Advertisement

Death Matters pp 241-263 | Cite as

To Make Pets Live, and To Let Them Die: The Biopolitics of Pet Keeping

  • David RedmalmEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Pets are often considered to be friends or part of the nuclear family, and many pets are grieved when they die. But pets are also routinely bred in abundance, bought, sold, and euthanized when they are unwanted. The aim of this chapter is to suggest a way of understanding pet keeping in the light of pets’ paradoxical status between “grievable” and “killable.” It argues that the ambiguous conceptualization of the pet as an irreplaceable individual and as a consumable resource corresponds to a biopolitical rationale for breeding, buying, selling, and killing pets. This chapter suggests that pet keeping can be regarded as a demarcated zone where biopolitical norms surrounding life and death can be played with, managed, and reproduced.

Keywords

Anthropocentrism Bereavement Biopolitics Companion animals Human-animal studies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Mary Shannon Johnstone for kindly giving me permission to use her photos. I am also immensely grateful to the editors of this volume for their thorough and thoughtful feedback at several stages of the writing process. Furthermore, I received invaluable suggestions from the members of the HumAnimal Group at the Centre for Gender Research, Uppsala University. This chapter was written as an extension of the research project Intimate Sociality, funded by the Swedish Research Council (no. 421-2014-1465). It is an expansion of ideas that I originally presented in a short text in Swedish in the journal Fronesis (no. 56–7, 2017).

