Does Zoosemiotics Have an Ethical Agenda?

Chapter
Part of the Biosemiotics book series (BSEM, volume 5)

Abstract

How widely separated is a lavishly presented roast hog served in a fancy restaurant from a sanitized, shrink-wrapped piece of chicken breast bought in a supermarket? They might appear to be aesthetic and cultural opposites, but at the same time they are both commercial presentations of a dead animal as a product. What are, if any, the common denominators between these two (and of course many other) instances of human-other animal relationship? Are the ethical aspects of this relationship a topic of interest for zoosemiotics?

Keywords

Killer Whale Everyday Discourse Social Sharing Intergroup Bias Ritual Slaughter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Galtung J 1969. Violence, peace and peace research. JPeace Res 6(3):167–191Google Scholar
  2. Bankov K (2004) Infinite semiosis and resistance. In: Tarasti E. (ed) From nature to psyche. Proceedings from the ISI summer congresses at Imatra in 2001–2002. International Semiotics Institute, Helsinki/Imatra, pp 175–181Google Scholar
  3. Cimatti F (1998) Mente e linguaggio negli animali. Carrocci, RomaGoogle Scholar
  4. San Martin J, Pintos ML (2001) Animal life and phenomenology. In: Crowell S, Lester E, Samuel JJ (eds) The reach of reflection: the future of phenomenology. Electronpress. Electronic publicationGoogle Scholar
  5. Mazzara B (1997) Stereotipi e pregiudizi. il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  6. Tarasti E (1997) The emancipation of the sign: on the corporeal and gestural meanings in music. AS/SA 4:180–190Google Scholar
  7. Bopry J (2002) Semiotics, epistemology, and inquiry. Teach Learn 17(1):5–18Google Scholar
  8. Martinelli D (2008) The ethic imperative in Eero Tarasti’s semiotic path: reflecting on the relationships between resistance and biocentrism. In: Hatten RS, Kukkonen P, Littlefield R, Veivo H, Vierimaa I (eds) A sounding of signs – modalities and moments in music, culture and philosophy. International Semiotics Institute, Helsinki/ImatraGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown R (1989) Group processes: dynamics within and between groups. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Tarasti E (2005) Vastarinnan Semiotiikkaa: Oleminen, Muisti, Historia – Merkkien Vastavirta. Synteesi 1:2–29Google Scholar
  11. Stefani G (1985) Competenza musicale e cultura della pace. CLUEB, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  12. Bartolommei S (1995) Etica e natura. Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar
  13. Eco U (1997) Kant e l’ornitorinco. Bompiani, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  14. Habermas J (1998) The inclusion of the other. studies in political theory. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  15. De Waal FBM (1996) Good natured: the origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  16. Mannucci A (1997) Il nostro animale quotidiano. Il saggiatore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  17. Stefani G, Guerra S (eds.) (2005) Dizionario della musica nella globalità dei lingaggi. LIM, LuccaGoogle Scholar
  18. Tarasti E (2000) Existential semiotics. Indiana University Press, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  19. Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Tajfel H (1981) Human groups and social categories. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Art Research Faculty of ArtsUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations