Humans, Animals, and Society by Nik Taylor

Author:Nik Taylor
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781590564240
Publisher: Lantern Books

Veterinarians

The veterinary practice is an interesting site for ethnographers wanting to study human–animal relations, as it allows the study of human–human and human–animal interactions at the same time (Atwood-Harvey 2005; Sanders 1994 and 1995). In the veterinary surgery, social and cultural beliefs regarding the place of animals come face-to-face with a scientifically trained professional who has his or her own set of beliefs about these topics too. Scientific, common sense, and animal welfare paradigms are all in evidence in the routine veterinary surgeon-human-animal consultation, which offers rich and interesting data to the ethnographer. Add to this the fact that vets are often involved in making difficult decisions around treatment and ultimately euthanasia, and the veterinary surgery becomes a unique and rich environment to investigate the entanglements of human and animal, as well as of nature and culture and science and emotion.

When humans and animals meet in the veterinary surgery, a triad of human vet, human “owner,” and animal “client” exists. While the chief aim of any consultation is to help the animal in question, the relationship between all three is not neutral. Humans have more power than animals in the veterinary surgery: they restrain animals if needed, and owners and the veterinarian discuss problems and potential solutions for the animal without any input from the animal themselves. As such there is a need for the human to “speak for” the animal. Arluke and Sanders argue that “speaking for” occurs when the more powerful interactant determines and presents what the weaker interactant means (1996). In other words, the human guardian translates on behalf of the animal. The veterinarian then has to make sense of the symptoms, and, usually with the aid of a physical examination, reach a conclusion regarding the animal's health and translate this back to the human guardian. The only communication from the animal is through his or her behavior (both within and without the surgery), with both human parties being involved in the process of making sense of this.

Arluke and Sanders (1996) refer to this form of “speaking for” one less powerful as “interlocution” and present six ways in which it occurs in the veterinary clinic. The first is where owners speak to their animals in the same way they speak to humans, but more slowly and with more emphasis overall. The second involves the use of conventional familial labels, such as calling themselves “Mum” and “Dad” and their pets the “children.” The third mode is the use of questioning where, according to linguistic convention, the owner's voice rises toward the end of the sentence and there is a sufficient pause for a “response.” Arluke and Sanders point out that in much the same way as interaction with human children, the owners “fill in” appropriate responses for their animals. The fourth way owners “speak for” their animals is to use the collective terms “we” and “our,” such as “we aren't feeling well today,” or “our tummy hurts.” The fifth mode, presented as a subcategory of the fourth, is the use of “excusing tactics” in the face of misbehavior.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.