Critical anthropomorphism and animal ethics

Anthropomorphism has long been considered a cardinal error when describing animals. Ethicists have feared the consequences of misrepresenting animals in their reasoning. Recent research within human-animal studies, however, has sophisticated the notion of anthropomorphism. It is suggested that avoiding anthropomorphism merely creates other morphisms, such as mechanomorphism. Instead of avoiding anthropomorphism, it is argued that it is a communicative strategy that should be used critically. Instances of anthropomorphism in animal ethics are analyzed in this paper. Some analogies made between people and non-human animals in present theories of animal ethics are clear instances of psychological anthropomorphism. Other analogies are implicit cases of cultural anthropomorphism. It is argued that animal ethics needs to take the wider discourse of critical anthropomorphism into account in order to sophisticate the understanding and use of anthropomorphic projections. Anthropomorphism is an efficient tool of communication, and it may be made an adequate one as well.

The Human Animal : An Ecocritical Study of Wilderness by Roddy Doyle

engelska

För Sverige i framtiden : Bio-objektifiering av ny medicinsk teknologi

Taking Sweden into the future – Bio-objectification of new medical technology In this article, we analyze how contemporary discursive silences around new biotechnologies such as cybrids and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC), have been enabled by earlier policy processes in the area, e.g. boundary work around what is human and non-human, living and non-living, subject and object. The analysis of policy processes around xenotransplantations and the use of human embryonic stem cells, shows that the stem cells’ and xenografts’ “bio-identities” become stabilized through high expectations for the future, a lack of therapeutic possibilities and struggles over definitions of life. The policy processes around human embryonic stem cells and organs from other animals, are characterized by a normalization of certain understandings of ”life”, trust in scientific progress and it’s national financial potentials and a categorization of criticism as irrational. Through these “bio-objectification processes”, debate and decision making has been moved from a political and public context into ethical committees and research funding bodies. The article concludes by discussing consequences of this political non-handling of biomedical technologies and how these bioobjects could be re-politicized.