A Sociology for Other Animals: Analysis, advocacy, intervention

Sociology has come late to the field of Human Animal Studies (HAS), and such scholarship remains peripheral to the discipline. Early sociological interventions in the field were often informed by a critical perspective, in particular feminism but also Marxism and critical race studies. There have also been less critical routes taken, often using approaches such as actor-network theory and symbolic interactionism. These varied initiatives have made important contributions to the project of animalizing sociology and problematizing its legacies of human-exclusivity. As HAS expands and matures however, different kinds of study and different normative orientations have come increasingly into relations of tension in this eclectic field. This is particularly so when it comes to the ideological and ethical debates on appropriate human relations with other species, and on questions of whether and how scholarship might intervene to alter such relations. However, despite questioning contemporary social forms of human-animal relations and suggesting a need for change, the link between analysis and political strategy is uncertain. This paper maps the field of sociological animal studies through some examples of critical and mainstream approaches and considers their relation to advocacy. While those working in critical sociological traditions may appear to have a more certain political agenda, this article suggests that an analysis of 'how things are' does not always lead to a coherent position on 'what is to be done' in terms of social movement agendas or policy intervention. In addition, concepts deployed in advocacy such as rights, liberation and welfare are problematic when applied beyond the human. Even conceptions less entrenched in the liberal humanist tradition such as embodiment, care and vulnerability are difficult to operationalize. Despite complex and contested claims however, this paper suggests that there might also be possibilities for solidarity.

An Empirical Evaluation of the Reversal Theory State Measure Using Three Running Brand Video Commercials

This paper reports on the first known empirical use of the Reversal Theory State Measure (RTSM) since its publication by Desselles et al. (2014). The RTSM was employed to track responses to three purposely-selected video commercials in a between-subjects design. Results of the study provide empirical support for the central conceptual premise of reversal theory, the experience of metamotivational reversals and the ability of the RTSM to capture them. The RTSM was also found to be psychometrically sound after adjustments were made to two of its three component subscales. Detailed account and rationale is provided for the analytical process of assessing the psychometric robustness of the RTSM, with a number of techniques and interpretations relating to component structure and reliability discussed. Agreeability and critique of the two available versions of the RTSM – the bundled and the branched – is also examined. Researchers are encouraged to assist development of the RTSM through further use, taking into account the analysis and recommendations presented.