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.

The Corporate University: An E-interview with Dave Hill, Alpesh Maisuria, Anthony Nocella, and Michael Parenti

Since the neo-liberal turn, corporate investment in universities has accelerated as the withdrawal of government funding, among other factors, has further exposed universities to market forces. While this process offers numerous benefits for corporations and wealthy individuals, it has been mostly detrimental for students, educators, and the public at large. In this interview, international scholars Dave Hill, Alpesh Maisuria, Anthony Nocella, and Michael Parenti broadly explain why corporations have been aggressively investing in universities. They address the numerous ways that corporate involvement in university activity negatively impacts academic freedom, research outcomes, and the practice of democracy. The interview ends on a hopeful note by presenting examples of resistance against corporate influence. Their analyses focus primarily on the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.