Human-Animal Studies Konferenz: im Spannungsfeld zwischen ethischen Werten und wissenschaftlicher Objektivität

Human-Animal Studies Konferenz:

im Spannungsfeld zwischen ethischen Werten und wissenschaftlicher Objektivität (Innsbruck 2014)
Human-Animal Studies Conference:

in the tension field between ethical concern and scientific objectivity (Innsbruck 2014)

Abstracts

Richard J. Alexander, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Austria

The Neoliberalization of Nature: An Ecocritical Examination of the Discourse of Wildlife Conservation

Alexander (2009: 11-26) has discussed the way ecological issues have been ‘integrated’ or assimilated by, for example, business corporations. Greenwashing is a term used to discuss certain aspects of this process (Greer and Bruno 1996). This paper considers to what extent biodiversity and animal conservation have also been ‘integrated’ into media discourse and thus neutralized to a certain extent. Capitalism has marginalized animals (Berger 1977). The ecology movement has attempted to reclaim ‘nature’, which has been eradicated by ‘culture’ or the human domination of the environment (Stibbe and Zunino 2009).

Empirical analyses of a selection of texts broadly involving the discourse of wildlife and animal conservation will be provided. Texts from transnational corporations and conservation and wildlife protection organizations will be discussed.
Topics to be treated will include how humans talk about animals Alexander (1973), Comfort (1966) and Berger (1977) and how the close linguistic symbiosis is reflected in, for example, English lexis (Alexander 1978/1979 and Alexander 1987). How humans in capitalist society see animals nowadays will also be taken into account (Berger 1971, 1977, Stibbe 2012 and Kuha 2011). This entails a look at our ambivalence towards nature (Midgley 2003). Even conservationists are affected by this socio-cognitive configuration (Trimble and Van Aarde 2010). The interaction and cooperation between conservation societies (eg the WWF and Fauna & Flora International (FFI)) and the corporate world (eg Cargill, Chevron and the World Bank) will be reflected on. Examples of corporate greenwashing as displayed on corporate websites will be analyzed.

Richard J. Alexander is full professor of English for business and economics at the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration (WU). He graduated from Jesus College, Cambridge, where he studied modern languages and has a degree in economics (B.Sc.(Econ)) from the University of London (1974). He has taught and researched English as a foreign language, business English and linguistics for over forty-six years in various parts of Europe. He has worked at several German universities and colleges and at Birmingham University, UK, at IULM in Milan, Italy, and in adult education in Valkeakoski, Finland. He has published widely in European journals and given papers at conferences on lexis, phraseology, verbal humour, business English, applied linguistics and the relation between language and ecology. He co-organized symposia on ‘Language and Ecology’ at AILA Amsterdam, 1993 and Jyväskylä, 1996. His publications include three monographs: Elements of a Theory of Second Language Learning (1979), Aspects of Verbal Humour in English (1997) and Framing Discourse on the Environment. A Critical Discourse Approach (2009, New York, Routledge). His current academic research is concerned with the corpus linguistic treatment and discourse analysis of environmental texts, especially corporate communications.

Martin Balluch, VGT, Austria

Verstehen statt Instinkt und Konditionierung: Kultur, Sprache und Theory of Mind bei nichtmenschlichen Tieren
Die Kulturhistorikerin List sieht im Menschen das einzige Tier, das seine Instinktsteuerung durch eine Symbolisierung überwinden kann. Üexküll meint, der Mensch sei das einzige nicht rein biologische Wesen. Doch die moderne Ethologie sieht Tiere in einem ganz anderen Licht. Kultur, Sprache und das Hineinversetzen in das Bewusstsein anderer ist nicht nur auf Menschen beschränkt. Tierliche Individuen haben einen jeweils eigenen Standpunkt gegenüber der Welt. Von "dem Menschen" als soziale Größe unter Ausschließung anderer Tiere oder "dem menschlichen Bewusstsein" als reale Entität, die einen epistemologischen Anthropozentrismus rechtfertigen würde, kann nicht gesprochen werden. Derartige Begrifflichkeiten führen die speziesistische Abwertung anderer Tiere und ihrer Interessen nur über die Hintertüre scheinbar legitimiert wieder in die Diskussion ein.


Anna Barcz, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland

Literary Animals as Mediators or the Textual Nature of Experience

What I would like to present is generally grounded in my recent research to fish for such representation of literary texts that bring the question of changing experience in H-A relationship. Since the conference is international, I would like to work on well known texts as “Mumu” by Ivan Turgenev and completely opposite – “The wall” by Marlen Haushofer (I can also use some scenes from the film based on “The wall”). In both the animal is a guide, a special mediator between the world and the human character. These examples are special illustrations of animal sense (smell) that creates a bond in extreme situations and introduce cognitive functions to narratives transforming the very experience.

Anna Barcz, research interests: Animal Studies, Ecocriticism, Eco-Aesthetics, Literary Theory, Critical Animal Studies, Human-Animal Relations, Human-Animal Studies, Biopoetics, Literary Studies, Science Fiction, Ecocriticism, and Philosophy.

Andreas Beinsteiner, University of Innsbruck, Austria, and Bergen, Norway

Heideggers Anthropozentrismus: Methodologische Überlegungen

Martin Heidegger grenzt den Menschen als weltbildend, geschichtlich und sprachbegabt vom weltarmen, ungeschichtlichen und sprachlosen Tier ab. Diese scharfe Abgrenzung, die eng mit Heideggers antibiologistischer Haltung verknüpft ist, ist vielfach und auf vielfältige Weise problematisiert worden. Neuere Diskussionen fokussieren meist die Frage, ob Heideggers Denken unweigerlich einem metaphysischen Anthropozentrismus verhaftet bleibe oder doch auch Möglichkeiten eines nicht-anthropozentristischen, posthumanistischen Denkens in Relationen eröffne. Der Beitrag argumentiert, daß gerade Heideggers vielfach als anthropozentristisch kritisierte Bestimmung des Menschen als „Ort der Lichtung des Seins“ sich für die Human-Animal Studies als produktiv erweisen könnte, insofern sie methodologisch konsequent die Perspektive und Ver-Antwortung derjenigen reflektiert, die sich sprachlich (d.h. insbesondere auch, in wissenschaftlich konstituierten Gegenstandbereichen) zu Tieren verhalten.

Andreas Beinsteiner, Dipl.-Ing. Mag., Studium der Philosophie und Informatik in Innsbruck und Bergen, befasst sich insbesondere mit Beschreibungsversuchen jener Transformationsprozesse, die mit dem Aufkommen neuer Technologien und Medien einhergehen. In seinem Dissertationsprojekt versucht er, die Philosophie von Martin Heidegger als einen medientheoretischen Ansatz zu rekonstruieren. 2010-2012 Doktorandenstipendium des Vizerektorats für Forschung der Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck, 2012-2013 Forschungsstipendiat des DAAD am philosophischen Seminar der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, ab Herbst 2013 TWF-Forschungsprojekt „Medienanalysen im Werk Martin Heideggers“.

Patrick Birkl, University of Innsbruck, Austria

Die Bedeutung der Biologie in der Entwicklung der Mensch-Tier-Beziehung

Der Blick oder das Verhältnis, das der Mensch gegenüber dem Tier hegt, hängt maßgeblich von dessen Selbstbild ab. Ob sich der Mensch als erhaben über den Rest des Tierreiches sieht oder als Teil dieses Systems betrachtet, ist somit von großer Bedeutung im Bezug auf Umgang und Bewusstsein gegenüber der eigenen Spezies und anderen Lebensformen.

Die Biologie prägt dieses Selbstbild über das Verständnis anderer Organismen, indem sie neutral analysiert, beschreibt und Konvergenzen zwischen Mensch und Tier von Physiologie bis hin zu Verhaltensstrukturen aufzeigt. Forschungsergebnisse zu kognitiven Fähigkeiten, ökologischer Relevanz oder evolutionärem Werdegang liefern immer wieder Anlass traditionelle Sichtweisen, geprägt von religiösen und kulturellen Einflüssen, zu überdenken.
In westlichen Religionen und Philosophien stellt sich der Mensch oft als unumstrittene Krönung allen Lebens dar. [Genesis 1, 26 / Aristoteles, Scala naturae]

Naturwissenschaftler wie Galileo erbrachten bereits im 17ten Jahrhundert auf physikalischer Ebene, was andere erst wesentlich später auf biologischer Ebene anstrebten; Kritik daran zu üben, dass der Mensch objektiv betrachtet allen anderen Lebensformen „übergeordnet“ werden kann, in einem Kosmos der keine Gewichtung kennt. Charles Darwin war mit seiner Schrift „On the Origin of Man“ vermutlich der bedeutendste, mit Sicherheit jedoch der berühmteste Unterstützer der Hypothese, dass der Mensch nicht durch göttliches Schaffen, sondern durch natürliche Selektion in Erscheinung trat und somit keine Sonderstellung im Tierreich einnimmt. Heckel [Anthropogenie 1874] verfocht die These in Deutschland, Edward O. Wilson schloss in sein Konzept der Soziobiologie [On human Nature 1979] menschliches Verhalten ausdrücklich mit ein und entzieht ihm somit jegliche Mystik oder Erhabenheit. Er stellt außerdem Erklärungen für menschliches Verhalten jenen von tierischem gleich. Auch Richard Dawkins´ Einladung Organismen als „Vehikel“ von Genen zu betrachten [The Selfish Gene 1976/The Extended Phenotype 1982], stellt auf eindrucksvolle Weise dar, wie „neutral“ die Evolution, der Prozess dem alle Lebewesen entspringen, funktioniert. Diese Sicht erleichtert auch das Verständnis von komplexen soziobiologischen Verhaltensmustern wie beispielsweise Altruismus.

Während Ähnlichkeiten in Physiologie, Verhalten und Anatomie längst die offensichtliche „Nähe“ des Menschen zum Tier erahnen lassen, bieten molekularbiologische Forschungen noch tiefer-greifende Einblicke in Evolution und Entwicklung des Organismus Mensch. Die Konservierung diverser Mechanismen der Entwicklung auf genetischer Ebene, zeigt deutlich wie universal die Gültigkeit dieser Grundprinzipien von Fruchtfliege bis zum Menschen ist [Molecular Biology of the Cell, Alberts et al. 2005].
Der Mensch ist somit zwar auch naturwissenschaftlich betrachtet eine „Ausnahmeerscheinung“ in bestimmter Hinsicht wie Lebensweise oder Größe und Leistung des Cortex, jedoch in Anbetracht der Diversität des Lebens weder die einzige, noch, abhängig vom Fokus der zu betrachtenden Eigenschaften, die bemerkenswerteste. Dies wird besonders durch eine biologische Betrachtungsweise deutlich.

Patrick Birkl is doing a Master’s Degree Programme in Zoology, University of Innsbruck, Austria.

Alexandra Böhm, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany

Empathische Gegendiskurse. Konzeptualisierungen des Tier-Mensch-Verhältnisses bei J.M. Coetzee und J.S. Foer

Die Beschäftigung mit non-human animals stellt ein viel größeres Problem dar, als die Fokussierung von race, class und gender in den Wissenschaften, denn die Herausforderung, der sich die Animal Studies stellen müssen, ist die Hinterfragung des wissenden Subjekts und damit generell der anthropozentrischen Position des Menschen. In Auseinandersetzung mit dieser provokanten These, die Cary Wolfe, einer der führenden Theoretiker der Animal Studies in den USA, u.a. in seinem Aufsatz „Human, All too Human: ‚Animal Studies‘ and the Humanities“ (PMLA 2009) vertritt, möchte ich in meinem Vortrag zwei Texte in den Blick nehmen, die einen empathischen Gegendiskurs zum wissenden Subjekt beschreiben: J.M. Coetzees The Lives of Animals und J.S. Foers Eating Animals. Empathie mit Tieren fungiert als ein anderes Wissen, das eine Ethik impliziert, die nicht rational begründet ist, sondern auf Emotionen basiert. Beide Texte, sowohl The Lives of Animals als auch Eating Animals, sind einflussreiche Stellungnahmen in der internationalen Tierethikdebatte. Interessant ist, dass die beiden sehr wirkmächtigen Texte, deren unterschiedliche Repräsentationspolitiken diskutiert werden sollen, von Romanschriftstellern verfasst wurden, die ihren ‚Zuständigkeitsbereich‘ überschreiten. Der Vortrag wird entsprechend den genreüberschreitenden Charakter der Texte fokussieren – sie changieren zwischen akademischem Vortrag, fiktionaler Literatur und investigativem Journalismus – und verbinden insofern Theorie, Fiktion und Praxis. In diesem Zusammenhang ist danach zu fragen, ob der Literatur eine besondere Rolle in der Konstitution eines Gegendiskurses zum wissenden Subjekt zukommt.

Alexandra Böhm, M.A. in den Fächern Germanistik, Anglistik und Amerikanistik an der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Stipendiatin des Graduiertenkollegs „Klassizismus und Romantik im europäischen Kontext“ der Universität Gießen. Promotion an der Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg zu Heine und Byron. Poetik eingreifender Kunst am Beginn der Moderne (erschienen 2013 bei Walter de Gruyter). Zur Zeit Post-Doc-Stipendiatin mit einem Projekt zur Geschichte der Empathie in literarischen Tier-Mensch-Begegnungen.
Zahlreiche Konferenzorganisationen, u.a. Erlanger Graduiertenkonferenzen. Vorträge im In- und Ausland zur Literatur und Poetik des 19. Jahrhunderts, sowie Ethik und Anerkennung in den zeitgenössischen Medien.
Herausgeberschaften: zusammen mit Antje Kley und Mark Schönleben: Ethik – Anerkennung – Gerechtigkeit. Philosophische, literarische und gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Paderborn: Fink, 2011; zusammen mit Monika Sproll: Fremde Figuren. Alterisierungen in Kunst, Wissenschaft und Anthropologie um 1800. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2008; sowie zahlreiche Aufsätze.

Livia Boscardin, University of Basel, Switzerland

Our Common Future? Animals and Sustainable Development

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This is limited to future generations of human animals, of course. Where are the other animals?

