Advertisement

Feminist Review

, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 61–79 | Cite as

a feminist menagerie

  • Eva GiraudEmail author
  • Greg Hollin
  • Tracey Potts
  • Isla Forsyth
Original Article

abstract

This paper appraises the role of critical-feminist figurations within the environmental humanities, focusing on the capacity of figures to produce situated environmental knowledges and pose site-specific ethical obligations. We turn to four environments—the home, the skies, the seas and the microscopic—to examine the work that various figures do in these contexts. We elucidate how diverse figures—ranging from companion animals to birds, undersea creatures and bugs—reflect productive traffic between longstanding concerns in feminist theory and the environmental humanities, and generate new insights related to situated knowledges, feminist care-ethics and the politics of everyday sensory encounters. We also argue, however, that certain figures have tested the limits of theoretical approaches which have emerged as the product of dialogue between feminist theory and environmental studies. In particular, we explore how particular figures have complicated ethical questions of how to intervene in broad environmental threats borne of anthropogenic activities, and of who or what to include in relational ethical frameworks.

keywords

figuration more-than-human companion species ethics care animal 

references

  1. Adams, C.J., 2006. An animal manifesto: gender, identity and vegan-feminism in the twenty-first century—an interview with Carol Adams. Parallax, 12(1), pp. 120–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alaimo, S., 2016. Exposed: Environmental Politics and Pleasures in Posthuman Times. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K., 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastian, M., 2012. Fatally confused: telling the time in the midst of ecological crises. Environmental Philosophy, 9(1), pp. 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastian, M., Jones, O., Moore, N. and Roe, E., 2017. Participatory Research in More-than-Human Worlds. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beisel, U., 2010. Jumping hurdles with mosquitoes? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(1), pp. 46–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birke, L., 2012. Animal bodies in the production of scientific knowledge. Body & Society, 18(3–4), pp. 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blok, A., 2011. War of the whales: post-sovereign science and agonistic cosmpolitics in Japanese-global whaling assemblages. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(1), pp. 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braidotti, R., 2013. The Posthuman. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Buller, H., 2016. Animal geographies III: ethics. Progress in Human Geography, 40(3), pp. 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Callon, M., 1984. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law, ed. Power, Action and Belief? A New Sociology of Knowledge? London: Routledge, pp. 196–223.Google Scholar
  13. Carson, R., 2000 [1962]. Silent Spring. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, J.L., 2015. Uncharismatic invasives. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), pp. 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Collard, R.C., 2012. Cougar—human entanglements and the biopolitical un/making of safe space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(1), pp. 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collard, R.C., 2014. Putting animals together, taking commodities apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(1), pp. 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Couldry, N. and Hepp, A., 2016. The Mediated Construction of Reality. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Cudworth, E., 2016. Ecofeminism and the animal. In M. Phillips and N. Rumens, eds. Contemporary Perspectives of Ecofeminism. Oxford and New York: Routledge, pp. 38–56.Google Scholar
  19. DeKoven, M. and Lundblad, M., eds., 2011. Species Matters. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 2004 [1980]. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, Tr. B. Massumi. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  21. Despret, V., 2004. The body we care for: figures of anthropo-zoo-genesis. Body & Society, 10(2–3), pp. 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Despret, V., 2013. Responding bodies and partial affinities in human-animal worlds. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(7–8), pp. 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Despret, V., 2016. What Would Animals Say If We Asked the Right Questions? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foucault, M., 1997. Society Must be Defended. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  25. Friese, C. and Marris, C., 2014. Making de-extinction mundane? PLoS Biol, 12(3). Available at: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001825 [last accessed 23 January 2018].
  26. Gane, N., 2006. When we have never been human, what is to be done? Interview with Donna Haraway. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(7–8), pp. 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gillespie, K. and Collard, C., 2015. Critical Animal Geographies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Ginn, F., 2014. Sticky lives: slugs, detachment and more-than-human ethics in the garden. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(4), pp. 532–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ginn, F., Beisel, U. and Barua, M., 2014. Living with awkward creatures: vulnerability, togetherness, killing. Environmental Humanities, 4(1), pp. 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giraud, E. and Hollin, G., 2016. Care, laboratory beagles and affective utopia. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(4), pp. 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenhough, B., 2012. Where species meet and mingle: the Common Cold Unit 1946–1990. Cultural Geographies, 19(3), pp. 281–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenhough, B. and Roe, E., 2011. Ethics, space, and somatic sensibilities: comparing relationships between scientific researchers and their human and animal experimental subjects. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29(1), pp. 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guattari, F., 2008 [1989]. The Three Ecologies, Trs. I. Pindar and P. Sutton. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  34. Hance, J., 2016. Birds are more like ‘feathered apes’ than ‘bird brains’. The Guardian, 5 November. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2016/nov/05/birds-intelligence-tools-crows-parrots-conservation-ethics-chickens [last accessed 22 November 2016].
  35. Haraway, D., 1985. A manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology, and socialist feminism in the feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80, pp. 65–108.Google Scholar
  36. Haraway, D.J., 1991. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In D.J. Haraway Simians, Cyborgs and Women. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 183–202.Google Scholar
  37. Haraway, D.J., 1997a. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse: Feminism and Technoscience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Haraway, D.J., 1997b. The virtual speculum in the new world order. Feminist Review, 55, pp. 22–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haraway, D., 2004 [1992]. Otherwordly conversations; terran topics; local terms. In D. Haraway The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 125–150.Google Scholar
  40. Haraway, D.J., 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  41. Haraway, D.J., 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harding, S., 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Reader. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Hayles, N.K., 1999. How We Became Posthuman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hayward, E., 2012. Fingeryeyes: impressions of cup corals. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), pp. 577–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Helmreich, S., 2003. Trees and seas of information: alien kinship and the biopolitics of gene transfer in marine biology and biotechnology. American Ethnologist, 30(3), pp. 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Helmreich, S., 2005. How scientists think; about ‘natives’, for example. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(1), pp. 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Helmreich, S., 2009. Alien Ocean: Athropological Voyages in Microbial Seas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. Helmreich, S., 2010. Homo microbis: the human microbiome, figural, literal, political. Thresholds, 42, pp. 52–59.Google Scholar
  49. Hinchliffe, S., 2010. Where species meet. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space, 28(1), pp. 34–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hird, M., 2009. The Origins of Sociable Life: Evolution After Science Studies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Holmberg, T., 2015. Urban Animals. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Jamie, K., 2005. Findings. London: Sort Of Books.Google Scholar
  53. Johnson, E., 2015. Of lobsters, laboratories and war: animal studies and the temporality of more-than-human encounters. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(2), pp. 296–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kenney, M. and Müller, R., 2016. Of rats and women: narratives of motherhood in environmental epigenetics. BioSocieties, 12(1), pp. 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kirksey, S.E. and Helmreich, S., 2010. The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), pp. 525–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kohn, E., 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Krause, B., 2012. The Great Animal Orchestra: Finding the Origins of Music in the World’s Wild Places. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  58. Latimer, J. and Miele, M., 2013. Naturecultures? Science, affect and the non-human. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(7–8), pp. 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Latour, B., 1988. The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Leigh Star, S.L., 1991. Power, technology and the phenomenology of convention: on being allergic to onions. In J. Law, ed. A Sociology of Monsters. London: Routledge, pp. 26–56.Google Scholar
  61. Liptrot, A., 2016. The Outrun. Edinburgh: Canongate.Google Scholar
  62. Lorimer, J., 2006. What about the nematodes? Taxonomic partialities in the scope of UK biodiversity conservation. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(4), pp. 539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lorimer, J., 2007. Nonhuman charisma. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(5), pp. 911–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lorimer, J., 2008. Counting corncrakes: the affective science of the UK corncrake census. Social Studies of Science, 38(3), pp. 377–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lorimer, J., 2015. Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation After Nature. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lorimer, J. and Davies, G., 2010. When species meet. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(1), pp. 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lovecraft, H.P., 2009 [1928]. The call of Cthulhu. The H.P. Lovecraft Archive, 20 August. Available at: http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/cc.aspx [last accessed 12 December 2016].
  68. Lutwack, L., 1994. Birds in Literature. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  69. Martin, A., Myers, N. and Viseu, A., 2015. The politics of care in technoscience. Social Studies of Science, 45(5), pp. 625–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. MacDonald, H., 2014. H is for Hawk. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  71. Mol, A., 1999. Ontological politics: a word and some questions. In J. Law and J. Hassard, eds. Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 74–89.Google Scholar
