The Reintroduction and Reinterpretation of the Wild

  • Eileen O'Rourke

Abstract

This paper is concerned with changing social representations of the ``wild,'' in particular wild animals. We argue that within a contemporary Western context the old agricultural perception of wild animals as adversarial and as a threat to domestication, is being replaced by an essentially urban fascination with certain emblematic wild animals, who are seen to embody symbols of naturalness and freedom. On closer examination that carefully mediatized ``naturalness'' may be but another form of domestication. After an historical overview of the human-animal, domestic-wild construction, an anthropological approach is used to interpret the social representation of wild animals held by different social actors – farmers, hunters, and tourists – within the context of an inhabited National Park, that of the Cévennes in south east France. Within the Park, the domestic and the wild, along with agriculture, hunting, conservation, re-introduced wild animals, and tourists co-habit. It is argued that changes in the representation of ``wildness'' may well be an important indicator ofchanges in the social representation of nature.

Wild domestic animal conservation farming hunting tourism France 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Adams, C., The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory (Continuum, New York, 1990).Google Scholar
  2. Adams, C., Neither Man or Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals (Continuum, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
  3. Audiot, A., Races d'Hier pour l'Elevage de Demain, INRA Editions (Paris, 1995).Google Scholar
  4. Baudrillard, J., Simulations (Semiotext[e], New York, 1983).Google Scholar
  5. Benoit, G. and G. Valéro, “Agriculture et Environnement dans le Parc National des Cévennes: Le Lancement de l'Opération 'Agneau de Parcours,” Bulletin de la Société Languedocienne de Géographie, 3-4 (1997), 101-121.Google Scholar
  6. Birch, T., “The Incarceration of Wildness: Wilderness Areas as Prisons,” Environmental Ethics 12(1) (1990).Google Scholar
  7. Bobbé, S., “Hors Statut, Point de Salut: Ours et Loups en Espagne,” Études Rurales, 129-130 (1993), 59-72.Google Scholar
  8. Brady, G., Les Légends du Gévaudan (Mende, 1958).Google Scholar
  9. Budiansky, S., Nature' Keepers: The New Science of Nature Management (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1995).Google Scholar
  10. Cote, M., “Reboisement sur les Causses,” Bull. De la Soc. Lang. De Geog. 1(2) (1967), 153-167.Google Scholar
  11. Calvet, C., Les Représentations de la Nature dans les Sociétés Modernes: L'Example Francais de la Réintroduction du Vautour Fauve (Gyps fulvus) dans le Parc National des Cévennes. Mémoire de D. E. A. d'Ethnologie, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (1995).Google Scholar
  12. Clutton-Brock, J., Domesticated Animals from Early Times (University of Texas Press, Austin, 1981).Google Scholar
  13. Crosnier, C., “Administrer la Nature: Enjeux Biologiques et Sociaux dans le Parc National des Cévennes,” in P. Baudot, O. Bley, B. Brun, N. Pagezy, and L, Vernazza (eds), Impact de l'Homme sur lesMilieux Naturels: Perceptions etMesures (Edition de Bergier, Grasse, 1996).Google Scholar
  14. Dawkins, R., The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976).Google Scholar
  15. Descola, P. and Pàlsson, G. (eds), Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives (Routledge, London and New York, 1996).Google Scholar
  16. Descola, P., In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar
  17. Digard, J-P., “Jalons pour une Anthropologie de la Domestication Animale,” L'Homme, 108, oct-d'ec, XXVIII (4) (1988), 27-58.Google Scholar
  18. Douglas, M., Purity and Danger (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1966).Google Scholar
  19. Durand-Tullou, A., Le Loup du Causse (Document Payot, Paris, 1994).Google Scholar
  20. Ellen, R. F., “Introductory Essay,” in R. F. Ellen and D. A. Reasons (eds.), Classifications in their Social Context (Academic Press, London, 1979).Google Scholar
  21. Emel, J., “Are You Man Enough, Big and Bad Enough? Ecofeminism andWolf Eradication in the USA,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(6) (1995). 707-734.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission, Twenty Sixth Financial Report Concerning the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, 1996 Financial Year, COM (96) 504. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1997).Google Scholar
  23. Estes, C. P., Women Who Run with the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype (Ballantine Books, New York, 1992).Google Scholar
  24. Evernden, N., The Natural Alien: Humankind and Environment (University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1985).Google Scholar
  25. Feh, C. and S. C. Carton de Grammont, A Natural Herd of Przewalski Horses on the Causse Méjan: Technical and Scientific Report (1993-1995). Association pour le Cheval de Przewalski-TAKH, Le Villaret, Meyrueis (1995).Google Scholar
  26. Friedberg, C., “Representations, Classifications: Comment l'Homme Pense ses Rapports au Milieu Naturel,” in M. Jollivet (ed.), Sciences de la Nature, Sciences de la Société: Les Passeurs de Frontiéres, CNRS Éditions (Paris, 1992), pp. 357-372.Google Scholar
  27. Friedberg, C., “Classifications Populaires des Plantes et Modes de Connaissance,” in P. Tassy (ed.), L'Ordre et la Diversité du Vivant. Quel Statut Scientifique pour les Classifications Biologiques? (Fondation Diderot/Librairie Fayard, Paris, 1986).Google Scholar
  28. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, I., Acclimatation et Domestication des Animaux Utiles (La Maison Rustique, Paris, 1861) (Re-Edited, Paris: Flammarion, 1986).Google Scholar
  29. Glacken, C., Traces on the Rhodian Shore (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1967).Google Scholar
  30. Hell, B., “Enraged Hunter: The Domain of the Wild in North-Western Europe”, in P. Descola and G. Pàlsson (eds.), Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives (Routledge, London and New York, 1996).Google Scholar
  31. Howell, S., Society and Cosmos: Chewong of Peninsular Malaysia, 2nd. edn. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1989).Google Scholar
  32. Ingold, T., “Growing Plants and Raising Animals: An Anthropological Perspective on Domestication,” in D. R. Harris (ed.), The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism (UCL Press, London, 1996), pp. 12-24.Google Scholar
  33. Ingold, T., What is an Animal? (Unwin Hymen, London, 1988).Google Scholar
  34. James, A., “Eating Green(s): Discourses of Organic Food,” in K. Milton (ed.), Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology (Routledge, London and New York, 1993), pp. 205-218.Google Scholar
  35. Lardon, S., C. Lhuillier, P. Osty, and P. Triboulet, “Elevage et Eleveur du Causse Méjan (Lozère): Les recompositions de l'espace rural,” Cahier de l'Economie Méridionale 21 (1996), 25-64.Google Scholar
  36. Leash, G., “Introduction: Nature Under Fire,” in E. Soulé and G. Leash (eds), Reinventing Nature: Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1995), pp. 3-15.Google Scholar
  37. Lizet, B. and P. Daszkiewicz, “Tarpan ou Konik Polski? Mythe Contemporain et Outil de Gestion Écologique,” Anthropozoologica 21 (1995), 63-72.Google Scholar
  38. Lizet, B., “'C'est la Montagne qui le Donne.' Le Pottok, Petit Cheval du Pays Basque,” Production, Pastorale et Société 18 (1986), 72-90.Google Scholar
  39. Leynaud, E., L'État de la Nature, Edition du Parc National des Cévennes (Florac, 1985).Google Scholar
  40. Mathieu, N., Solidarité, Identité, Innovation: Les Tensions Fondatrices de la Société Méjanaise, Annales du Parc National des Cévennes, tome 4 (Florac, 1989), pp. 229-261.Google Scholar
  41. Micoud, A., “Vers un Nouvel Animal Sauvage: Le Sauvage 'Naturalisé Vivant.'” Natures Sciences Société 1(3) (1993), 202-210.Google Scholar
  42. Milton, K., “Nature, Culture and Biodiversity,” in F. Arler and I. Svennevig (eds.), Cross-Cultural Protection of Nature and the Environment (Odense, University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  43. Monjauze, A., “Un Parc Adapté aux Vieilles Civilisations.” Options Méditerranéennes, 9th Octobre, 1971, pp. 87-93.Google Scholar
  44. Nash, R., Wilderness and the American Mind (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1967).Google Scholar
  45. Potter, C. and M. Lobley, “Landscapes and Livelihoods: Environmental Protection and Agricultural Support in the Wake of Agenda 2000,”Landscape Research 23(3) (1998), 223-236.Google Scholar
  46. Potter, C., Against the Grain: Agri-Environmental Reform in the United States and the European Union (CAB International, Wallingford, 1998).Google Scholar
  47. Planiel, M., Droit Civil (Paris, 1928). Librairie Général de Droit et de Jurisprudence.Google Scholar
  48. PNC-Parc National des Cévennes, Programme d'Aménagement 1994-1999 (Florac, 1994).Google Scholar
  49. PNC Brochure, Przewalski: Le Dernier Cheval Sauvage (Parc National des Cévennes, Florac, 1995).Google Scholar
  50. Le Réveil Lozère, Bulletin de la Chambre d'Agriculture, “Le Causse Méjean: Pour le Maintien de la Population sur l'Ensemble du Plateau,” 410, 29 Mai (1997).Google Scholar
  51. Richard, G., “'Domestication,'” in Encyclopaedia Universalis V (1968), 748-752.Google Scholar
  52. O'Rourke, E., “The Causse Méjan: Changing Relationships Between Agriculture, Environment and Society within a French National Park,” Landscape Research 24(2) (1999), 141-165.Google Scholar
  53. Shepard, P., “Our Animal Friends,” in S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis (Island Press, Washington DC, 1993), pp. 275-300.Google Scholar
  54. Shepard, P., “Virtual Hunting Reality in the forests of Simulacra,” in M. E. Soulé and G. Lease (eds.), Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1995), pp. 17-30.Google Scholar
  55. Sigaut, F., “Critique de la Notion de Domestication,” L'Homme 108, oct-déc, XXVIII (4) (1988), 59-71.Google Scholar
  56. Snyder, G., The Practice of the Wild (North Point Press, San Francisco, 1990).Google Scholar
  57. Soulé, M. E., “The Social Siege of Nature,” in M. E Soulé and G. Lease (eds.), Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction (Island Press, Washington D.C., 1995), pp. 137-170.Google Scholar
  58. Spiegel, M., The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery (New Society, Philadelphia, 1988).Google Scholar
  59. Stephani, A., La Culture Vivant dans le Monde Lozère: Approche Anthropologique d'une Culture Oral (Institut National d'Education Populaire, Marly-Le-Roi, 1972).Google Scholar
  60. Thoreau, H., “Walking,” in TheWorks of Henry Thoreau, Walden Edition, 20 Vols. (Boston 1906).Google Scholar
  61. Vanhecke, C., “Les Paysans Face au Parc National des Cévennes,” Le Monde 1er Janvier 1969 (1969).Google Scholar
  62. Vourc'h, A., “La Chasse en Cévennes Lozèriennes-Elements d'une Problematique Sociologique,” PIREN Causse-Cévennes, Programme d'Appui, 11 (CNRS, Paris, 1982).Google Scholar
  63. Vourc'h, A. and V. Pelosse, Chasser en Cévennes; un jeu avec l'animal (Édisud-Éditions du CNRS, Paris, 1988).Google Scholar
  64. Vourc'h, A. and V. Pelosse, “Du Bestiaire au Paysage: (Ré)introduire des Espéces Animales,” Études Rurales, 129-130, Janvier-Juin (1993), 51-58.Google Scholar
  65. Wilson, A., The Culture of Nature: North American Landscapes from Disneyland to the Exxon Valdez (Blackwell, Cambridge MA, 1992).Google Scholar
  66. Wolch, J. and J. Emel, “Bringing the Animal Back,” guest Editorial, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(6) (1995), 632-636.Google Scholar
  67. Worster, D., “Nature and the Disorder of History,” in M.E. Soulé and G. Lease (eds.), Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction (Island Press, Washington, DC, 1995), pp. 65-85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eileen O'Rourke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Environmental Resource ManagementUniversity College Dublin, BelfieldDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations