Anthrozoology- An Emerging Robust Multidisciplinary Sub-field of Anthropology

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 1, 22 - 35, 28.07.2017

Abu Bakar Siddiq Ahsan Habib

Öz

Humans have long engaged with nonhuman animals since
the beginning of their journey on the planet Earth. Both human and nonhuman
species are co-existing and sharing the world forming multi-dimensional
relationships. Although the non-humans are hunted, manipulated, domesticated,
consumed or sometimes go extinct by humans, they are also respected, worshiped,
symbolized, conserved as well as adored in human societies. For a long time,
different academic disciplines have considered the nonhuman animals in a utilitarian
approach, considering them as objects for humanity. Therefore, the intangible
aspects of emotional (affection & trust) and relational bonds between
humans and nonhumans have been commonly unrecognized. However, rapid growing
interests are seen on the study of human and non-human animal relationships in
contemporary academic discourses, resulted through various approaches of
anthrozoology, an emerging field of anthropological science. Showing its
origin, development, study fields, complexities and future perspectives, this
paper is aimed to present the essence of anthrozoological studies in Turkey and
other countries in Asia and Africa.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Human-animal bonds;, Anthrozoology;, Sociology;, Anthropology;, Turkey;

Antropoloji’de ortaya çıkan çok-disiplinli güçlü bir alt bilim: Antrozooloji

Öz

İnsanlar, dünya gezegenindeki yolculuğunun
başlangıcından beri uzun bir süredir insan dışı hayvanlarla bağ kurmaktadır.
Çok boyutlu ilişkiler oluşturarak hem insanlar hem de insan dışı türler
birlikte var olmakta ve dünyayı paylaşmaktadırlar. İnsan dışı hayvanlar
insanlar tarafından avlanır, manipüle edilir, evcilleştirilir, tüketilir ve
bazen kendi türün yok olunmasına rağmen insan toplumlarında saygı görür, ibadet
edilir, sembolize edilir, korunur ve kutlanılmaktadır. İnsanlık için bir nesne
olarak gördükleri ile uzun zamandır farklı akademik disiplinler, insan dışı
hayvanları kullanıcı bir yaklaşım olarak görmekteydi. Bu nedenle, insanlar ve
insan dışı hayvanlar arasındaki maddi olmayan duygusal (sevgi ve güven) ve
ilişkisel bağların yönleri genel olarak bilinmemektedir. Fakat antropoloji
biliminin bir alt dalı olarak ortaya çıkan antrozooloji'nin çeşitli
yaklaşımlarıyla, çağdaş akademik söylemlerde insan ve insan dışı hayvanlar
arasındaki ilişkileri üzerinde hızlı bir şekilde artan ilgiler görülmektedir.
Bu inceleme kökenini, gelişimini, çalışma alanlarını, karmaşıklıklarını ve
gelecekteki perspektiflerini göstererek Türkiye ile birlikte diğer Asya ve
Afrika ülkelerindeki antrozoolojik çalışmaların önemini sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İnsan-hayvan ilişki, Antrozooloji, Sosyology, Antropoloji, Türkiye;

Kaynakça

• Adams, G. J. & Johnson, K. G. (1994). ‘Sleep, work, and the effects of shift work in drug detector dogs (Canis familiaris)’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 115-126.
• Alger, J. M. & Alger, S. F. (2003). ‘Drawing the line between humans and animals: an examination of introductory sociology textbooks’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23: 69-93.
• –– (1999). ‘Cat culture, human culture: An ethnographic study of a cat shelter’, Society & Animals 7 (3): 199-218.
• –– (1997). ‘Beyond Mead: symbolic interaction between humans and Felines’, Society & Animals 5 (1): 65-81.
• Bao, K. J. & Schreer, G. (2016). ‘Pets and happiness: examining the association between pet ownership and wellbeing’, Anthrozoös 29 (2): 283-296. Bertenshaw, C. & Rowlinson, P. (2009). ‘Exploring stock managers’ perceptions of the human-animal relationship on dairy farms and an association with milk production’, Anthrozoos 22 (1): 59-69.
• Block, N. (1995). ‘On a confusion about a function of consciousness’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18 (2): 227-247.
• Braverman, I. (2011). ‘Looking at Zoos’, Cultural Studies 25 (6): 809-842.
• Bryant, C. D. (1979). ‘The zoological connection: Animal-related human behaviour’, Social Forces 58: 399-421.
• Brown, C. M., Hengy, S. M. & McConnell, A. R. (2016). ‘Thinking about cats or dogs provides relief from social rejection’, Anthrozoös 29 (1): 47-58.
• Canfield, J., Hansen, M. V., Becker, M. & Kline, C. (1998). Chicken soup for the pet lover's soul: stories about pets as teachers, healers, heroes and friends. Backlist, LLC, ISBN: 1623610559, 9781623610555.
• Crutzen, P. J. & Stoermer, E. F. (2000) ‘The “Anthropocene”’, Global Cha. Ns.letter 41: 17.
• DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and Society: an introduction to human-animal studies, Columbia University Press. ISBN: 9780231152952.
• Dinis, F. A. G. & Martin, T. L. F. (2016). ‘Does cat attachment have an effect on human health? A comparison between owners and volunteer’, Pet Behav. Sci. 1: 1-12.
• Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, The MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-04149-9.
• Duncan, A., Thomas, J. C. & Catherine Miller, C. (2005). ‘Significance of Family Risk Factors in Development of Childhood Animal Cruelty in Adolescent Boys with Conduct Problems’, Journal of Family Violence 20 (4): 235-239.
• Encyclopædia Britannica (2017). ‘Zoo’, https://global.britannica.com/science/zoo (accessed on 03.02.2017)
• Esin, U. (1998). ‘Hunted Animals at Aşıklı and the Environment’, In: Anreiter, P. et al., (ed.) Man and the Animal World: Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi; 215-226.
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press
• Fenton, V. (1992). ‘The use of dogs in search, rescue and recovery’, Journal of Wilderness Medicine 3 (3): 292-300.
• Friedmann, E., Thomas, S. A., Cook, L. K., Tsai, C. C., & Picot, S. J. (2007). ‘A friendly dog as potential moderator of cardiovascular response to speech in older hypertensives’, Anthrozoos 20 (1): 51-63.
• Gallup, G. (1970). ‘Chimpanzees: self-recognition’, Science 167 (3914): 86-87.
• Gazit, I. & Terkel, J. (2003). ‘Explosives detection by sniffer dogs following strenuous physical activity’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81 (2): 149-161.
• Gray, P. B., Volsche, S. L., Garcia, J. R. & Fisher, H. E. (2015). ‘The roles of pet dogs and cats in human courtship and dating’, Anthrozoös 28 (4): 673-683.
• Hill, E. (2013). ‘Archaeology and Animal Persons: toward a prehistory of human-animal relations’, Environment and Society: Advances in Research 4: 117-136.
• Hurn, S. (2012). Humans and Other Animals: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions. Pluto Books: 165-175.
• –– (2010). ‘What’s in a name? Anthrozoology, human-animal studies, animal studies or ...?’, Anthropology Today 26 (3): S. 27-28.
• Irvine, L. (2012). ‘Sociology and anthrozoology: symbolic interactionist contributions’, Anthrozoös 25 (s1): s123-137.
• –– (2007). ‘The question of animal selves: implications for sociological knowledge and practice’, Qualitative Sociology Review 3: 5-21.
• Konok, V., Kosztolányi, A., Rainer, W., Mutschler, B., Halsband, U. & Miklósi, A. (2015). ‘Influence of Owners’ Attachment Style and Personality on Their Dogs’ (Canis familiaris) Separation-Related Disorder’, PLoS One. 10 (2): e0118375. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118375.
• Low, P. (2012). ‘Cambridge declaration on consciousness’, Paper presented at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference, Cambridge, England. (accessed online on 13.12.2016).
• McElroy, S. C. (1997). Animals as teachers & healers: true stories of the transforming power of animals. Rider, ISBN: 0712672648, 9780712672641. Mills, D. S. & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (eds.) (2010). ‘Anthrozoology’, In: Mills & Marchant-Forde, (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare, CABI, pp. 28-31.
• Özbaşaran, M. (2011). ‘The Neolithic on the Plateau’, in S. Steadmann & G. McMahon (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10.000-323 B.C.E.); Oxford University Press: 99-124.
• Peggs, K. (2012). Animals and Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan, UK. ISBN: 978-0-230-29257-4.
• Pepperberg, I. M. (2006). ‘Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey parrots’, Applied Animal Behaviour Science 100 (1): 77-86.
• Plec, E. (2013). ‘Perspectives on human-animal communication: an introduction’, In: Plec, E. (ed.) Perspectives on human-animal communication. Routledge: 1-16. Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press, ISBN: 978-0520243866.
• Royal, K. D., Kedrowicz, A. A. & Snyder, A. M. (2016). ‘Do all dogs go to heaven? Investigating the association between demographic characteristics and beliefs about animal afterlife’, Anthrozoös 29 (3): 409-420.
• Sanders, C. R. (1999). Understanding Dogs: Living and Working with Canine Companions. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• –– (2000). ‘The impact of guide dogs on the identity of people with visual impairments’, Anthrozoös 13: 131-139.
• –– (2003). ‘Actions speak louder than words: close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals’, Symbolic Interaction 26: 405-426.
• Shapiro, K. & DeMello, M. (2010). ‘The state of human-animal studies’, Society and Animals 18: 307-318.
• Shapiro, K. (2002). ‘Editor’s introduction: the state of human-animal studies: solid, at the margin!’, Society & Animals 10 (4): 331-337.
• Sheldrake, R., Lawlor, C., & Turney, J. (1998). ‘Perceptive pets: A survey in London’, Biology Forum 91: 57-74.
• Siddiq, A. B. (2016). ‘Anatolian farmers in Europe: migrations and cultural transformation in Early Neolithic period’, In: Kahraman et al., (eds.) Proceeding book of 1st International Symposium on Migration and Culture (Vol. 2): 519-532; Amasya University, ISBN: 978-605-4598-22-9.
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Harper Collins, USA, ISBN: 978-0-06-171130-5.
• Stibbe, A. (2001). ‘Language, power and the social construction of animals’, Society & Animals 9 (2): 145-161.
• Ward, S. J. & Melfi, V. (2015). ‘Keeper-Animal Interactions: Differences between the Behaviour of Zoo Animals Affect Stockmanship’, PLoS ONE 10 (10): e0140237. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140237.
• Wise, S. M. (2003). Drawing the line: science and the case for animal rights. Basic Books. 216. ISBN 0-7382-0810-8.
• Zeder, M. (2008). ‘Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean basin: origins, diffusion, and impact’, PNAS 105: 11597–11604.