It can be argued that reflections from an animal rights perspective, and thus the interests of nonhuman animals, have barely been integrated into the definitions and declarations of, or studies and campaigns on, sustainable development. From Stockholm over Rio to Johannesburg and back to Rio, nonhuman animals are, with the exception of some wild animals, only represented as threats – threats to human health (in the case of zoonosis), to profitability (e.g., because of overfishing), and, finally, to sustainability. In this context, nonhuman animals suddenly occupy center stage. But, then again, not as “animal selves with inviolable rights” (Donaldson and Kymlicka), but as commoditized, dead objects of human exploitation (e.g., as “meat”) – namely, among others, in the anthropocentric argument that the consumption of animal products can be held responsible for up to 51% of the global emissions of greenhouse gases.
Notably, these studies call for technological enhancement and increased efficiency of the animal industrial complex (Noske), not for its abolition. To counter climate change and air pollution, the “most promising approach” proposed in the FAO-Report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” is “better nutrition and genetics” that can, for example, be attained through a manipulation of the animal’s digestion. The shift to a vegan diet does not seem to be as promising, as it is not even mentioned. Yet, if we take a closer look at sustainability policies and at the animal industrial complex, the neglect of the animals’ interests, their instrumental value in and the speciesist and profit-oriented nature of both phenomena are not so surprising anymore. On the one hand, “sustainable development” has become almost equivalent to “green capitalism:” following the Brundtland Report which identified poverty as a source of the environmental crisis, sustainable development policies nowadays mainly focus on the marketization of natural resources, on efficiency gains and recycling, and on the strategy of “decoupling,” believing that the limits to growth can be “expanded” through technological innovation, and, finally, showing that it is mainly profitability that must be sustained. On the other hand, the animal industrial complex must be comprehended, too, as an inherent part of the global capitalist economy with its exclusive goal of profit maximization. In a Cartesian-like process of reification, the animal industrial complex raises, and kills, 66 billion non-human animals yearly. In the age of biotechnology and finance, sentient animals are seen as mere genetic resources (cf. Rio 2012), as “living stock,” and financial products to be speculated with a stock exchange. Eventually, it is clear that the sustainable development discourse and the animal industrial complex have their common denominator in commoditizing life and nature following ecological modernization theory. Yet, to continue business as usual in the age of the Anthropocene and ecological overshoot means turning a blind eye to an ecological catastrophe and demands greater attention within HAS.

Livia Boscardin (*1987) is writing her dissertation in Sociology (working title: “Our Common Future – Developing a Non-Speciesist, Critical Theory of Sustainability”) under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Andrea Maihofer (Basel) and Prof. Gary Francione (Newark). She has a Bachelor in Science of Religion and Sociology of the University of Basel and a Masters in “Development Studies” (specialization in Sustainable Development) from the Graduate Institute (IHEID), Geneva. Today, Livia Boscardin is one coordinator of the doctoral program “Law and Animals – Ethics at Crossroads” of the Law School, University of Basel, and engaged in local animal rights, degrowth, and feminist groups.

Alejandro Boucabeille, University of Innsbruck, Austria
Animals in the Media
The aim of this presentation is to examine the animal and human-animal representation in selected movies and animated cartoons. Through the discussion of the findings and insights I want to analyze problems of animal representation in media, but also establish possible various ways in which such a focus foregrounds significations which offer old, new or more complex articulations of our human but also fictitious, problematic animal identity and the status-quo of the "animal" in our society. These results are grounded on my recent research to fish for representations mainly in US movies and cartoons. At the end I want to give some ideas of how we could improve the representation of animals in media and by that also their condition in our society.
Mag. Alejandro Boucabeille BA, is a PhD Candidate in History at the Leopold-Franzens University of Innsbruck. After studies in Law, Political Sciences, History, Sociology and Peace & Conflict Studies in Vienna, Innsbruck, Thessaloniki and Athens he is mainly working in the academic field of Migration Studies but also HAS. Currently he is co-editing an introduction into the Human-Animal Studies in German. He will be the Chair of the Section "History and Law". His research interests are: Human-Animal Studies, Critical HAS Studies, Media Theory, Philosophy, Migration Studies, History and Law.

Paula Calvo Soler, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain

Comparing the Role of Pets Between Children With and Without Pets

Co-authors: Maria Jesús Comellas*, Jonathan E. Bowen**, Aubrey Fine***, Antoni Bulbena, Jaume Fatjó

