An Animal Without an Animal Within For Hector Örebro Studies in Sociology 17 DAVID REDMALM An Animal Without an Animal Within The Powers of Pet Keeping Cover photo frontpage: Anna Redmalm Cover photo backpage: Clara Iversen © David Redmalm, 2013 Title: An Animal Without an Animal Within: The Powers of Pet Keeping. Publisher: Örebro University 2013 www.publications.oru.se Print: Örebro University, Repro 10/2013 ISSN 1650-2531 ISBN 978-91-7668-971-4 Abstract David Redmalm (2013): An Animal Without an Animal Within: The Powers of Pet Keeping. Örebro Studies in Sociology 17, 119 pp. If the human is an animal without an animal within—a creature that has transcended the animal condition—what is a pet? This creature balancing on the border between nature and culture, simultaneously included in and excluded from a human “we”, is the focus of this thesis. The thesis analyz- es the discourses and normative frameworks structuring the meaning of pets in people’s lives. By extension, it analyzes how the boundary between “human” and “animal” is produced, negotiated, and challenged in the relationship between pet and owner. Each of this thesis’ four constituent studies focuses on an aspect of per- sonal relationships between humans and pets: pets as figures for philosoph- ical thinking, the dual role of pets as commodities and companions, the grief for lost pets, and the power issues at play in the everyday life of pet and owner. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s genealogical approach, cross- bred with Donna Haraway’s material-semiotic perspective, the analysis exposes the powers allowing pets to occupy these various positions. The thesis demonstrates that pets occupy a special position as boundary creatures in the lives of humans, allowing humans to play with and thus reproduce dichotomies inherent to the contemporary Western worldview, such as human/animal, person/nonperson, subject/object, and friend/com- modity. However, pets’ conceptual transgressions may also challenge this worldview. On the one hand, pets are bought and sold as commodities, but on the other, they are widely included in the human sphere as friends or family members. This paradoxical position is accentuated in the construc- tion of a more-than-human home, and it is also visible when pets pass away. This thesis argues that pets, these anomalous creatures, may help humans understand that there are no humans or animals within, only rela- tions between them. Based on this argument, this thesis develops a socio- logical approach for analyzing the production of humanity and animality in relations between humans and other animals. Keywords: Animal studies, animality, anomalies, companion animals, Michel Foucault, Donna Haraway, human-animal studies, material- semiotics, pets, posthumanism. David Redmalm, School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences Örebro University, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden, [email protected] List of studies This thesis is based on the following studies, which will be referred to in the text by their roman numerals: I) Redmalm, David (2011) “In-Your-Face-Ethics: Phenomenology of the Face and Social Psychological Animal Studies,” 73-104 in Segerdahl, Pär (ed.) Undisciplined Animals: Invitations to Animal Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Published with the permission of Cambridge Scholars Publishing. II) Redmalm, David (2013) ”Holy Bonsai Wolves: Chihuahuas and the Paris Hilton Syndrome,” published online January 2013 in International Journal of Cultural Studies, DOI:10.1177/1367877912464539 (printed version is forthcoming). Published with the permission of Sage Publications. III) Redmalm, David (2013) ”Pet Grief: When Is Nonhuman Life Grievable?” Submitted. IV) Redmalm, David (2013) “Discipline and Puppies: The Powers of Pet Keeping.” Submitted. Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................... 9(cid:1) I SMELL A RAT ...................................................................................... 12(cid:1) Are Pets Animals? .................................................................................... 16(cid:1) Aim .......................................................................................................... 17(cid:1) Disposition ............................................................................................... 19(cid:1) PETS AS A SOCIOLOGICAL PROBLEM ............................................... 21(cid:1) Thinking with the Human/Animal Dichotomy in Sociology..................... 21(cid:1) Pets’ Social Function ................................................................................ 26(cid:1) Pets as Symbols ........................................................................................ 30(cid:1) Pets as Social Actors ................................................................................. 32(cid:1) A Critical Posthumanist Sociology of Pets ................................................ 34(cid:1) STAYING WITH THE TROUBLE: METHODOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................... 38(cid:1) Genealogical Methodology ...................................................................... 39(cid:1) Nonhuman Subjectivity ............................................................................ 42(cid:1) Data ......................................................................................................... 49(cid:1) Analysis .................................................................................................... 53(cid:1) Reflexivity ................................................................................................ 59(cid:1) SUMMARY OF THE STUDIES ............................................................... 64(cid:1) CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 70(cid:1) The Excesses of Pet Keeping ..................................................................... 70(cid:1) An Animal Without an Animal Within .................................................... 76(cid:1) The Sociologist’s Pet................................................................................. 84(cid:1) REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 89(cid:1) APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE ..................................................... 115(cid:1) APPENDIX B: THE INTERVIEWEES ................................................... 117(cid:1) Acknowledgments I wish I were as eloquent as Mr. Fox in Wes Anderson’s 2009 film Fantas- tic Mr. Fox. When farmers unite to rid themselves of the food and cider- thieving little critters of the forest once and for all, Mr. Fox gathers his animal friends to give them an inspirational talk before the final battle: “I [...] see a room full of wild animals. Wild animals with true natures and pure talents. Wild animals with scientific-sounding Latin names that mean something about our DNA. Wild animals each with his [and her] own strengths and weaknesses due to his or her species.” In his speech, Mr. Fox emphasizes that it is “the beautiful differences” among them that give them the opportunity to permanently liberate the animals of the forest. I feel the same way—what would I have done without the many wild animals of different species who supported me during my work on this thesis? First, I would like to thank my supervisors Ylva Uggla and Tora Holmberg. I am deeply grateful to Ylva for her readiness to read my many drafts, to discuss both the practical and abstractly theoretical aspects of pet keeping, to guide me in my teaching, and to take me for coffee when I was about to fall asleep on my desk. As a supervisor, Ylva is not only wise as an owl and vigilant as a wolf—she also has an extraordinary capacity to make me think that I know where I am heading with my work. Thanks to this, I made it safely to the finish line. Tora has an analytical skill as sharp as Thor’s Mjölnir is powerful. When she arrives on her chariot pulled not by two goats, but by two rescue dogs, I always ready myself for an intellec- tual thunderstorm that will blow my mind and wash away all of my bad ideas. I am also indebted to Mikael Carleheden, my supervisor for the first two semesters of my PhD. Our many stimulating theoretical discussions made me a better sociologist. I want to thank Rolf Lidskog for his careful reading and many fruitful suggestions on several drafts of this thesis. Mar- cus Persson’s comments on a late draft were also crucial and influenced a larger revision of the structure of the thesis during the last year of writing. I am grateful to the interviewees for their invaluable contributions with their view on pet keeping. Thank you for being so generous with your time, your knowledge, and your viewpoints, and for opening your homes to me and allowing me to meet your charming pets. Although pets are not allowed in the workplace, I am happy to have been based at Örebro University. I am deeply grateful to my colleagues at the Sociology Department for intellectual exchanges and friendship. I espe- cially want to thank my PhD Student colleagues: Jenny Alsarve, Helena Blomberg, Jan-Magnus Enelo, Jenny Gustafsson, Karin Gustafsson, Mon- ica Johansson, Susanna Larsson, Melker Labory, Maja Lilja, Susanna DAVID REDMALM(cid:1)An Animal Without an Animal Within I 9 Lundberg, Friederike Michalek, Emma Wedebrand, Ben Singleton, and Louise Svensson. I am also very grateful to Kerstin Lekare, who guided me in my teaching from the very beginning. I cannot overemphasize the importance Tomas Kumlin and Jonas Lind- blom have had in my endeavors as a sociologist. Their radiant lectures in social psychology, as well as their personal encouragement, made me pur- sue my studies in sociology and social psychology and apply for a position as a PhD Student. Sverre Wide also played an important role in that deci- sion. He not only devoted substantial effort to assisting me with my PhD application but also made me realize that theoretical issues are always al- ready empirical matters and vice versa. During my time as a PhD student, I have had the opportunity to tap into the energy of several vibrant more-than-human collectives. My brilliant colleagues of the HumAnimal Group, based at the Centre for Gender Re- search at Uppsala University, have been of continuous and invaluable help in my work: my supervisor Tora, Jacob Bull, Pär Segerdahl, Anna Samuels- son, Ann-Sofie Lönngren, Rebekah Fox, Harlan Weaver, Eva Hayward, Martina Badiali, Fredrik Karlsson, Malin Ah-King, and the other Hum- Animals connected to the group—thank you so very much for your help, inspiration, and friendship. I am especially grateful to Jacob for his insight- ful comments on studies II and III. My colleagues participating in the Dis- course Seminar at Department for Child and Youth Studies at Stockholm University have time and again come to the rescue when I was lost in my own data—a huge thank you to the chair Mats Börjesson and to the regu- lar participants Karin Aronsson, Helena Blomberg, Annica Engström, Sara Erlandsson, Anna Gradin-Franzén, Henrik Ingrids, Richard Jonsson, Clara Iversen, Nadja Nieminen Mänty, and Annika Skoglund. My work in Study III in this thesis benefited greatly from a visit to the Science and Technolo- gy Studies Unit (SATSU) at the University of York in 2012. I especially wish to thank Andrew Webster, a welcoming host and the energetic direc- tor of SATSU, and Erica Sheen and Amanda Rees, who generously shared their perspectives on human-animal relations. In 2013, I had the privilege to participate in the Animal and Society Institute’s Human-Animal Studies Fellowship Program at the College of the Environment, Wesleyan Universi- ty. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to the Animals and Society Insti- tute, Wesleyan Animal Studies, and the US National Canine Research Council for making this possible. I am profoundly grateful to the many outstanding minds gathered during the fellowship for making me regard my work from a new angle when I thought I knew it inside and out and for giving me the energy I needed for the last few months of writing. I wish to express my deepest gratitude to the ideal hosts Kari Weil and Lori Gruen, 10 I DAVID REDMALM An Animal Without an Animal Within