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.

Psychotherapy in a neoliberal world

The neoliberal regime has significant consequences for the psychotherapies. In particular, the idea that individuals is deserving of support from society and government when they need it – for example in managing the inevitable stresses of the life cycle – is being displaced by an ideology of total individual responsibility. Psychotherapies framed around relational conceptions of the self find themselves particularly out of key with this dominant way of thinking. Governmental approaches to developmental needs become more instrumental, measurement-oriented and ‘disciplinary’ in this situation. Market incentives and disciplinary sanctions are introduced to ensure that institutions and their personnel conform to governmental directives. There is pressure on psychotherapists to adapt to this instrumentalised environment to survive. However, ‘expressive individualisation’ was also stimulated by the cultural liberation of the 1960s, and survives alongside the ‘possessive individualism’ of neoliberalism. This alternative culture has not been entirely suppressed, and therapies continue to be sought which offer the possibility of self-understanding and growth, although the pressure is for such therapies to become luxury goods. What is at risk under neoliberalism is the idea that society should support the self-development and self-understanding of all its citizens, as an aspect of a modern kind of democratic citizenship.

Book Reviews: How Secularists Deal with Traditionalists (or Don’t)

Review of The Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions, by Michael Walzer. Yale University Press. 172pp. £16.99