Advertisement

Producing Marginalized Knowledge: Privilege and Oppression on the Basis of Species, Class, and Gender

  • Heather Fraser
  • Nik Taylor
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Critical University Studies book series (PCU)

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss aspects of our experience as working-class feminists employed in nonmainstream areas of the social sciences in a publicly funded Australian university. We explain our intersectional understanding of privilege and oppression, particularly as it relates to human–animal studies, our main area of research. We argue that although there is still some space for critically oriented fields, topics, and methods to be pursued in the academy, they are often subject to derision and/or need to be justified in ways that dominant fields, methods, and perspectives do not. We note that while some of these dynamics pattern all nascent fields, the pervasive history of humanism and the addition of other species to our, and others,’ scholarship exaggerates the marginalization of this field.

We take the view that animals have intrinsic worth beyond their utility to humans. This calls for us to ask serious questions about how the ideologies and practices underpinning neoliberal capitalist societies contribute to, and in fact depend upon, animal oppression. To do otherwise is to ignore the underlying causes of so much misery (other) animals experience, the dramatic loss of habitat, and the extinction of particular species. Yet, such a position is increasingly taboo; perceived of as threatening as earlier questions posed about class inequality in the 1950s and gender inequality and women’s rights in the 1970s. Then and now questions (and questioners) that dig into privilege and oppression run the risk of being trivialized, discredited, marginalized, and ignored. As we consider the implications of this, we reference everyday examples that illustrate wider sociocultural patterns of experience, for humans and other animals.

Keywords

Nonhuman Animal Companion Animal Feminist Scholar Hegemonic Masculinity Animal Relation 
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. Arneil, B. (2001). Women as wives, servants and slaves: Rethinking the public/private divide. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 34, 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Best, S., Nocella, A., Kahn, R., Gigliotti, C., & Kemmerer, L. (2007). Introducing critical animal studies. Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 5(1), 4–5.Google Scholar
  3. Birke, L. (1994). Feminism, animals, science: The naming of the shrew. Buckinghamshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Birke, L. (2002). Intimate familiarities? Feminism and human-animal studies. Society and Animals, 10(4), 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, L., & Strega, S. (2005). Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burnham, D. (2012). The social worker speaks: A history of social workers through the twentieth century. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donovan, J. (1990). Animal rights and feminist theory. Signs, 15(2), 330–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elias, N. (2000). The civilizing process. Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald, A., & Pellow, D. (2014). Ecological defense for animal liberation: A holistic understanding of the world. In A. Nocella, J. Sorenson, K. Socha, & A. Matsuoka (Eds.), Defining critical animal studies. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Flynn, C. (2000a). Battered women and their animal companions: Symbolic interaction between human and nonhuman animals. Society and Animals, 8(2), 99–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flynn, C. (2000b). Woman’s best friend: Pet abuse and the role of companion animals in the lives of battered women. Violence Against Women, 6, 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flynn, C. (2012). Understanding animal abuse: A sociological perspective. New York: Lantern Books.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, J. (2013). What kind of thing is neoliberalism? New Formulations: A Journal of Culture, Theory and Politics (Neoliberal Culture special edition), 80–81, 7–22.Google Scholar
  15. Gill, R. (2009). Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neoliberal academia. In R. Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton, C. (2010). Requiem for a species: Why we resist the truth about climate change. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  17. Hindess, B. (1998). Neoliberalism and the national economy. In M. Dean & B. Hindess (Eds.), Governing Australia, studies in contemporary rationalities of government. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Howes, L. (1993). Are there benefits to marginality? Medieval Feminist Forum, 15(1), 3.Google Scholar
  20. Jubas, K., & Kawalilak, C. (2012). Introduction to the special issue—In/stability, in/security & in/visibility: Tensions at work for tenured and tenure stream faculty in the neoliberal academy. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 21, 1–2.Google Scholar
  21. Littler, J. (2013). The rise of the “yummy mummy”: Popular conservatism and the neoliberal maternal in contemporary British culture. Communication, Culture and Critique, 6(2), 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mirza, H. (2009). Race, gender and educational desire: Why black women succeed and fail. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, R. (1995). Sociology as if nature did not matter: An ecological critique. British Journal of Sociology, 46(4), 688–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nast, H. (2006). Loving … whatever: Alienation, neoliberalism and pet love in the twenty-first century. ACME: An International E-Journal of Critical Geographies, 5(2), 300–327.Google Scholar
  25. Nocella, A., Sorenson, J., Socha, K., & Matsuoka, A. (2014). Defining critical animal studies: An intersectional social justice approach for liberation. New York: Peter Lang Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen eighty-four. London: Martin Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
  27. Ozkazanc-Pan, B. (2012). Postcolonial feminist research: Challenges and complexities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(5/6), 573–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruether, R. (1975). New Heaven/new Earth: Sexist ideology and human liberation. New York: Seabury.Google Scholar
  29. Taylor, N. (2011). Anthropomorphism and the Animal Subject. In R. Boddice (Ed.), Anthropocentrism: Humans, animals, environment. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  30. Taylor, N. (2013). Humans, animals and society: An introduction to human-animal studies. New York: Lantern Press.Google Scholar
  31. Taylor, N., & Fraser, H. (2016). Condoned animal abuse in the slaughterhouse: The language of life, the discourse of death. In J. Maher, H. Pierpoint, & P. Beirne (Eds.), International handbook on animal abuse studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Taylor, N., Fraser, H., Signal, T., & Prentice, K. (2014). Social work, animal-assisted therapies and ethical considerations: A programme example from Central Queensland, Australia. British Journal of Social Work. Online first.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, N., & Twine, R. (2014). The rise of critical animal studies: From the margins to the centre. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Trounson, A. (2013, November 18). ARC awaits plan to reprioritise funding. The Australian. Google Scholar
  35. Tuan, Y. (1984). Dominance and affection: The making of pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wadiwel, D. (2015). The war against animals. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walkowitz, D. (1990). The making of a feminine professional identity: Social workers in the 1920s. The American Historical Review, 95(4), 1051–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walter, N. (2011). Living dolls: The return of sexism. London: Little Brown Book Group.Google Scholar
  39. Wilkie, R. (2015). Multispecies scholarship and encounters: Changing assumptions at the human-animal nexus. Sociology, 49(2), 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Fraser
    • 1
  • Nik Taylor
    • 1
  1. 1.Flinders University of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations