Animal Geographies

“old” Animal Geography

While geography has always been concerned with the interface between human culture and the natural world, until recently, nonhuman animals were largely overlooked. Historically, animals in geography were considered no more than biological pieces of a larger ecological system, instruments for human use, or forms of symbolic natural capital. It is not that geographers showed no interest in animals; indeed, there was a field called animal geography as early as 1913, consisting of studies of animal populations and examination of floral and fauna regions. In the early days of animal geography, two approaches emerged, mirroring the widening gap between physical and human geography. Zoogeography, which considered mainly animal distributions, was rooted in zoology and physical geography; the other approach aligned with human geography and social sciences and focused on animal domestications. By the 1960s, however, owing to the low status of cultural geography (due partly to the Berkeley School's treatment of culture–economy relations), [Page 76]questions about human-environment relations receded from view. By the last quarter of the 20th century, the term animal geography had disappeared from the discipline altogether.

Franz Marc, The Dream (1912)

Source: © Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid. Photography: José Loren. Used with permission.

Today's animal geographies differ substantially from the “old” animal geography. The interplay between geography and social theory, cultural studies, and environmental ethics in the 1990s led to a rebirth of interest in nonhuman animals. The increased focus on animals, culture, and society came on the heels of growing public and academic concern about environmental degradation, habitat loss, species endangerment, and the plight of animals relegated to a dismal life (and untimely death) in shelters, labs, and factory farms. The 1970s and 1980s witnessed hundreds of new organizations created to lead social movements involving animals and the environment. Animal rights groups (especially the more radical organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Animal Liberation Front) challenged people to reconsider their relationships with animals by suggesting, for example, that speciesism is equivalent to racism and sexism; that animal captivity is as heinous as human slavery; and that factory farms, fur farms, and research labs are tantamount to genocide. Alongside this tumultuous public activity, the legacies of modernity and modernist ways of thinking came under attack as critics argued (and still argue) that the achievements of modernity rested on race, class, and gender domination, as well as colonialism and imperialism, anthropocentrism, and the destruction of nature. Given this, scholars [Page 77]in social theory and cultural studies began to rethink culture, and geographers (along with other social and natural scientists) began thinking about “the animal question” and the need to unpack the black box of nature.

...