A study was designed to explore the perception of pets for children in Spain, looking for differences between pet owners and non-owners. Two hundred and ninety-one 8-10 year-old children participated (149 boys, 142 girls), 56% of those owning at least one pet.
In an online questionnaire each participant was presented with 4 different scenarios (arriving at home and wanting to play or after having problems at school, having trouble sleeping and going on holiday). They were asked to rank the resources that would be sought out in each scenario, from a list of choices. Analysis was using one-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunn’s post-test comparison).
In an imaginary scenario, both pet owners and non-pet owners rated the dog as the preferred play partner over parents, grandparents, games/TV, a sibling or a cousin (p<0.01), but equal to a friend. Non-pet owners ranked the dog significantly higher as a play partner (p<0.05). For the scenario involving a child having trouble at school, all children (pet owners and non-pet owners) ranked parents and a dog as the preferred sources of reassurance (p<0.01). When having trouble sleeping, the three equally preferred options, in both groups, were to turn on a light, to seek parents or to seek the pet.
Non-pet owning children rated their interest in wide range of interactions with a pet higher than pet-owning children (including playing, hugging, giving treats, walking, brushing, washing, and taking on trips, p<0.005).
These results suggest that regardless of current pet ownership, pets hold a unique importance in the minds of children, being regarded both as a source of emotional support similar to a parent and of playful companionship similar to a friend. Non-pet owners placed an even higher value on pets as a play-partner, and expected to be more involved in care for them than pet owners.

Paula Calvo Soler, Cátedra Fundación Affinity Animales y Salud, Department of Psychiatry and Forensic Medicine (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Spain.

*Department of Applied Education (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Spain.

**Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, UK.

***California State Polytechnic University, USA.

Hong Chen, Shanghai Normal University, People’s Republic of China

Eco-Consciousness or Ecophobia? Reading Shen Shixi’s Animal Fiction

Shen Shixi, one of the most popular writers of children literature in contemporary China, is hailed as “King of Chinese Animal Fiction” owing to his large number of animal stories for children readers. In the critical circle, controversial ideas exist about the animal characters in Shen’s stories. The arguments focus on the issue of authenticity of his animals, on whether they show natural attributes of wild animals or are merely humans disguised as nonhuman animals. My paper is to participate in this discussion, and to further it by looking into the ecocritical implications of Shen’s representations of his animal characters. The key question that the paper attempts to answer is: whether Shen’s writings express an eco-consciousness or ecophobia to his children readers? The term “eco-consciousness” is defined here as a recognition of the intrinsic value of wild nature, represented most typically by wild predatory animals in Shen’s stories, that is independent of human interests. In accordance, “ecophobia” is a denial of this value and a deep-rooted fear of the power of wild nature. (1) So the question I’m raising here is pinned down to an attitude towards the wild, which often expresses itself in various conflicts, particularly in the conflict between human morality and irrational wildness.

(1) The term “ecophobia” was first proposed by Simon Estok in 1995. Other critics such as David Sobel and Robin van Tine show interest in the same issue, though their definitions and/or approaches are different from Estok’s. In his newly published book Ecocriticism and Shakespeare: Reading Ecophobia (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), Estok defines ecophobia as “an irrational and groundless fear or hatred of the natural world, as present and subtle in our daily lives and literature as homophobia and racism and sexism” (p. 4). My definition in the paper is in line with Estok’s, though my reading of Chinese literature and particularly Shen’s animal fiction seem to convince me that such a fear or hatred is more directed towards the wild and dangerous power of nature than the natural world in general.

Hong Chen is professor of English literature at the Research Center for Comparative and World Literature in Shanghai Normal University. She published in English her Ph.D. thesis on the role of animals in the poetry of Hughes and Lawrence as Bestiality, Animality, and Humanity (2005). She has published widely on environmental writings, especially animal writings, in British literature and contemporary Chinese literature, in both English and Chinese. Her recent English publications include book chapters such as “Between Animalizing Nature and Dehumanizing Culture: Reading Yingsong Chen’s Shennongjia Stories” (East Asian Ecocriticisms: A Critical Reader, 2013), “Hughes and Animals” (The Cambridge Companion to Ted Hughes, 2011), “Species conflict as Cultural and Moral Conflict: Reflections on Chinese Readers’ Responses to Wolf Totem” (Environmental Argument and Cultural Difference: Locations, Fractures and Deliberations, 2008) and journal articles such as “To Set the Wild Free: Changing Images of Animals in English Poetry of the Pre-Romantic and Romantic Periods” (Interdisciplinary Studies of Literature and Environment, 2006).