闻夕felicity对《动物社群》的笔记(22)

作为公民的残障者：P79

不仅仅是给与投票的权利；

对“非交流公民”（Wong, 2009）建立“依赖式能动性”dependent agency (Silver and Francis 2005)或“受协助的决策”supported decision-making (Prince 2009)：

想办法引导出一个人对于自己的主观善的感受，通过“具身的”embodied而非语言交流来实现，在其他人/协作者帮助下根据自己偏好的表达方式（语言or非语言）勾画关于美好生活的草图；

合作者的作用在于关注这些表达，把它们整合在一起，形成一种对持续性偏好的解释，这些偏好构成了一种个体关于善的观念，而且还要研究如何在给定环境中实现这种善（Francis and Silvers 2007: 325）并把这些信息带入政治进程，从而使他们的观点可以影响到正在进行的关于社会正义的辩论。

Spatial Dimensions of Human–Animal Relations

Cultural sociologists and cultural geographers have long emphasized thatmodern societies operate with a very specific conception of space. Certainspaces—cities, suburbs, industrial and agricultural zones—are defined as‘human’ rather than ‘animal’, as ‘cultural’ rather than ‘natural’, or as‘developed’ rather than ‘wilderness’. These dichotomies underpin our‘culturally derived modernist conceptions of proper, morally appropriate,spatial relations between animals and society’ (Jerolmack 2008: 73). In thiscultural imaginary, companion animals stay safely on the leash (rather thanbecoming feral), wild animals stay in zoos or in pristine wilderness farremoved from humans, and livestock stay on the farm. Whenever any animalis found outside its ‘proper, morally appropriate’ space, it is seen as ‘matterout of place’, and hence as morally problematic.12 ‘Urban living has resultedin the incorporation of animals into the private sphere (as pets) or urbanculture has removed them to a real or imaginary “wild” or some rural past’ (Griffiths, Poulter, and Sibley 2000: 59), and if any animals cross theboundary they are ‘doomed to be considered morally transgressive as theytransgress the spaces that we have defined as “for humans only”’(Jerolmack 2008: 88).

This high modernist conception of space systematically distorts our understanding of human–animal relations. It recognizes the existence of pets in cities (if safely leashed), but ignores the non-domesticated animals around us. And so, liminal animals come into view only when their numbers or behaviour turn them into ‘pests’. In other words, they are visible when they become a problem, but invisible as ubiquitous members of the community. We have paid remarkably little attention to the diversity of these animals, the kinds of spaces they inhabit, and the ways we interact with them—from the mice who inhabit our houses, to the sparrows and feral pigeons who scavenge in city cores, to the deer and coyotes who thrive in the suburbs, to the countless species who have evolved in symbiosis with traditional agricultural practices (e.g., the birds, rodents, and small mammals who feed on agricultural crops, and the larger mammals and raptors who prey on them in turn).

门槛论

物种标准原则