Co-mingling Kin: Exploring Histories of Uneasy Human-Animal Relations as Sites for Ecological Posthumanist Pedagogies

  • Karen Malone
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Education and the Environment book series (PSEE)


Humans are neither exempt from the ecological world nor exceptional to those they are acting with in the world. By acknowledging uneasy ties that bind us to multiple others’ past, present, and in our imagined future, humans no longer have the singularity of being the only acting subject. Drawing on Donna Haraway’s notion of kin and “being worldly with”, Mick Smith’s “posthumanist ecological communities”, and extending Jean Luc-Nancy’s theorizing of “sensing with bodies”, this chapter explores alternatives to dominant humanist environmental education pedagogies. Focusing on multispecies kin, the chapter traces posthumanist ecological narratives enmeshed in uneasy human-nonhuman relations within the everyday lives of animals in cities. This theorizing transcends the transformative potential of environmental education and supports a case for sensing ecologically in pedagogical practice.


  1. Andersen, K. (2014). Mind over matter? On decentering the human in human geography. Cultural Geographies, 21(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bear, C. (2011). Being Angelica? Exploring individual animal geographies. Area, 43(3), 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bell, A., & Russell, C. (2000). Beyond human, beyond words: Anthropocentrism, critical pedagogy, and the poststructuralist turn. Canadian Journal of Education, 25(3), 188–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird, D. (2011). Wild dog dreaming: Love and extinction. Charlottesville, NC: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  6. Chakrabarty, D. (2009). The climate history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry, 35(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crist, E. (2013). On the poverty of our nomenclature. Environmental Humanities, 3, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, J. (2016). The birth of the Anthropocene. California, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Derrida, J. (2002). The animal that therefore I am (more to follow). Critical Inquiry, 28, 369–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gan, E., Tsing, A., Swanson, H., & Bubandt, N. (2017). Introduction: Haunted landscapes of the Anthropocene. In A. Tsing, H. Swanson, E. Gan, & N. Bubandt (Eds.), Arts of living on a damaged planet (pp. G1–G14). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, capitalocene, plantationocene, chthulucene: Making kin. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayles, N. K. (2003). Afterword: The human in the posthuman. Cultural Critique, 53, 134–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ingold, T. (2010). Bringing things to life: Creative entanglements in a world of materials. Economic and Social Research Council National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Working Paper Series, #15. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  16. Lloro-Bidart, T. (2015). A political ecology of education in/for the Anthropocene. Environment and Society: Advances in Research, 6, 128–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Malone, K. (2016). Reconsidering children’s encounters with nature and place using posthumanism. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 32(1), 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Malone, K. (2017). Ecological posthumanist theorising: Grappling with child-dog-bodies. In K. Malone, S. Truong, & T. Gray (Eds.), Reimagining sustainability in precarious times (pp. 161–172). London, UK: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malone, K. (2018). Children in the Anthropocene: Rethinking sustainability and child friendliness in cities. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKinney, M. (2002). Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience, 52(10), 883–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McKinney, M. L. (2006). Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation, 127(3), 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Milton, K. (2005). Anthropomorphism or egomorphism? The perception of non-human persons by human ones. In J. Knight (Ed.), Animals in person: Cultural perspectives on human-animal intimacies (pp. 255–269). New York, NY: Berg.Google Scholar
  23. Nancy, J. (1991). The inoperative community. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nancy, J. (1997). The sense of the world. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pedersen, H. (2010). Is ‘the posthuman’ educable? On the convergence of educational philosophy, animal studies, and posthumanist theory. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 31(2), 237–250.Google Scholar
  26. Plumwood, V. (2002). Environmental culture: The ecological crisis of reason. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Rautio, P. (2013). Being nature: Interspecies articulation as a species-specific practice of relating to environment. Environmental Education Research, 19(4), 445–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rautio, P. (2017a). Thinking about life and species lines with Pietari and Otto (garlic breath). Trace: Finnish Journal for Human-Animal Studies, 3, 94–102.Google Scholar
  29. Rautio, P. (2017b). “A super wild story”. Shared human–pigeon lives and the questions they beg. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(9), 722–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rose, D. B. (2013). Wild dog dreaming: Love and extinction. Charlottesville, NC: University of Virginia Press.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, C. (2005). ‘Whoever does not write is written’: The role of ‘nature’ in post-post approaches to environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 11(4), 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Russell, C., & Fawcett, L. (2013). Moving margins in environmental education research. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), The international handbook for research on environmental education (pp. 369–374). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, M. (2013). Ecological community, the sense of the world, and senseless extinction. Environmental Humanities, 2, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Snaza, N., & Weaver, J. (2015). Posthumanism and educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Spannring, R. (2017). Animals in environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 23(1), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, A. (2017). Beyond Stewardship: Common world pedagogies for the Anthropocene. Environmental Education Research, 23(10), 1448–1461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vince, G. (2014). Adventures in the Anthropocene: A journey to the heart of the planet we made. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
  38. Vince, G. (2015, September 25). Humans have caused untold damage to the planet. The Guardian. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education, Faculty of Health, Arts and DesignSwinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations