favoring a clustered variability (i.e., character divergence),
transmitting traits with growth correlation (change correspondence between embryo or
95
―Chapter V.-Laws of Variation,‖ The Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-
Origin-of-Species/5-1-2.
96
One would hardly find references to women in relation to doing science, and particularly
physics, including the summary offered by Darwin in his Preface to his On The Origins of Species,
however, Margaret C. Jacob and Dorothee Sturkenboon would present another picture when they refer to
the Dutch Women‘s Society for Natural Knowledge who met from 1785 to 1887. They refer to an early
―domestication‖ of science, meaning science at home, however the domestication might actually refer to
the dominance of science by men. Margaret C. Jacob and Dorothee Sturkenboon, ―A Women‘s Scientific
Society in the West: The Late Eighteenth-Century Assimilation of Science,‖ Isis 94, no. 2 (June 2003):
217-52.
39

40. larva and mature animal)97 to offspring (descendants) via inheritance (non-mutated)98 and
methodic (domestication) or unconscious (use and disuse) modification (mutated).
Thereby species adapt (higher state, winning novel characters), become more fit and
perfect; or they regress (lesser state, losing ancestral characters), become less fit and
subsequently extinguish.
The final result is thus rendered infinitely complex…99 The several subordinate
groups in any class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem rather to be
clustered round points, and these round other points, and so on in almost endless
cycles.100
Although Darwin recognized the complexity of survival and referred to two
selections—namely, natural and human (taming)—he shows more interest in arguing for
selection as natural, neglecting to explicate their relationship. Darwin failed to identify
the primary role of the built environment in the process of domestication. Darwin did not
explain nature; at best, he addressed natural survival through explaining non-human
variation under taming and domestication.
There is no obvious reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently
under domestication should not have acted under nature. In the preservation of
favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for
Existence, we see the most powerful and ever-acting means of selection.101
Darwin starts with taming to explain natural selection. Nevertheless, he finds
adaptation, variation, and survival among the major guidelines species follow in their
97
―Chapter I.-Variation Under Domestication,‖ The Origins of Species,
http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/1-1-2.
98
Darwin clarifies, inheritance ―when beneficial to the individual.‖ ―Chapter V.-Laws of
Variation,‖ The Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/5-1-2. Darwin
admits that modifications may lead both to upgrade or downgrade.
99
―Chapter I.-Variation Under Domestication,‖ The Origins of Species,
http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/1-1-2.
100
―Chapter IV.-Natural Selection,‖ The Origins of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-
Origin-of-Species/4-1-3.
101
―Chapter 14: Recapitulation and Conclusion,‖ The Origins of Species (2005, May 23),
Literature.org: The Online Literature Library [online], available: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-
charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-14.html [2005, December 18].
40

41. pilgrimage on earth. But Darwin focused so acutely on non-human organisms that he
failed to identify selection against humans under domestication and even taming. In any
event, with or without selection, natural or human, domestication continues to be a major
evolutionary force, implicating the evolutionary impact of human beings via the built
environment.
Unlike the notion of natural selection, the notion of domestication has the
potential to better explain one of the major forces that has been shaping society and
ecology since the emergence of ancient human civilizations. To what extend
domestication emerges in natural discontinuity, setting in motion disruptive dynamics
regarding the adaptation, variation, and survival of species, particularly as it refers to the
domination of humans by humans, greatly occupies the following chapters.
41

42. 1. CHAPTER ONE
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL CRITICS OF DOMINATION
This chapter investigates and reports on the critique of domination in Christian theology
from Black, feminist, Latin American, and ecological perspectives. A representative
work that deals with domination is examined for each perspective. The five works are: 1)
James H. Cone‘s A Black Theology of Liberation (BTL); 2) Mary Daly‘s Gyn/Ecology
(GE); 3) Gustavo Gutiérrez‘s A Theology of Liberation (TL); 4) Thomas Berry‘s The
Great Work (GW); and 5) Sallie McFague‘s The Body of God (BG). Each section has
two subsections: a) an introduction to a framework to locate the work, and b) an
exploration of its critique of domination.
This chapter is incomplete even in its focus on theology and domination. It
neither claims exhaustive analysis of nor pretends to do absolute justice to these well
recognized works, their prolific authors, or the complex movements they represent. It
neither considers these works and the movements and currents they represent to be
monolithic nor ignores their myriad mutations and theoretical elasticity.
This chapter introduces four classic critiques to domination, namely, via racism,
patriarchy (sexism), classism, and anthropocentrism. This selective scan of these works
introduces the contours of some trends of their thoughts in order to explore human
domestication in relation to the Christian theological study of domination. This thesis
argues that all of these works make important contributions by treating domination
through ideology, which refers to human taming and reflects human domestication.
42