  72. Mol, A., 2002. The Body Multiple: Ontology In Medical Practice. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Moore, A., 2012. The aquatic invader: marine management figuring fishermen, fisheries, and lionfish in the Bahamas. Cultural Anthropology, 27(4), pp. 667–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Moore, N., 2016. Mothers, grandmothers and other queers in ecofeminist activism. Conference paper presented at Gender, Work and Organisation annual conference, 29 June. Keele University, Staffordshire.Google Scholar
  75. Moran, J., 2014. A cultural history of the new nature writing. Literature & History, 23(1), pp. 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nagy, K. and Johnson II, P.D., 2013. Trash Animals: How We Live with Nature’s Filthy, Feral, Invasive, and Unwanted Species. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Neimanis, A., 2013. Feminist subjectivity, watered. Feminist Review, 103, pp. 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Nelson, I.L., 2017. Interspecies care and aging in a gorilla 2.0 world. Geoforum, 79, pp. 144–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nixon, R., 2011. Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. O’Malley, M.A. and Dupré, J., 2007. Size doesn’t matter: towards a more inclusive philosophy of biology. Biology & Philosophy, 22(2), pp. 155–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Paxson, H., 2008. Post-pasteurian cultures: the microbiopolitics of raw-milk cheese in the United States. Cultural Anthropology, 23(1), pp. 15–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Paxson, H. and Helmreich, S., 2014. The perils and promises of microbial abundance: novel natures and model ecosystems, from artisanal cheese to alien seas. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), pp. 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pedersen, H., 2011. Release the moths: critical animal studies and the posthumanist impulse. Culture, Theory & Critique, 52(1), pp. 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Philo, C., 1995. Animals, geography, and the city: notes on inclusions and exclusions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13(6), pp. 655–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Philo, C. and Wilbert, C., eds., 2000. Animal Spaces, Beastly Places. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Puig de la Bellacasa, M., 2011. Matters of care in technoscience: assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), pp. 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Raffles, H., 2011. Insectopedia. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  88. Rodgers, D.M., 2012. Insects, instincts and boundary work in early social psychology. History of the Human Sciences, 26(1), pp. 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Schrader, A., 2010. Responding to Pfiesteria piscicida (the fish killer): phantomatic ontologies, indeterminacy, and responsibility in toxic microbiology. Social Studies of Science, 40(2), pp. 275–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schrader, A., 2015. Abyssal intimacies and temporalities of care: how (not) to care about deformed leaf bugs in the aftermath of Chernobyl. Social Studies of Science, 45(5), pp. 665–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shukin, N., 2009. Animal Capital. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  92. Sleigh, C., 2007. Six Legs Better: A Cultural History of Myrmecology. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Stengers, I., 2008. Experimenting with refrains: subjectivity and the challenge of escaping modern dualism. Subjectivity, 22(1), pp. 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Stengers, I., 2010. Cosmopolitics I. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  95. Stengers, I., 2011. Cosmopolitics II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  96. Tercek, M., 2013. Dialogues on the environment: Q&A with Stewart Brand. Huffungton Post, 24 April. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-tercek/qa-with-stewart-brand_b_3147415.html [last accessed 8 February 2018].
  97. The Chambers Dictionary, 2003. Ninth edition. Edinburgh: Chamber Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  98. Tsing, A.L., 2015. The Mushroom at the End of the World: On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. van Dooren, T., 2014a. Care. Environmental Humanities Living Lexicon, 5, pp. 291–294. Available at: http://environmentalhumanities.org/arch/vol5/5.18.pdf [last accessed 24 December 2016].
  100. van Dooren, T., 2014b. Flight Ways. New York: Columbia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. van Dooren, T., 2016. Authentic crows: identity, captivity and emergent forms of life. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(2), pp. 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. van Dooren, T., Kirksey, R. and Münster, U., 2016. Multispecies studies. Environmental Humanities, 8(1), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  103. Weisberg, Z., 2009. The broken promises of monsters. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 7(2), pp. 22–62.Google Scholar
  104. White, G., 1977 [1789]. The Natural History of Selbourne. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  105. Whitehouse, A., 2015. Listening to birds in the Anthropocene: the anxious semiotics of sound in a human-dominated world. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), pp. 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Wilson, M.W., Hickey, M., Craine, J., Fawcett, L., Oberhauser, A., Roe, E. and Warkentin, T., 2011. Cyborg spaces and monstrous places. Aether, 8(A), pp. 42–67.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Feminist Review Collective 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Giraud
    • 1
    Email author
  • Greg Hollin
    • 2
  • Tracey Potts
    • 3
  • Isla Forsyth
    • 4
  1. 1.Media, Communications & Culture, Humanities General OfficeKeele UniversityStaffordshireUK
  2. 2.Department of Sociology & Social PolicyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  3. 3.Department of Culture, Film & MediaUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  4. 4.School of GeographyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations