Geographies of Nature: Societies, Environments, Ecologies

Books

Steve Hinchliffe

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part I: What are Geographies of Nature?

    Part II: How and Why Geographies of Nature Matter?

  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Dedication

    For Caroline, Dylan and Nate, for teaching me a looser kind of sense

    Acknowledgements

    This book is the product of many places, people, friends, colleagues, books, articles, fields, rivers, plants, conversations, arguments, animals – some of these are quoted in the book, some are described, many will recognize elements of themselves without necessarily being granted the formal recognition they deserve. But my thanks to all those who have inspired me over the years and taken the time to engage with my misreading and misunderstandings of their words and deeds in order to set me right. That I am not right is of course partly inevitable, but something for which I take full responsibility.

    The theme of this book, geographies of, or spaces for, nature is indicative of the practice of borrowing and translating that goes on in academic worlds – the term ‘Spaces for Nature’ had a former life as the name for a project which aimed to increase the number of local nature reserves that existed in urban Birmingham. Being involved in the early stages of that project and in thinking what it might mean for nature to have spaces, inspired some of the arguments that are worked out in this book.

    Some of the chapters emerged from projects with others, notably with people involved in the Habitable Cities Project at the Open University (Sarah Whatmore, Matthew Kearnes, Monica Degen and staff at the Birmingham and Black Country Wildlife Trust and CSV Environment). Meanwhile ongoing work with Nick Bingham on biosecurities is included in Chapter 7. Thanks to all these people for helping to generate these and other materials. Work on habitable cities was kindly funded by the UK's Economic and Social Research Council (No. R00239283). I have also benefited greatly from small grants from the Open University, enabling me to carry out fieldwork, and from study leave time made available by the Geography Discipline and my colleagues at the OU.

    Special thanks also go to the following people who have read or commented on large or small parts of this book in earlier or later drafts – they include Nick Bingham, Lucila Lahitou, Nigel Clark, John Law, Ingunn Moser, Kristin Asdal and Annemarie Mol.

    In addition, there are many people who in recent years have shaped my thinking. They include John Allen, Michael Pryke, Doreen Massey, Sarah Whatmore, David Featherstone, David Papadopoulos, Clive Barnett, Kevin Hetherington, Steve Pile, Nigel Thrift, David Demeritt, Noel Castree, Eric Laurier, Gail Davis, Jacquie Burgess, Andrew Blowers, Carolyn Harrison, Tony Phillips, Glyn Williams, Martin Parker, Jennifer Wolch, Chris Wilbert,

    Chris Philo, Jenny Price, Beth Greenhough, Emma Roe, Gareth Enticott, Jeanette Pols, Martin Gren, Mikael Jonasson, Ian Cook, Michael Crang, Paul Harrison, Brendan Gleeson, Sue Owens, Richard Cowell, Adrian Passmore, James Evans, Bronislaw Szersynski, Phil MacNaghten, Claire Waterton, Brian Wynne, Parvati Raghuram, George Revill, and Alistair Phillips.

    At Sage I would like to thank Robert Rojek for running with the initial idea and for his encouragement and patience, also Katherine Haw and Susan Dunsmore for their hard work at the editing stage.

    Finally, and most importantly, Caroline, Dylan and Nate have taught me a great deal, enchanted me at every turn and have made writing a joyful possibility.

    List of Figures

  • Afterword: Activating Geographies of Nature

    The natures that animate the pages of this book are different. They do not obey the easy cuts of Nature and Society, Science and Politics, to which many have become accustomed. Indeed, the old divides are counterproductive. On farms and food processing plants, nuclear waste repositories and military battlefields, hospital wards and government offices, the practices of making some thing happen are being let down by the anti-politics of Nature. Matters are closed down too quickly, and with too great a degree of irrevocability, with the result that reality comes back to haunt those who have declared things to be safe, under control, or no longer worthy of attention. It is increasingly clear, then, that the space-times of things are not well served by the ‘one stop shop’ that Nature offers.

    Similarly, Nature doesn't seem to be working as a rallying site for everyone and everything anymore. If in the past it has allowed us to terminate debate and – like God before it – secure an agreeable collective, things certainly don't seem to be as easy now. Already, faced with an unruly and heterogeneous populace, a massive demographic of humans and nonhumans who won't fall into place (Callon and Law, 2004), what or who counts is very much up for grabs.

    How do we proceed politically without Nature to ground us? How can a democracy be built that refuses to kowtow to Nature, but at the same time takes into account the space-times of the new demographic? There are at least two possible general means of moving these questions forward. The first is to proclaim ‘no nature’, to work towards political settlements in a purely cultural register. The second is to argue for many natures, a kind of multi-naturalism (de Castro, 2000; Latour, 2003).

    No Nature, or Politics Without Nature

    Certainly the one nature, or the timeless space of nature that marks an attempt to settle disputes, to declare the truth of the matter, the matters of fact, as Latour (2004b) calls them, is both objectionable politically, and, it seems, is increasingly a rather weak myth by which to govern affairs. One response is to retreat from any notion of nature, to declare the ruse of nature to be well and truly finished and seek alternatives. If a singular nature never really existed, then we are left only with a social world, narrowly defined as consisting of human beings and their interrelations, within and upon which to develop a collective. And yet, every attempt to declare a purely social order merely re-invents a natural counterpart, and in so doing merely reproduces the old Kantian settlement of society/nature. Far from being a crude idealism, the lurch to the social tends to reproduce, as its mirror, a singular nature. The dynamic social world creates its other, a dead world of non-social matters, a world of timeless bare facts that can be called upon again to settle debates once and for all (Latour, 1999). Indeed, as Mol (2002) has demonstrated effectively, in focusing attention on the who rather than the what of politics, and despite setting out to democratize proceedings by problematizing who gets to decide, we end up with a residual nature that is both lacking in vitality (Fraser et al., 2005) and which produces the same old short cuts or determined outcomes as before (see Chapter 3 and Hinchliffe, 2001).

    To explain this further, the focus in this no nature politics becomes only one of discussing ‘who’ gets to decide what should happen and how to organize the who so they can decide as ‘freely’ as possible. Organizing this ‘politics of who’ takes at least two general forms, both suffering ultimately from a dualism which leaves Nature as a problematic, anti-political, residual. Constructing markets is one way of developing a ‘politics of who’, in this case, giving consumers the ability to direct resources. The mechanisms are varied, but the general theme is of finding ways of providing choices to individualized decision-makers, who may ‘choose’ through their purchases to collectively produce better environments, particular medical interventions, and so on. The second general form of democratization is of who is civic, where the focus is on more deliberative and collective formations, debating the best or least cost options. But even with their well-known differences, what market and civic methods share, as Mol (2002) says, is a suspicion of experts and professionals, those who in the modern constitutions would have determined matters in the name of the external arbiter, in this case, in the name of nature. And yet, ironically perhaps, they also maintain or even underpin the notion of expertise. For in this social and moral world where humans debate and choose, experts are now asked only to give us the facts of the matter, the unbiased bare facts which can be laid out, transparently, before the citizenry or on the market stall.

    Even if such ruses of bringing nature back in as bare fact are avoided, there are other problems with this ‘politics of who’. One example would be the long-standing tendency to assume the issue for politics is simply one of giving voice (to people with already formulated desires). Another would be the tendency to simplify choices as momentary decisions rather than practical achievements made up of the numerous ‘intertwined histories that produce them’ (Mol, 2002: 169). But as Mol and many others have noted, the subject and the we of politics is in no simple sense ‘us’. As Haraway put it, ‘all of the actors are not human and all of the humans are not “us” however defined’ (1992: 67).

    Given such concerns, Mol offers us a politics of what, a politics where expertise and the things of expertise are neither determining nor immaterial to finding ways forward. Moreover, it is a politics that makes use of, rather than patronizing, tolerating or ignoring (or most likely all three), differences and different ways of understanding and enacting things (be they a body, a disease, a climate, an environment …). What Mol, Haraway and Latour share in this respect is a version of politics that takes who and what seriously, and seeks the means to refuse to settle debates on one side or the other. So this is a politics that is materially and socially multiple, and that attempts to find ways of moving toward assembling answers that refuse to eviscerate the politics of what by declaring matters to be natural or social.

    Many Natures – Doing Politics as Multinaturalism

    Even if we sympathize with the project of democratizing the sciences and/ or of articulating a politics of what, is a concept of nature really needed? Do natures still have work to do? This book has started from the premise that there is a case to be made for natures. There are a number of arguments which together suggest that the processes of reconstituting politics is one that can be enriched, rather than impoverished, by natures. Let us take each in turn.

    First, the natures that are talked about here are not starting points. They are not the initial grounds for politics (or more likely anti-politics). Rather, if they arise they are the sometimes fragile, sometimes fairly robust, end points of a complex of activities. Microbes, rare species, diseases, animals, gardens are all matters that in the end are more real than representations, but whose reality is not outside the fraught constitution of political world-making (Latour, 1999). They are the outcomes of all manner of works and mark more or less stable assemblies which can themselves do further work. But in being produced, they are not necessarily determined by their relations. They are objects that have objected, that have become more real as the constitutional work has gathered apace. It is this apparent contradiction between a manufactured object that is nevertheless more than human that marks the interest in geographies of nature. Neither made up nor pre-existing, both formed and forming, natures mark the lures that mobilize an indeterminate world.

    Second, if natures mark the irreducible and indeterminate outcomes of activities, then they can also figure in the opening up of apparently settled matters. Any closure, or attempt to settle matters, any constitution, will create outsiders, matters that are not known about, or if known, matters that are considered irrelevant to the business of going on. Many of these natures will happily work alongside an assembly, without a grumble. But then there are those that will demand to be taken into account, or those things that refuse to be ignored. They are the surprises, the unaccounted for, that produce political and scientific events that re-open the settled collectives (be they scientific norms or political institutions).

    Third, geographies of nature are not solely about the openness of the world in terms of its refusal to be closed. This is more than a politics of insiders/outsiders or of the process of othering and dissent that goes on every time a constitution is formed. Geographies of Nature also marks an attempt to consider what being given to the world can involve. ‘Being given’ is not synonymous with being already established, timeless or fixed. Being given marks the play between being open to others at the same time as making and marking a difference. There is then a generosity that inhabits geographies of nature, a concern with and for others, not only after the event, as they come back to haunt our schemes and assemblies, but in the very make-up of the world (Diprose, 2002). In short there's an ethos here that is generous with and to others. Which means that geographies of nature are complex, involving others (but not, it should be emphasized, suffocating otherness). In this, to return to an opening problematic, there is to be sure more than one nature. Natures are multiple. But this is not a statement of perspectival politics or even pluralism. Multinaturalism is not relativism. The politics here is an ontological process, subject to various modes and forms of power, as things are pulled and shaped by numerous practices in numerous places with numerous interrelations.

    So what is to be done? This book has opened up the possibility for a geography of natures, and for nature rather than arguing for its end. It has also suggested that any doing of nature will be multiple, spatially and materially. The assemblage of nature is in process and the processes can be engaged in through many different activities, practices and places. How to engage in the making of better natures is a fraught empirical and political question. I have suggested that the question is both ontological and political, and requires detailed engagement in the multiple practices of nature making. If nature is done, in lots of ways, places and with lots of others, then rather than offering interpretations of nature, or analytical concepts, the injunction must be to join the doings, to experiment, to engage in the doing of environments, to environ in different and better ways (Thrift, 2005). The examples given here have only been indicative. I have not been able to elaborate on the roles that can be conjured for scientists and social scientists in this world-making. Big questions remain or need further experimentation. For example, once the old forms of criticism have been surrendered, how are social scientists in particular to operate? Ethnographies of natures and experiments that don't necessarily have human-being at their centre and which attempt to change the make-up of an assemblage are a starting point. Clearly though, any old experiment won't do, and there are codes to develop and normativities to build. While the old normative certainties have gone, as nature has moved from the past-present and another country to the future-present and to a multiple spatiality, a non-foundational framework for moving forward is starting to take shape (Latour, 2004a; Mol, 2002; Stengers, 2000), one that offers roles and places for social scientists to involve themselves. This involvement will not be to act as interpreters or as legislators with some hot line to the truth (Bauman, 1992), but as co-generators of more and different representation-interventions to an assembly (representations that are, it needs always to be emphasized, matters that are made rather than pure images of the world) (Latour, 1999; 2004b; Whatmore, 2003). It may be to act in tandem with some groups, it may be to work alongside others, and in opposition to many others, but it is always to generate more things, to add more to the world (rather than to subtract from it). The multiple geographies of nature suggest that there are many ‘wheres’ for doing nature politics, many sites and organizations to engage. This book has started to provide an opening to map some of those spaces in order that we can engage with matters that are not, after all, so dead and buried.

    Bibliography

    Adam, B. (1997) Timescapes of Modernity: The Environment and Invisible Hazards, London: Routledge.
    Adams, W. M. (2004) Against Extinction: The Story of Conservation, London: Earthscan.
    Adams, W. M. and Mulligan, M. (eds) (2003) Decolonizing Nature: Strategies for Conservation in a Post-colonial Era, London: Earthscan.
    Agamben, G. (2002) The Open: Man and Animal, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Akrich, M. and Latour, B. (1992) ‘A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies’, in W.Bijker and J.Law (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnological Change, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Allen, J. (2003) Lost Geographies of Power, Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470773321
    Alpers, S. (1989) The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century, London: Penguin.
    Anderson, K. (1997) ‘A walk on the wild side: a critical geography of domestication’, Progress in Human Geography21: 463–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/030913297673999021
    Ansell Pearson, K. (1997) Viroid Life: Perspectives on Nietzsche and the Transhuman Condition, London: Routledge.
    Ansell Pearson, K. (1999) Germinal Life: The Difference and Repetition of Deleuze, London: Routledge.
    Atkinson, A. (1991) Principles of Political Ecology, London: Belhaven Press.
    Babtie, G. (2001) New Hospital Proposal: Water Vole Survey, Glasgow: Babtie Multidisciplinary Consultants.
    Baker, S. (2000) The Postmodern Animal, London: Reaktion.
    Barker, G. (2000) Ecological Recombination in Urban Areas, Peterborough: English Nature.
    Barnett, C. (2005) ‘Ways of relating: hospitality and the acknowledgement of otherness’, Progress in Human Geography29(1): 5–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph535oa
    Barry, A. (2005) ‘Pharmaceutical matters: the invention of informed materials’, Theory, Culture & Society22(1): 51–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276405048433
    Bauman, Z. (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity, London: Routledge.
    BEN (2000) ‘Funding issues affecting ethnic communities’, Black Environment Network http://www.ben-network.org.uk/resources/downlds.html (accessed 22nd July 2004).
    Benhabib, S. (1986) ‘The generalized and the concrete Other: the Kohlberg-Gilligan controversy in feminist theory’, Praxis International5: 402–24.
    Bennett, J. (2001) The Enchantment of Modern Life: Attachments, Crossings and Ethics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Bennett, J. (2004) ‘The force of things: steps to an ecology of matter’, Political Theory32(3): 347–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591703260853
    Bensaude-Vincent, B. and Stengers, I. (1996) A History of Chemistry, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Benton, T. (1989) ‘Marxism and natural limits: an ecological critique and reconstruction’, New Left Review178: 51–86.
    Beschta, R. L. (2003) ‘Cottonwoods, elk, and wolves in the Lamar Valley of Yellowstone National Park’, Ecological Applications13(5): 1295–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/02-5175
    Bingham, N. (2006) ‘Bees, butterflies, and bacteria: biotechnology and the politics of nonhuman friendship’, Environment and Planning A38: 483–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a38436
    Blythman, J. (2006) ‘So who's really to blame for bird flu?’The Guardian.
    Boundas, C. V. (1996) ‘Deleuze-Bergson: an ontology of the Virtual’, in P.Patton (ed.) Deleuze: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The forms of capital’, in J.Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press.
    Bowker, G. (2000) ‘Biodiversity datadiversity’, Social Studies of Science30: 643–683. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631200030005001
    Bowker, G. (2004) ‘Time, money and biodiversity’, in A.Ong and S. J.Collier (eds) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Braun, B. (2005) ‘Environmental issues: writing a more than human urban geography’, Progress in Human Geography29(5): 635–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph574pr
    Braun, B. (2007) ‘Biopolitics and the molecularization of life’, Cultural Geographies, 14: 6–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474474007072817
    Bright, C. (1999) Life out of Bounds: Bio-invasions in a Borderless World, London: Earthscan.
    Browne, J. (2003a) Charles Darwin: Voyaging, Vol. 1, London: Vintage.
    Browne, J. (2003b) Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, Vol. 2, London: Vintage.
    Budiansky, S. (1997) The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication, London: Phoenix.
    Butler, J. (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, New York: Routledge.
    Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in J.Law (ed.) Power, Action and Belief, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Callon, M. (1998a) ‘An essay on framing and overflowing: economic externalities revisited by sociology’, in M.Callon (ed.) The Laws of the Markets, Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and Sociological Review.
    Callon, M. (1998b) ‘Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics’, in M.Callon (ed.) The Laws of the Markets, Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and Sociological Review.
    Callon, M. (ed.) (1998c) The Laws of the Markets, Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and Sociological Review.
    Callon, M. and Law, J. (1995) ‘Agency and the hybrid collectif, South Atlantic Quarterly94(2): 481–507.
    Callon, M. and Law, J. (2004) ‘Introduction: absence – presence, circulation, and encountering in complex space’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22(1): 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d313
    Callon, M. and Law, J. (2005) ‘On qualculation, agency, and otherness’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space23(5): 717–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d343t
    Castree, N. (2004) ‘Nature is dead! Long live nature!’Environment and Planning A36: 191–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a36209
    Castree, N. (2005) Nature, London: Routledge.
    Clark, N. (2002) ‘The demon seed: bioinvasion as the unsettling of environmental cosmopolitanism’, Theory, Culture Society19(1–2): 101–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327602128931242
    Coetzee, J. M. (1998) Boyhood: A Memoir, London: Minerva.
    Coetzee, J. M. (1999) The Lives of Animals, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Coetzee, J. M. (2000) Disgrace, London: Vintage.
    Collier, S. J. and Lakoff, A. (eds) (2006a) Distributed Preparedness: Space, security and citizenship in the United States, unpublished paper, available at http://www.anthropos-lab.net/.
    Collier, S. J. and Lakoff, A. (2006b) ‘Vital systems security’: laboratory for the anthropology of the contemporary: http://www.anthropos-lab.net/publications/index.html.
    Cronon, W. (1996a) ‘The trouble with wilderness; or, getting back to the wrong nature’, in W.Cronon (ed.) Uncommon Ground, New York: Norton.
    Cronon, W. (ed.) (1996b) Uncommon Ground, New York: Norton.
    Crosby, A. (1986) Ecological Imperialism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Cuomo, C. (2003) The Philosopher Queen: Feminist Essays on War, Love, and Knowledge, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Cussins, C. (1996) ‘Ontological choreography: agency through objectification in infertility clinics’, Social Studies of Science26(3): 575–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631296026003004
    Darwin, C. (1998) The Origin of Species, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Daston, L. (ed.) (2004) The Moral Authority of Nature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Davis, M. (2002) Dead Cities, New York: The New Press.
    Davis, M. (2005) The Monster at our Door: The Global Threat of Avian Flu, New York: The New Press.
    de Castro, E. V. (2000) ‘Cosomological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute4: 469–88.
    de Laet, M. and Mol, A. (2000) ‘The Zimbabwe bush pump: mechanics of a fluid technology’, Social Studies of Science30: 225–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631200030002002
    Deleuze, G. (1999) Foucault, London: Continuum.
    Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (1988) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, London: Athlone.
    Deleuze, G. and Parnet, C. (1987) Dialogues, New York: Columbia University Press.
    Derrida, J. (2002) ‘The animal that therefore I am (more to follow)’, Critical Inquiry28: 369–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/ci.2002.28.issue-2
    Derrida, J. (2003) ‘And say the animal responded’, in C.Wolfe (ed.) Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Desmond, A. (1998) Huxley: From Devil's Disciple to Evolution's High Priest, London: Penguin.
    Desmond, A. and Moore, J. (1991) Darwin, London: Michael Joseph.
    DETR (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: Report of the Urban Task Force, London: Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    Dickens, P. (1992) Society and Nature: Towards a Green Social Theory, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Diprose, R.2002Corporeal Generosity: On Giving with Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas, New York: State University of New York Press.
    DLTR (2002) Green Spaces, Better Places: Report from the Urban Green Spaces Task Force, London: HMSO.
    Donaldson, A. and Wood, D.2004‘Surveilling strange materialities: categorisation in the evolving geographies of FMD biosecurity’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space22: 373–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d334t
    Driver, F. (2001) Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration and Empire, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Editorial (2006) ‘Avian influenza goes global but don't blame the birds’, The Lancet: Infectious Diseases6(4): 185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099%2806%2970417-0
    Evernden, N. (1992) The Social Creation of Nature, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    Fairhead, J. and Leach, M. (1998) Reframing Deforestation: Global Analysis and Local Realities, London: Routledge.
    Fine, B. (2002) ‘They fk you up, those social capitalists’, Antipode34(4): 796–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.2002.34.issue-4
    Fitter, R. (1969) ‘Foreword to the 1969 Edition’, Birds in London, Newton Abbot: David and Charles.
    Fitzsimmons, M. (1989) ‘The matter of nature’, Antipode21(2): 106–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.1989.21.issue-2
    Foster, H. (2006) ‘Go, modernity’, London Review of Books28(12): 11–12.
    Foucault, M. (1970) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, London: Tavistock.
    Foucault, M. (1973) The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception, New York: Vintage.
    Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Foucault, M. (1981) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Franklin, A. (2002) Nature and Social Theory, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446219195
    Fraser, M. (2004) ‘Interdisciplinary, novel, and ethical relations’, Paper given at Life Sciences conference, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.
    Fraser, M., Kember, S. and Lury, C. (2005) ‘Inventive life: approaches to the new vitalism’, Theory, Culture & Society22(1): 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276405048431
    Fraser, N. (1986) ‘Toward a discourse ethic of solidarity’, Praxis International5:427–9.
    Gandy, M. (2002) Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Gatens, M. (1996) ‘Through a Spinozist lens: ethology, difference, power’, in P.Patton (ed.) Deleuze: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Gertel, J. and Samir, S. (2000) ‘Cairo: urban agriculture and “visions” for a modern city’, in N.Bakker, M.Dubbeling, S.Gundel, U.Sabel-Koschella and H.de Zeeuw (eds) Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda. A Reader on Urban Agriculture, Feldafing, Germany: German Foundation for International Developement (DSE).
    Gibson-Graham, J.-K. (1996) The End of Capitalism (as We Knew it): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Glacken, C. (1967) Traces on the Rhodian Shore, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Goffman, E. (1971) Frame Analysis: An Essay in the Organization of Experience, Chicago: Northeastern University Press.
    Goodwin, B. (1994) How the Leopard Changed its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity, London: Phoenix.
    Graham, S. (2004) ‘Cities as strategic sites: annihilation and urban geopolitics’, in S.Graham (ed.) Cities, War and Terrorism, Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470753033
    Grain (2006) ‘The top-down global response to bird flu’, Against the Grain, Barcelona.
    Gray, J. (2002) Straw Dogs, London: Granta.
    Gregory, D. (2004) The Colonial Present, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Grundmann, R. (1991) ‘The ecological challenge to Marxism’, New Left Review187: 103–20.
    Hacking, I. (2000) ‘Our fellow animals’, The New York Review of Books.
    Haraway, D. (1985) ‘Manifesto for cyborgs: science, technology and socialist feminism in the 1980s’, Socialist Review80: 65–108.
    Haraway, D. (1991a) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Books.
    Haraway, D. (1991b) ‘Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective’, in D.Haraway (ed.) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Books.
    Haraway, D. (1992) ‘Otherworldly conversations; terrain topics; local terms’, Science as Culture3(1): 64–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505439209526336
    Haraway, D. (1993) ‘The promises of monsters: a regenerative politics for inappropriated others’, in L.Grossberg, C.Nelson and P.Treichler (eds) Cultural Studies, London: Routledge.
    Haraway, D. (1997) Modest_Witness@Second Millennium: Femaleman_Meets-Oncomouse TM, London: Routledge.
    Haraway, D. (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People and Significant Otherness, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
    Harman, G. (2002) Tool-being: Heidegger and the Metaphysics of Objects, Chicago: Open Court.
    Harrison, C. and Davies, G. (2002) ‘Conserving biodiversity that matters: practitioners’ perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London’, Journal of Environmental Management65: 95–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0539
    Harvey, D. (1993) ‘The nature of environment: dialectics of social and environmental change’, in R.Miliband and L.Panitch (eds) Socialist Register: Real Problems, False Solutions, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Hays, S. P. (1959) Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Hearne, V. (1991) ‘What's wrong with animal rights: horses, hounds and Jeffersonian happiness’, Harpers Magazine.
    Heidegger, M. (1978) ‘The question concerning technology’, in D. F.Krell (ed.) Basic Writings, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Hetherington, K. (1997) Badlands of Modernity, London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203428870
    Hetherington, K. and Lee, N. (2000) ‘Social order and the blank figure’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space18: 169–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d215t
    Hinchliffe, S. (2000a) ‘Living with risk: the unnatural geography of environmental crises’, in S.Hinchliffe and K.Woodward (eds) The Natural and the Social, London/Milton Keynes: Routledge/Open University.
    Hinchliffe, S. (2000b) ‘Pigeons’, in S.Pile and N.Thrift (eds) City A-Z, London: Routledge.
    Hinchliffe, S. (2001) ‘Indeterminacy in-decisions – science, policy and politics in the BSE crisis’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers26(2): 182–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tran.2001.26.issue-2
    Hinchliffe, S. (2003) ‘Inhabiting – landscapes and natures’, in K.Anderson, M.Domosh, S.Pile and N.Thrift (eds) The Handbook of Cultural Geography, London: Sage.
    Hinchliffe, S. (2005) ‘Nature/Culture’, in D.Atkinson, P.Jackson, D.Sibley and N.Washbourne (eds) Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts, London: I.B. Taurus.
    Hinchliffe, S. (2007) ‘Reconstituting Nature conservation: towards a careful political ecology’, Geoforum38.
    Hinchliffe, S. and Blowers, A. (2003) ‘Environmental responses: radioactive risks and uncertainty’, in A.Blowers and S.Hinchliffe (eds) Environmental Responses, Chichester/Milton Keynes: John Wiley and Sons/Open University.
    Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M., Degen, M. and Whatmore, S. (2005) ‘Urban wild things: a cosmopolitical experiment’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space23(5): 643–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d351t
    Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M., Degen, M. and Whatmore, S. (2007) ‘Ecologies and economics of action: Sustainability, Calculations and other things’, Environment and Planning A39(2): 260–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a38110
    Hinchliffe, S. and Whatmore, S. (2006) ‘Living cities: towards a politics of conviviality’, Science as Culture15(2): 123–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09505430600707988
    Hinchliffe, S. and Woodward, K. (2000) The Natural and the Social: Uncertainty, Risk, Change, London/Milton Keynes: Routledge/Open University.
    Ingold, T. (1995) ‘Building, dwelling, living: How animals and humans make themselves at home in the world,’ in M.Strathern (ed.) Shifting Contexts. Transformations in Anthropological Knowledge, London: Routledge.
    Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill, London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203466025
    Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
    Jardine, N., Secord, J. and Spary, E. C. (eds) (1996) Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Jenkins, D. (ed.) (2005) Catalogue: Foster and Partners, London: Prestel.
    Kant, I. (1948) Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, London: Hutchinson University Library.
    Keller, E. F. (1992) A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
    Keyes, M. A. (1999a) ‘The prion challenge to the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology, 1965–1991. Part I: Prelude to prions’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences30(1): 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486%2898%2900028-4
    Keyes, M. A. (1999b) ‘The prion challenge to the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology, 1965–1991. Part II: the problem with prions’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences30(2): 181–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486%2898%2900029-6
    Lacey, R. (1994) Mad Cow Disease: Dead End Host?, Jersey: Cypsela.
    Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Latour, B. (1988) The Pasteurisation of France, Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
    Latour, B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern, Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Latour, B. (1996) Aramis, or the Love of Technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Latour, B. (1999) Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Latour, B. (2000) ‘When things strike back – a possible contribution of science studies to the social sciences’, British Journal of Sociology51(1): 107–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/000713100358453
    Latour, B. (2002) ‘Morality and technology: the end of the means’, Theory, Culture & Society19(5/6): 257–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327602761899246
    Latour, B. (2003) The War of the Worlds: What About Peace?, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
    Latour, B. (2004a) ‘How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies’, Body & Society10: 205–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X04042943
    Latour, B. (2004b) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Latour, B. and Weibel, P. (eds) (2005) Making Things Public. Atmospheres of Democracy, Karlsruhe, Germany/Cambridge, MA: ZKM: Centre for Art and Media Karlsruhe/MIT Press.
    Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory Life, London: Sage.
    Law, J. (1994) Organizing Modernity, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Law, J. (2002) Aircraft Stories: Decentering the Object in Technoscience, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    Law, J. (2004a) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, London: Routledge.
    Law, J. (2004b) ‘Mattering, or how might STS contribute?’ Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YL, UK, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/law-mattering.pdf.
    Law, J. (2006a) ‘Disaster in agriculture: or foot and mouth mobilities’, Environment and Planning A38(2): 227–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a37273
    Law, J. (2006b) ‘Narratives and pinboards: on foot and mouth multiple’ paper presented at Nature Politics Conference, University of Oslo, February.
    Law, J. (2007) ‘Pinboards and books: learning, materiality and juxtaposition’, in D.Kritt and L. T.Winegar (eds) Education and Technology: Critical Perspectives, Possible Futures, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Law, J. and Lynch, M. (1990) ‘Lists, field guides, and the descriptive organization of seeing: birdwatching as an exemplary observational activity’, in M.Lynch and S.Woolgar (eds) Representation in Scientific Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Law, J. and Mol, A. (eds) (2002) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    Law, J. and Mol, A. (2007) ‘Globalisation in practice: on the politics of boiling pigswill,’Geoforum38.
    Lee, N. and Brown, S. (1994) ‘Otherness and the actor network: the undiscovered continent’, American Behavioural Scientist37: 772–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764294037006005
    Lenoir, T. (1994) ‘Was the last turn the right turn? The semiotic turn and A.J. Greimas’, Configurations1: 119–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/con.1994.0014
    Lewontin, R. (1993) The Doctrine of DNA: Biology as Ideology, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Livingstone, D. (1992) The Geographical Tradition, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Livingstone, D. (2003) Putting Science in its Place: Geographies of Scientific Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Lyotard, J.-F. (1994) Driftworks, New York: Semiotext(e).
    Macdonald, D. W., Mace, G. M. and Rushton, S. (2000) ‘British mammals: is there a radical future?’ in A.Entwistle and N.Dunstone (eds) Priorities for the Conservation of Mammalian Diversity: Has the Panda Had its Day?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Malthus, T. R. (1992) Malthus: An Essay on the Principle of Population, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Massey, D. (1995) ‘Thinking radical democracy spatially’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space13: 283–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d130283
    Massey, D. (1999) Power Geometries and the Politics of Space-Time, Heidelberg: Department of Geography, University of Heidelberg.
    Massey, D. (2004) ‘Geographies of responsbility’, Geografiska Annaler86(1): 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geob.2004.86.issue-1
    Massey, D. (2005) For Space, London: Routledge.
    Massumi, B. (1996) ‘The autonomy of affect’, in P.Patton (ed.) Deleuze: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Matless, D. (1998) Landscape and Englishness, London: Reaktion.
    Maturana, H. and Varela, F. (1992) The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, Boston: Shambala Press.
    Mazis, G. A. (1999) ‘Chaos theory and Merleau-Ponty's ontology: beyond the dead father's paralysis toward a dynamic and fragile materiality’, in D.Olkowoski and J.Morley (eds) Merleau-Ponty: Interiority and Exteriority, Psychic Life and the World, Albany, NY: SUNY.
    McKibben, B. (2003) The End of Nature: Humanity, Climate Change and the Natural World,
    2nd edn
    , London: Bloomsbury.
    McNay, L. (2000) Gender and Agency, Polity: Cambridge.
    Merchant, C. (1990) The Death of Nature: Women, Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, New York: Harper and Row.
    Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962) Phenomenology of Perception, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Mitchell, T. (2002) Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-politics, Modernity, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    Mol, A. (1999) ‘Ontological politics, a word and some questions’, in J.Law and J.Hassard (eds) Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford and Keele: Blackwell/Sociological Review.
    Mol, A. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    Mol, A. (forthcoming) ‘The logic of care’, unpublished MS.
    Mol, A. and Law, J. (1994) ‘Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology’, Social Studies of Science24: 641–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631279402400402
    Mouffe, C. (1993) The Return of the Political, London: Verso.
    Mouffe, C. (2000) The Democratic Paradox, London: Verso.
    Munro, R. (1997) ‘Ideas of difference: stability, social spaces and the labour of division’, in K.Hetherington and R.Munro (eds) Ideas of Difference, Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and Sociological Review.
    Murdoch, J. (2003) ‘Geography's circle of concern’, Geoforum34: 287–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185%2803%2900032-0
    Murdoch, J. (2005) Poststructural Geography: A Guide to Relational Space, London: Sage.
    ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, London: The Stationary Office.
    ODPM and DEFRA (2005) Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and their impact within the Planning System, London: The Stationary Office.
    O'Riordan, T. (1976) Environmentalism, London: Pion.
    Passmore, J. (1980) Man's Responsibility for Nature,
    2nd edn
    , London: Duckworth.
    Patton, P. (2003) ‘Language, power and the training of horses’, in C.Wolfe (ed.) Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Paulson, W. (2001) ‘For a cosmopolitical philology: lessons from science studies’, SubStance #9630(3): 101–119.
    Pennington, H. (2000) ‘The English disease’, London Review of Books.
    Perrow, C. (1999) Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies,
    2nd edn
    , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Phillips, L., Bridgeman, J. and Ferguson-Smith, M. (2000) The BSE Inquiry, Vols I-XVI, London: HMSO.
    Philo, C. (2005) ‘Spacing lives and lively spaces: partial remarks on Sarah Whatmore's hybrid geographies’, Antipode37(4): 824–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/anti.2005.37.issue-4
    Pile, S. and Thrift, N. (eds) (1995) Mapping the Subject, London: Routledge.
    Pols, J. (2003) ‘Enforcing patient rights or improving care? The interference of two modes of doing good in mental health care’, Sociology of Health and Illness25(4): 320–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.00349
    Prusiner, S. B. and McKinley, M. P. (eds) (1987) Prions. Novel Infectious Pathogens Causing Scrapie and Creuzfeldt-Jakob Disease, San Diego: Academic Press.
    Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon and Schuster.
    Rajchman, J. (2000) The Deleuze Connections, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Regan, T. (1984) The Case for Animal Rights, London: Routledge.
    Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997) Towards a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing Proteins in the Test Tube, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    Ridley, R. M. and Baker, H. F. (1998) Fatal Protein: The Story of CJD, BSE and Other Prion Diseases, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Ripple, W. J. and Beschta, R. L. (2003) ‘Wolf reintroduction, predation risk, and cottonwood recovery in Yellowstone National Park’, Forest Ecology and Management184: 299–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127%2803%2900154-3
    Rogers, R. and Gumuchdijan, P. (1997) Cities for a Small Planet, London: Faber and Faber.
    Rose, S. (1998) Lifelines: Biology, Freedom, Determinism, London: Penguin.
    Rose, S., Kamin, L. J. and Lewontin, R. (1984) Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Secord, J. (1981) ‘Nature's fancy: Charles Darwin and the breeding of pigeons’, Isis72: 163–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/isis.1981.72.issue-2
    Serres, M. (1995a) Conversations on Science, Culture and Time, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
    Serres, M. (1995b) The Natural Contract, Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
    Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. (1985) Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle and the Experimental Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    Sheinin, D. (1994) ‘Defying infection: Argentine foot and mouth policy, 1900–1930’, Canadian Journal of History29(3): 501–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002200949402900307
    Shusterman, R. (1997) Practicing Philosophy: Pragmatism and the Philosophical Life, New York: Routledge.
    Singer, P. (1984) Animal Liberation, London: Jonathan Cape.
    Slackman, M. (2006) ‘Bird flu or not, Egyptians keep their ducks’, International Herald Tribune, 31 May.
    Slicer, D. (1991) ‘Your daughter or your dog? A feminist assessment of the animal research issue’, Hypatia6(1): 108–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb00212.x
    Soper, K. (1995) What is Nature?, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Southwood, R. (1989) Report of the Working Party on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
    Stengers, I. (1997) Power and Invention: Situating Science, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Stengers, I. (2000) The Invention of Modern Science, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Stengers, I. (2004) ‘A constructivist reading of process and reality’. Paper given at Goldsmiths College, London available at http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/CSISP/papers/stengers_constructivist_reading.pdf.
    Strathern, M. (1991) Partial Connections, Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Strathern, M. (1996) ‘Cutting the network’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute2: 517–535. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3034901
    Swyngedouw, E. (2004) Social Power and the Urbanization of Water, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Thacker, E. (2005a) ‘Living dead networks’, FibreCulture4: http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue4/issue4_thacker.html.
    Thacker, E. (2005b) ‘Nomos, nosos and bios’, Culture Machine7: http://culturemachine.tees.ac.uk/frm_f1.htm.
    Thompson, C. (2002) ‘When elephants stand for competing philosophies of natures: Amboseli National Park, Kenya’, in J.Law and A.Mol (eds) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
    Thrift, N. (2000) ‘Still life in the nearly present time’, Body and Society6(3–4): 34–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1357034X00006003003
    Thrift, N. (2003) ‘All nose’, in K.Anderson, M.Domosh, S.Pile and N.Thrift (eds) The Handbook of Cultural Geography, London: Sage.
    Thrift, N. (2005) ‘From born to made: technology, biology and space’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers30: 463–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tran.2005.30.issue-4
    Tuan, Y. F. (1984) Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Verran, H. (2001) Science and an African Logic, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    Verran, H. (2002) ‘A postcolonial movement in science studies: alternative firing regimes of environmental scientists and Aboriginal landowners’, Social Studies of Science32 (5–6): 729–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631202128967398
    Waterton, C. and Ellis, R. (2004) ‘Environmental citizenship in the making: the participation of volunteer naturalists in the UK biological recording and biodiversity policy’, Science and Public Policy31(2): 95–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154304781780055
    Watson, S. (1998) ‘The new Bergsonism’, Radical Philosophy92: 1–23.
    Weber, M. (1991) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, London: Routledge.
    Western, D., Wright, M. and Strum, S. (eds) (1994) Natural connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, Washington, DC: Island Press.
    Whatmore, S. (1997) ‘Dissecting the autonomous self: hybrid cartographies for a relational ethics’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space15: 37–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d150037
    Whatmore, S. (2002) Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Culture, Spaces, London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446219713
    Whatmore, S. (2003) ‘Generating materials’, in M.Pryke, G.Rose and S.Whatmore (eds) Using Social Theory, London: Sage.
    Whatmore, S. (2004) ‘Humanism's excess: some thoughts on the post-human/ist agenda’, Environment and Planning A36: 1360–3.
    White, S. (1991) Political Theory and Postmodernism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    WHO (2006a) Questions and Answers on Avian Influenza, Geneva: World Health Organization.
    WHO (2006b) ‘Avian Influenza Fact Sheet February (2006)’, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/avian_influenza/en/print.html.
    Williams, G. (2001) ‘Where the wild things are: an interview with Steve Baker’, Cabinet Magazine Online: 1–7. Available at: http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/4/stevebaker.php.
    Williams, P., Gaston, K. and Humphries, C. (1994) ‘Do conservationists and molecular biologists value differences between organisms in the same way?’Biodiversity Letters2(3): 67–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2999760
    Wilson, A. (1992) The Culture of Nature, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Wilson, E. A. (1996) ‘On the nature of neurology’, Hysteric: Body/Medicine/Text 2: 49–63.
    Wolch, J. (1998) ‘Zoopolis’, in J.Wolch and J.Emel (eds) Animal Geographies, London: Verso.
    Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds) (1998) Animal Geographies, London: Verso.
    Wolfe, C. (2003a) ‘In the shadow of Wittgenstein's lion: language, ethics, and the question of the animal’, in C.Wolfe (ed.) Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Wolfe, C. (2003b) ‘Introduction’, in C.Wolfe (ed.) Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Wolfe, C. (ed.) (2003c) Zoontologies: The Question of the Animal, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Woods, A. (2004a) ‘The construction of an animal plague: foot and mouth disease in nineteenth-century Britain’, Social History of Medicine17(1): 23–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/shm/17.1.23
    Woods, A. (2004b) ‘Flames and fear on the farms': controlling foot and mouth disease in Britain, 1892–2001’, Historical Research77(198): 520–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hisr.2004.77.issue-198
    Woods, A. (2004c) A Manufactured Plague: The History of Foot and Mouth Disease in Britain, London: Earthscan.
    Worster, D. (1988) ‘Doing environmental history’, in D.Worster (ed.) The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Young, R. M. (1985) Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's place in Victorian Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Loading...
Back to Top