Accueil
https://fr.book4you.org/book/886972/59104e
"A ‘new’ animal geography has emerged to explore the dimensions of space and place which cannot but sit at the heart of these relations, and contributions here are now running alongside more established anthropological, sociological and psychological investigations into human—animal relations [...] An older engagement between academic geography and the subject-matter of animals, often cast as ‘zoogeography’, had been preoccupied with mapping the distributions of animals—describing and sometimes striving to explain their
spatial patterns and place associations—and in so doing it had tended to regard animals as ‘natural’ objects to be studied in isolation from their human neighbours. A branch of geographical inquiry expressly named as ‘animal geography’ secured a modest foothold for itself, notably when it was positioned as one of the ‘systematic geographies’ by Hartshorne in his famous diagram of the discipline’s logical structure (Hartshorne 1939:147, Figure 1). The importance to animal geography of the human influence on animal lives was noted in a few papers published in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in Bennett’s (1960) explicit call for a ‘cultural animal geography’ drawing upon the interest of the Berkeley School in themes such as animal domestication, but the connections to research in human geography (as opposed to physical geography) remained tenuous. In fact, Davies (1961:412) complained that the concerns of animal geography remained ‘too remote from the central problems of human geography’. It was therefore not until much more recently that geographers in any number began to recognise the possibilities for, and indeed socio-ecological importance of, a revived animal geography which would focus squarely on the complex entanglings of human—animal relations with space, place, location, environment and landscape." (p.4)
"The emphasis now is indeed on excavating the kinds of networks of human—animal relations sketched out in the opening examples, tracing their ‘topologies’ (Whatmore and Thorne 1998), and showing how the spaces and places involved make a difference to the very constitution of the relations in play." (p.5)
"It thereby endeavours to discern the many ways in which animals are ‘placed’ by human societies in their local material spaces (settlements, fields, farms, factories, and so on), as well as in a host of imaginary, literary, psychological and even virtual spaces. It is thus not only the physical presence of animals which is of importance here, since animals also exist in our human imaginings—in the spoken and written spaces of folklore, nursery rhymes, novels and treatises; in the virtual spaces of television or cinema, in cartoons and animation—while they are also used as symbols to sell a huge variety of commodities and products." (p.5)
"In our view, it is also vital to give credence to the practices that are folded into the making of representations, and—at the core of the matter—to ask how animals themselves may figure in these practices. This question duly raises broader concerns about non-human agency, about the agency of animals, and the extent to which we can say that animals destabilise, transgress or even resist our human orderings, including spatial ones. Noske’s (1989:169) query, which she frames in terms of anthropology, can hence be paraphrased for geography: that is, can a ‘real’ geography of animals be developed, rather than an anthropocentric geography of humans in relation to animals ?" (p.5)
"Allow the ‘what is an animal ?’ question to remain partially open." (p.9)
-Chris Philo & Chris Wilbert (eds.), Animal Spaces, Beastly Places. New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations, Routledge & Taylor & Francis group, 2005 (2001 pour la première édition britannique), 310 pages.
"A ‘new’ animal geography has emerged to explore the dimensions of space and place which cannot but sit at the heart of these relations, and contributions here are now running alongside more established anthropological, sociological and psychological investigations into human—animal relations [...] An older engagement between academic geography and the subject-matter of animals, often cast as ‘zoogeography’, had been preoccupied with mapping the distributions of animals—describing and sometimes striving to explain their
spatial patterns and place associations—and in so doing it had tended to regard animals as ‘natural’ objects to be studied in isolation from their human neighbours. A branch of geographical inquiry expressly named as ‘animal geography’ secured a modest foothold for itself, notably when it was positioned as one of the ‘systematic geographies’ by Hartshorne in his famous diagram of the discipline’s logical structure (Hartshorne 1939:147, Figure 1). The importance to animal geography of the human influence on animal lives was noted in a few papers published in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in Bennett’s (1960) explicit call for a ‘cultural animal geography’ drawing upon the interest of the Berkeley School in themes such as animal domestication, but the connections to research in human geography (as opposed to physical geography) remained tenuous. In fact, Davies (1961:412) complained that the concerns of animal geography remained ‘too remote from the central problems of human geography’. It was therefore not until much more recently that geographers in any number began to recognise the possibilities for, and indeed socio-ecological importance of, a revived animal geography which would focus squarely on the complex entanglings of human—animal relations with space, place, location, environment and landscape." (p.4)
"The emphasis now is indeed on excavating the kinds of networks of human—animal relations sketched out in the opening examples, tracing their ‘topologies’ (Whatmore and Thorne 1998), and showing how the spaces and places involved make a difference to the very constitution of the relations in play." (p.5)
"It thereby endeavours to discern the many ways in which animals are ‘placed’ by human societies in their local material spaces (settlements, fields, farms, factories, and so on), as well as in a host of imaginary, literary, psychological and even virtual spaces. It is thus not only the physical presence of animals which is of importance here, since animals also exist in our human imaginings—in the spoken and written spaces of folklore, nursery rhymes, novels and treatises; in the virtual spaces of television or cinema, in cartoons and animation—while they are also used as symbols to sell a huge variety of commodities and products." (p.5)
"In our view, it is also vital to give credence to the practices that are folded into the making of representations, and—at the core of the matter—to ask how animals themselves may figure in these practices. This question duly raises broader concerns about non-human agency, about the agency of animals, and the extent to which we can say that animals destabilise, transgress or even resist our human orderings, including spatial ones. Noske’s (1989:169) query, which she frames in terms of anthropology, can hence be paraphrased for geography: that is, can a ‘real’ geography of animals be developed, rather than an anthropocentric geography of humans in relation to animals ?" (p.5)
"Allow the ‘what is an animal ?’ question to remain partially open." (p.9)
-Chris Philo & Chris Wilbert (eds.), Animal Spaces, Beastly Places. New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations, Routledge & Taylor & Francis group, 2005 (2001 pour la première édition britannique), 310 pages.
