the human, masculinised mind from the feminised and naturalised social body disputes our essential ecological relations with (other) animals. To regard the animal as the conceptual subject for politicisation troubles this epistemological basis for politicisation. Indeed, to paraphrase Haraway cited at the beginning of this chapter, the nonhuman animal represents a powerful icon of the cultural construction of politics and as such discussion of animals is inherently revolutionary. To recognise animals as our ecological relations requires an expansion of epistemological boundaries. As this genealogical reading of the subject of nonhuman animals has revealed, the modern hold on exclusive human politicisation is being loosened. Yet, as the following chapter illustrates, within humanity differential power relations persist, based upon ethnically and economically mediated epistemological differences; the case of indigenous peoples constitutes the next and final conceptual study to illustrate the emerging possibility of a broadened theorisation of IR on earth.
Notes
1Haraway, D. (1989) Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science, London: Routledge, p. 10.
2Oelschlaeger, M. (1991) The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology, London: Yale University Press.
3Midgley, M. (1979) Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature, Brighton: The Harvester Press Ltd., p. xii.
5Berger, J. (1980) About Looking, London: Writers and Readers Publishing Co-operative, p. 3.
6Baker, S. (1993) Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity and Representation, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Here I am borrowing Baker's observation on grammar but disagreeing with his belief that 'the animal is necessarily a construction, a representation, and not an accessible essence or reality', (p. 5).
7Lipietz, A. (1992) Towards a New Economic Order: Postfordism, Ecology and Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
8Fox, W. (1990) Toward A Transpersonal Ecology; Developing New Foundations for Environmentalism, London: Shambhala Publications, Inc., p. 13.
9Fox, (1990) pp. 14-17. This is the position also of Eckersley, R. (1992) Environmentalism and Political Theory: Towards an Ecocentric Approach, London: UCL Press.
10Barthes, R. (Lavers, A., trans.) (1993) Mythologies. London: Vintage Books, p. 121.
11Lévi-Strauss, C. (Weightman, J. and Weightman, D., trans.) (1969, first published 1964) The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction to a Science of Mythology: 1, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, p. 341.
12Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation: Towards an End to Man's Inhumanity to Animals, Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Thorsons, p. 7.
13Cf. Mellor, M. (1996) 'Myths and Realities: A Reply to Cecile Jackson', New Left Review, 217, 132-137, who is specifically referring to ecofeminism but recognises the logic's wider applications.
14Murdoch, I. (1970) 'The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts', in The Sovereignty of Good, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
15Foucault, M. (1984c) 'Politics and Ethics: An Interview', in Rabinow, P. (ed.) The Foucault Reader, Middlesex: Penguin Books, pp. 375-376.
-170-
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information:
Book title: Ecological Relations: Towards an Inclusive Politics of the Earth.
Contributors: Susan Board - Author.
Publisher: Routledge.
Place of publication: New York.
Publication year: 2002.
Page number: 170.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may
not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.
- Georgia
- Arial
- Times New Roman
- Verdana
- Courier/monospaced
Reset