References

  1. Agamben, G. (1993) The Coming Community, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  3. Agamben, G. (1999) ‘Kommerell, or On Gesture’, in D. Heller-Roazen (ed.) Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy, Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  4. Agamben, G. (2004) The Open: Man and Animal, Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  5. Alt, S. (2011) ‘Problematizing Life Under Biopower: A Foucauldian Versus an Agambenite Critique of Human Security’, in D. Chandler and N. Hynek (eds.) Critical Perspectives on Human Security: Rethinking Emancipation and Power in International Relations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Antonello, P. and Farneti, R. (2009) ‘Antigone’s Claim: A Conversation with Judith Butler’, Theory & Event, 12(1), http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v012/12.1.antonello.-html, accessed 12 July 2012.
  7. Asdal, K., Druglitrø, T. and Hinchliffe, S. (eds.) (2016) Humans, Animals and Biopolitics: The More-than-Human Condition, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Boggs, C. G. (2013) Animalia Americana. Animal Representations and Biopolitical Subjectivity, New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  9. ten Bos, R. (2005) ‘On the Possibility of Formless Life: Agamben’s Politics of the Gesture’, Ephemera, 5(1), 26–44.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, J. (2004) Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence, Verso: London.Google Scholar
  11. Butler, J. (2009) Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? Verso: London.Google Scholar
  12. Charles, N. (2016) ‘Post-Human Families? Dog-Human Relations in the Domestic Sphere’, Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 1–12.Google Scholar
  13. Chrulew, M. (2017) ‘Animals as Biopolitical Subjects’, in M. Chrulew and W. Dinesh (eds.) Foucault and Animals, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  14. Chrulew, M. and Wadiwel, D. (eds.) (2017) Foucault and Animals, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  15. Coile, D. C. (2003) Chihuahuas, Hauppauge: Barron’s.Google Scholar
  16. Collier, I. D. (2016) ‘More than a Bag of Bones: A History of Animal Burials’, in M. DeMello (ed.) Mourning Animals: Rituals and Practices Surrounding Animal Death, East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  17. Dell’Aversano, C. (2010) ‘The Love Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken: Queering the Human-Animal Bond’, Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 8(1/2), 73–125.Google Scholar
  18. Diken, B. (2004) ‘From Refugee Camps to Gated Communities: Biopolitics and the End of the City’, Citizenship Studies, 8(1), 83–106.Google Scholar
  19. Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, M. (1978) The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (2003) Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 19756, London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  22. Fox, R. (2006) ‘Animal Behaviours, Post-Human Lives: Everyday Negotiations of the Animal-Human Divide in Pet-Keeping’, Social & Cultural Geography, 7(4), 525–537.Google Scholar
  23. Francione, G. L. (2000) Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Haraway, D. J. (2008) When Species Meet, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  25. Holmberg, T. (2017) Urban Animals: Crowding in Zoocities, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Johnstone, M. S. (2016) ‘Discarded Property’, in M. DeMello (ed.) Mourning Animals: Rituals and Practices Surrounding Animal Death, East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  27. Johnstone, M. S. (n.d.) ‘Breeding Ignorance’, http://www.shannonjohnstone.com/breed-ing_ignorance/breeding_ignorance.xml, accessed 5 June 2018.
  28. Kirk, R. G. W. (2017) ‘The Birth of the Laboratory Animal: Biopolitics, Animal Experimentation, and Animal Wellbeing’, in M. Chrulew and W. Dinesh (eds.) Foucault and Animals, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  29. McHugh, S. (2011) Animal Stories: Narrating Across Species Lines, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  30. Morley, C. and Fook, J. (2005) ‘The Importance of Pet Loss and Some Implications for Services’, Mortality, 10(2), 127–143.Google Scholar
  31. Nast, H. J. (2006) ‘Critical Pet Studies?’, Antipode, 38(5): 894–906.Google Scholar
  32. O’Neil, J. (2008) Chihuahuas for Dummies, Indianapolis: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Palmer, C. (2001) ‘Taming the Wild Profusion of Existing Things? A Study of Foucault, Power, and Human/Animal Relationships’, Environmental Ethics, 23(4), 339–358.Google Scholar
  34. Palmer, C. (2003) ‘Colonization, Urbanization, and Animals’, Philosophy & Geography, 6(1), 47–58.Google Scholar
  35. Power, E. (2008) ‘Furry Families: Making a Human-Dog Family Through Home’, Social & Cultural Geography, 9(5), 535–555.Google Scholar
  36. Redmalm, D. (2013) An Animal Without an Animal Within: The Powers of Pet Keeping, dissertation, Örebro University.Google Scholar
  37. Redmalm, D. (2014) ‘Holy Bonsai Wolves: Chihuahuas and the Paris Hilton Syndrome’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 17(1), 93–109.Google Scholar
  38. Redmalm, D. (2015) ‘Pet Grief: When Is Non-Human Life Grievable?’, The Sociological Review, 63(1), 19–35.Google Scholar
  39. Redmalm, D. (2016) ‘So Sorry for the Loss of Your Little Friend: Pets’ Grievability in Condolence Cards for Humans Mourning Animals’, in M. DeMello (ed.) Mourning Animals: Rituals and Practices Surrounding Animal Death, East Lansing: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  40. Redmalm, D. (2018) ‘Sharing the Condition of Abandonment: The Beastly Topology of Condolence Cards for Bereaved Pet Owners’, in J. Bull, T. Holmberg and C. Åsberg (eds.) Animal Places: Lively Cartographies of Human-Animal Relations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Redmalm, D. and Schuurman, N. (2017) ‘Scandinavian Pet Cemeteries as Shared Spaces of Companion Animal Death’, Presentation at the XXVII European Society for Rural Sociology Congress, Krakow, Poland, 24–27 July 2017.Google Scholar
  42. Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom, Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  43. Scott, J. C. (2017) Against the Grain. A Deep History of the Earliest States, New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
  44. Skoglund, A. and Redmalm, D. (2017) ‘“Doggy–Biopolitics”: Governing via the First Dog’, Organization, 24(2), 240–266.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, J. A. (2003) ‘Beyond Dominance and Affection: Living with Rabbits in Post-Humanist Households’, Society & Animals, 11(2), 182–197.Google Scholar
  46. Stanescu, J. (2012) ‘Species Trouble: Judith Butler, Mourning, and the Precarious Lives of Animals’, Hypatia, 27(3), 567–582.Google Scholar
  47. Tuan, Y.-F. (1984) Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets, New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
  48. Wadiwel, D. J. (2017) ‘Animal Friendship as a Way of Life: Sexuality, Petting and Interspecies Companionship’, in M. Chrulew and W. Dinesh (eds.) Foucault and Animals, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  49. Witt, D. D. (2003) ‘Pet Burial in the United States’, in C. D. Bryant (ed.) Handbook of Death and Dying, Volume One: The Presence of Death, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Wolfe, C. (2013) Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame, Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations