fuzzy-2091378_1920.jpg

HETEROTOPIA, RADICAL IMAGINATION, AND SHATTERING ORDERS: MANIFESTING A FUTURE OF LIBERATED ANIMALS

Call for Papers: A symposium hosted by EACAS 2021, June 24-25

THE SYMPOSIUM GENERATED LOTS OF FASCINATING PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS. CHECK OUT THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME FOR MORE DETAILS. PRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE SOON.


"But, what would happen to all the animals?”


This question is a common response to the notion of ending all exploitation of animals. It constitutes an enduring roadblock to animal liberation that is primarily conceptual but also shaped by everyday practices and, most critically, shapes futures practices. Without the capacity to ‘think the unthinkable’ (Sorenson 2014) and imagine another life for commodified animals beyond their human-designated purpose, efforts to dismantle the industries that comprise the animal industrial complex will continue to be met with this argument. It is used to invalidate and even ridicule efforts to challenge the status quo.


Yet, thinking otherwise about animals and disturbing the existing order of things so that the impossible becomes possible has never been more urgent. Not only are animals being bred, caught, used, and killed in increasing numbers, their natural habitats are also being destroyed and their exploitation is directly contributing to climate change, environmental degradation, species extinctions, and global health crises.


To advance the process of de-ordering, subverting, and dismantling our destructive orientations towards other animals, this symposium draws on Foucault’s concept of heterotopias described as spaces “whose functions are different or even the opposite of others” (Foucault 2002: 361). In these spaces, language is undermined and common names shattered (Foucault 1989) creating a “simultaneously mythic and real contestation of the space in which we live” (1967: 4).


The aim is threefold: 1) to foreground existing or yet to exist sites, spaces, and practices where normalised meanings of commodified animals are negated or undone, 2) to imagine radically alternate futures for commodified animals, and 3) to explore practical pathways towards these futures.


Speculative work of this nature (fiction and non-fiction) is commonly used to explore alternative social, political, economic, and environmental futures. However, in the vast majority of these visions, the subjugation of animals remains a constant (Westerlaken 2017). The animal movement needs to create similar worlds of possibility that respond directly to the question “What would happen to all the animals?” and define the features of a map that would help bring these worlds into being thereby making them “more real and more credible as objects of policy and activism” (Gibson-Graham 2008: 613).


Previous CAS scholars have intimated at the necessary ontological and speculative dimension of ending animal oppression (Bekoff 2013; Collard et al. 2014; Dunayer 2013). There are also critical explorations of the practical and ethical implications of undoing specific sites and practices, or doing them differently (Doyle 2017; Belicia and Islam 2018; Collard 2014).

To add to and extend this work, submissions are invited from all disciplines – social sciences, sciences, arts and humanities, and those working in animal advocacy/activism, addressing topics relevant to the notion of heterotopias as outlined above. The heterotopia in question may encompass the whole world and all animals, or relate to just one practice involving one species or even one individual animal. It may already exist or be part of a radically imagined future.

Questions to consider (not exhaustive):

  • What would a world without commodified animals look like?

  • Could it happen? Would practices move further underground? How could it be policed?

  • What could associated infrastructure (racecourses, stadiums, zoos, slaughterhouses, fields etc.) be used for instead?

  • Could breeding of animals for money be prevented?

  • How would associated industries be dismantled? Assisted to transition?

  • What would happen to the animals?

  • Would there still be ‘pets’, cows, sheep, pigs, horses etc.

  • How could the economic impacts of the demise of animal industries be mitigated, especially for marginalised and low income workers.

  • Are zoos necessary for conservation?

  • What would the end of oppression mean for native species, land management, population control, and human-animal interactions?

  • Could/should the effects of breeding for specific attributes (especially in relation to ‘food’ animals and ‘pets’) be reversed?

  • Are there existing examples where an animal’s original use/purpose has been subverted? How could this be extended? What are the implications?


Please submit a 250 word abstract and short bio to arcarip@edgehill.ac.uk by 28th February 2021. Please include SYMPOSIUM in the subject line.

Paula Arcari is a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow within the Centre for Human Animal Studies at Edge Hill University. Her three-year project ‘The visual consumption of animals: challenging persistent binaries’ aims to support transformational change in the way humans conceive and interact with nature. In her 2019 book, Making Sense of Food Animals, Paula drew on Foucault's regime of power/knowledge/pleasure and theorisations of order to explore how animals and 'meat' continue to be (re)constituted as edible. This research led to an interest in caesuras, ruptures, paradoxical spaces, and heterotopia for their capacity 'to trouble habitual ways of thinking and acting about animals' - an intent that continues to inform her research and writing about and for all exploited animals. See here for more publications.

REFERENCES

  • Bekoff M. (2013) Who lives, who dies, and why? How speciesism undermines compassionate conservation and social justice. In: Corbey R and Lanjouw A (eds) The Politics of Species: Reshaping our Relationships with Other Animals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15-26.

  • Belicia T and Islam M. (2018) Towards a Decommodified Wildlife Tourism: Why Market Environmentalism Is Not Enough for Conservation. Societies 8: 59.

  • Collard R-C. (2014) Putting Animals Back Together, Taking Commodities Apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104: 151-165.

  • Collard R-C, Dempsey J and Sundberg J. (2014) A Manifesto for Abundant Futures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105: 322-330.

  • Dehaene, M., & De Cauter, L. (2008). Heterotopia and the City. London; New York: Routledge.

  • Doyle C. (2017) Captive Wildlife Sanctuaries: Definition, Ethical Considerations and Public Perception. Animal Studies Journal 6: 55-85.

  • Dunayer J. (2013) The rights of sentient beings: Moving beyond old and new speciesism. In: Corbey R and Lanjouw A (eds) The Politics of Species : Reshaping our Relationships with Other Animals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 27-39.

  • Foucault M. (1967) Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Architecture/Mouvement/Continuite October: 1-9.

  • Foucault M. (1989) Order of Things: An Archaeology of the human sciences, London and New York: Routledge.

  • Foucault M. (2002) Space, Knowledge, and Power. In: Faubion JD (ed) Power: the essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 V.3. Penguin Books, 349-364.

  • Gibson-Graham JK. (2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for `other worlds'. Progress in Human Geography 32: 613-632.

  • Hetherington, K. (1997). The Badlands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London; New York: Routledge.

  • Hook, D. (2007). Foucault, Psychology and the Analytics of Power. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Meininger, H. P. (2013). Inclusion as Heterotopia: Spaces of Encounter between People with and without Intellectual Disability. Journal of Social Inclusion, 4(1), 24–44.

  • Sorenson, J 2014, Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable, Canadian Scholar’s Press, Toronto, ON.

  • Taylor N. (2020) Radically Imagining Human-Animal Relations after the Covid19 Pandemic Animals in Society.

  • Westerlaken M. (2017) Uncivilising the Future: Imagining Non-Speciesism. Antae 4: 53-67.

 
fuzzy-2091378_1920.jpg

HETEROTOPIA, RADICAL IMAGINATION, AND SHATTERING ORDERS: MANIFESTING A FUTURE OF LIBERATED ANIMALS

Call for Papers: A symposium hosted by EACAS 2021, June 24-25

THE SYMPOSIUM GENERATED LOTS OF FASCINATING PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS. CHECK OUT THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME FOR MORE DETAILS. PRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE SOON.


"But, what would happen to all the animals?”


This question is a common response to the notion of ending all exploitation of animals. It constitutes an enduring roadblock to animal liberation that is primarily conceptual but also shaped by everyday practices and, most critically, shapes futures practices. Without the capacity to ‘think the unthinkable’ (Sorenson 2014) and imagine another life for commodified animals beyond their human-designated purpose, efforts to dismantle the industries that comprise the animal industrial complex will continue to be met with this argument. It is used to invalidate and even ridicule efforts to challenge the status quo.


Yet, thinking otherwise about animals and disturbing the existing order of things so that the impossible becomes possible has never been more urgent. Not only are animals being bred, caught, used, and killed in increasing numbers, their natural habitats are also being destroyed and their exploitation is directly contributing to climate change, environmental degradation, species extinctions, and global health crises.


To advance the process of de-ordering, subverting, and dismantling our destructive orientations towards other animals, this symposium draws on Foucault’s concept of heterotopias described as spaces “whose functions are different or even the opposite of others” (Foucault 2002: 361). In these spaces, language is undermined and common names shattered (Foucault 1989) creating a “simultaneously mythic and real contestation of the space in which we live” (1967: 4).


The aim is threefold: 1) to foreground existing or yet to exist sites, spaces, and practices where normalised meanings of commodified animals are negated or undone, 2) to imagine radically alternate futures for commodified animals, and 3) to explore practical pathways towards these futures.


Speculative work of this nature (fiction and non-fiction) is commonly used to explore alternative social, political, economic, and environmental futures. However, in the vast majority of these visions, the subjugation of animals remains a constant (Westerlaken 2017). The animal movement needs to create similar worlds of possibility that respond directly to the question “What would happen to all the animals?” and define the features of a map that would help bring these worlds into being thereby making them “more real and more credible as objects of policy and activism” (Gibson-Graham 2008: 613).


Previous CAS scholars have intimated at the necessary ontological and speculative dimension of ending animal oppression (Bekoff 2013; Collard et al. 2014; Dunayer 2013). There are also critical explorations of the practical and ethical implications of undoing specific sites and practices, or doing them differently (Doyle 2017; Belicia and Islam 2018; Collard 2014).

To add to and extend this work, submissions are invited from all disciplines – social sciences, sciences, arts and humanities, and those working in animal advocacy/activism, addressing topics relevant to the notion of heterotopias as outlined above. The heterotopia in question may encompass the whole world and all animals, or relate to just one practice involving one species or even one individual animal. It may already exist or be part of a radically imagined future.

Questions to consider (not exhaustive):

  • What would a world without commodified animals look like?

  • Could it happen? Would practices move further underground? How could it be policed?

  • What could associated infrastructure (racecourses, stadiums, zoos, slaughterhouses, fields etc.) be used for instead?

  • Could breeding of animals for money be prevented?

  • How would associated industries be dismantled? Assisted to transition?

  • What would happen to the animals?

  • Would there still be ‘pets’, cows, sheep, pigs, horses etc.

  • How could the economic impacts of the demise of animal industries be mitigated, especially for marginalised and low income workers.

  • Are zoos necessary for conservation?

  • What would the end of oppression mean for native species, land management, population control, and human-animal interactions?

  • Could/should the effects of breeding for specific attributes (especially in relation to ‘food’ animals and ‘pets’) be reversed?

  • Are there existing examples where an animal’s original use/purpose has been subverted? How could this be extended? What are the implications?


Please submit a 250 word abstract and short bio to arcarip@edgehill.ac.uk by 28th February 2021. Please include SYMPOSIUM in the subject line.

Paula Arcari is a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow within the Centre for Human Animal Studies at Edge Hill University. Her three-year project ‘The visual consumption of animals: challenging persistent binaries’ aims to support transformational change in the way humans conceive and interact with nature. In her 2019 book, Making Sense of Food Animals, Paula drew on Foucault's regime of power/knowledge/pleasure and theorisations of order to explore how animals and 'meat' continue to be (re)constituted as edible. This research led to an interest in caesuras, ruptures, paradoxical spaces, and heterotopia for their capacity 'to trouble habitual ways of thinking and acting about animals' - an intent that continues to inform her research and writing about and for all exploited animals. See here for more publications.

REFERENCES

  • Bekoff M. (2013) Who lives, who dies, and why? How speciesism undermines compassionate conservation and social justice. In: Corbey R and Lanjouw A (eds) The Politics of Species: Reshaping our Relationships with Other Animals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15-26.

  • Belicia T and Islam M. (2018) Towards a Decommodified Wildlife Tourism: Why Market Environmentalism Is Not Enough for Conservation. Societies 8: 59.

  • Collard R-C. (2014) Putting Animals Back Together, Taking Commodities Apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104: 151-165.

  • Collard R-C, Dempsey J and Sundberg J. (2014) A Manifesto for Abundant Futures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105: 322-330.

  • Dehaene, M., & De Cauter, L. (2008). Heterotopia and the City. London; New York: Routledge.

  • Doyle C. (2017) Captive Wildlife Sanctuaries: Definition, Ethical Considerations and Public Perception. Animal Studies Journal 6: 55-85.

  • Dunayer J. (2013) The rights of sentient beings: Moving beyond old and new speciesism. In: Corbey R and Lanjouw A (eds) The Politics of Species : Reshaping our Relationships with Other Animals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 27-39.

  • Foucault M. (1967) Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Architecture/Mouvement/Continuite October: 1-9.

  • Foucault M. (1989) Order of Things: An Archaeology of the human sciences, London and New York: Routledge.

  • Foucault M. (2002) Space, Knowledge, and Power. In: Faubion JD (ed) Power: the essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 V.3. Penguin Books, 349-364.

  • Gibson-Graham JK. (2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for `other worlds'. Progress in Human Geography 32: 613-632.

  • Hetherington, K. (1997). The Badlands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London; New York: Routledge.

  • Hook, D. (2007). Foucault, Psychology and the Analytics of Power. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Meininger, H. P. (2013). Inclusion as Heterotopia: Spaces of Encounter between People with and without Intellectual Disability. Journal of Social Inclusion, 4(1), 24–44.

  • Sorenson, J 2014, Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable, Canadian Scholar’s Press, Toronto, ON.

  • Taylor N. (2020) Radically Imagining Human-Animal Relations after the Covid19 Pandemic Animals in Society.

  • Westerlaken M. (2017) Uncivilising the Future: Imagining Non-Speciesism. Antae 4: 53-67.

 
fuzzy-2091378_1920.jpg

HETEROTOPIA, RADICAL IMAGINATION, AND SHATTERING ORDERS: MANIFESTING A FUTURE OF LIBERATED ANIMALS

Call for Papers: A symposium hosted by EACAS 2021, June 24-25

THE SYMPOSIUM GENERATED LOTS OF FASCINATING PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS. CHECK OUT THE CONFERENCE PROGRAMME FOR MORE DETAILS. PRESENTATIONS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE ONLINE SOON.


"But, what would happen to all the animals?”


This question is a common response to the notion of ending all exploitation of animals. It constitutes an enduring roadblock to animal liberation that is primarily conceptual but also shaped by everyday practices and, most critically, shapes futures practices. Without the capacity to ‘think the unthinkable’ (Sorenson 2014) and imagine another life for commodified animals beyond their human-designated purpose, efforts to dismantle the industries that comprise the animal industrial complex will continue to be met with this argument. It is used to invalidate and even ridicule efforts to challenge the status quo.


Yet, thinking otherwise about animals and disturbing the existing order of things so that the impossible becomes possible has never been more urgent. Not only are animals being bred, caught, used, and killed in increasing numbers, their natural habitats are also being destroyed and their exploitation is directly contributing to climate change, environmental degradation, species extinctions, and global health crises.


To advance the process of de-ordering, subverting, and dismantling our destructive orientations towards other animals, this symposium draws on Foucault’s concept of heterotopias described as spaces “whose functions are different or even the opposite of others” (Foucault 2002: 361). In these spaces, language is undermined and common names shattered (Foucault 1989) creating a “simultaneously mythic and real contestation of the space in which we live” (1967: 4).


The aim is threefold: 1) to foreground existing or yet to exist sites, spaces, and practices where normalised meanings of commodified animals are negated or undone, 2) to imagine radically alternate futures for commodified animals, and 3) to explore practical pathways towards these futures.


Speculative work of this nature (fiction and non-fiction) is commonly used to explore alternative social, political, economic, and environmental futures. However, in the vast majority of these visions, the subjugation of animals remains a constant (Westerlaken 2017). The animal movement needs to create similar worlds of possibility that respond directly to the question “What would happen to all the animals?” and define the features of a map that would help bring these worlds into being thereby making them “more real and more credible as objects of policy and activism” (Gibson-Graham 2008: 613).


Previous CAS scholars have intimated at the necessary ontological and speculative dimension of ending animal oppression (Bekoff 2013; Collard et al. 2014; Dunayer 2013). There are also critical explorations of the practical and ethical implications of undoing specific sites and practices, or doing them differently (Doyle 2017; Belicia and Islam 2018; Collard 2014).

To add to and extend this work, submissions are invited from all disciplines – social sciences, sciences, arts and humanities, and those working in animal advocacy/activism, addressing topics relevant to the notion of heterotopias as outlined above. The heterotopia in question may encompass the whole world and all animals, or relate to just one practice involving one species or even one individual animal. It may already exist or be part of a radically imagined future.

Questions to consider (not exhaustive):

  • What would a world without commodified animals look like?

  • Could it happen? Would practices move further underground? How could it be policed?

  • What could associated infrastructure (racecourses, stadiums, zoos, slaughterhouses, fields etc.) be used for instead?

  • Could breeding of animals for money be prevented?

  • How would associated industries be dismantled? Assisted to transition?

  • What would happen to the animals?

  • Would there still be ‘pets’, cows, sheep, pigs, horses etc.

  • How could the economic impacts of the demise of animal industries be mitigated, especially for marginalised and low income workers.

  • Are zoos necessary for conservation?

  • What would the end of oppression mean for native species, land management, population control, and human-animal interactions?

  • Could/should the effects of breeding for specific attributes (especially in relation to ‘food’ animals and ‘pets’) be reversed?

  • Are there existing examples where an animal’s original use/purpose has been subverted? How could this be extended? What are the implications?


Please submit a 250 word abstract and short bio to arcarip@edgehill.ac.uk by 28th February 2021. Please include SYMPOSIUM in the subject line.

Paula Arcari is a Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow within the Centre for Human Animal Studies at Edge Hill University. Her three-year project ‘The visual consumption of animals: challenging persistent binaries’ aims to support transformational change in the way humans conceive and interact with nature. In her 2019 book, Making Sense of Food Animals, Paula drew on Foucault's regime of power/knowledge/pleasure and theorisations of order to explore how animals and 'meat' continue to be (re)constituted as edible. This research led to an interest in caesuras, ruptures, paradoxical spaces, and heterotopia for their capacity 'to trouble habitual ways of thinking and acting about animals' - an intent that continues to inform her research and writing about and for all exploited animals. See here for more publications.

REFERENCES

  • Bekoff M. (2013) Who lives, who dies, and why? How speciesism undermines compassionate conservation and social justice. In: Corbey R and Lanjouw A (eds) The Politics of Species: Reshaping our Relationships with Other Animals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15-26.

  • Belicia T and Islam M. (2018) Towards a Decommodified Wildlife Tourism: Why Market Environmentalism Is Not Enough for Conservation. Societies 8: 59.

  • Collard R-C. (2014) Putting Animals Back Together, Taking Commodities Apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104: 151-165.

  • Collard R-C, Dempsey J and Sundberg J. (2014) A Manifesto for Abundant Futures. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105: 322-330.

  • Dehaene, M., & De Cauter, L. (2008). Heterotopia and the City. London; New York: Routledge.

  • Doyle C. (2017) Captive Wildlife Sanctuaries: Definition, Ethical Considerations and Public Perception. Animal Studies Journal 6: 55-85.

  • Dunayer J. (2013) The rights of sentient beings: Moving beyond old and new speciesism. In: Corbey R and Lanjouw A (eds) The Politics of Species : Reshaping our Relationships with Other Animals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 27-39.

  • Foucault M. (1967) Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Architecture/Mouvement/Continuite October: 1-9.

  • Foucault M. (1989) Order of Things: An Archaeology of the human sciences, London and New York: Routledge.

  • Foucault M. (2002) Space, Knowledge, and Power. In: Faubion JD (ed) Power: the essential works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984 V.3. Penguin Books, 349-364.

  • Gibson-Graham JK. (2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for `other worlds'. Progress in Human Geography 32: 613-632.

  • Hetherington, K. (1997). The Badlands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London; New York: Routledge.

  • Hook, D. (2007). Foucault, Psychology and the Analytics of Power. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Meininger, H. P. (2013). Inclusion as Heterotopia: Spaces of Encounter between People with and without Intellectual Disability. Journal of Social Inclusion, 4(1), 24–44.

  • Sorenson, J 2014, Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable, Canadian Scholar’s Press, Toronto, ON.

  • Taylor N. (2020) Radically Imagining Human-Animal Relations after the Covid19 Pandemic Animals in Society.

  • Westerlaken M. (2017) Uncivilising the Future: Imagining Non-Speciesism. Antae 4: 53-67.