Throughout history the city has been viewed as the pinnacle of human development with the formation of a distinctly human ‘urban’ domain becoming a “human stage for capitalist production”(Wolch, 1998, p. 120). Due to being viewed as a progressive and strictly human conception, cities have rejected the primitive notions that nature and indeed non-human animals presented. The divorcing of non-human animals (which in prehistoric times were regarded not just as resources but as teachers and friends)(Wolch, 1998, 127) from urban civilisations is due in part to how humans view other animals. The western world has typically viewed animals as divisible and fundamentally different from humans, the emergence of Darwinian theory despite highlighting a continuity between humans and animals, still cemented humans as the most advanced species(Wolch, 1998, p. 122). This, along with non-human animals being viewed primarily through the lens of biological incompatibility saw the assumption of animals as objects, devoid of sentience and thus exploitable for the provision of food, clothing and labour(Wolch, 1998, 122).
This view of animals when constructing cities is especially true in Australian cities, as colonialism was entrenched in foundations of dominating nature and overcoming ‘wildness’ and colonial cities like Melbourne the ultimate triumph of an advanced civilisation over nature(Thompson, 2007, 83)). The post-colonial mindset of nature thus became not just a separate entity from cities but a force that was directly in opposition to and threatening of the culture, technology and economy encased in urban life(Thompson, 2007, 83).
While there is now a growing understanding of the complex way that animals experience the world, I think the emergence of their ‘subjectivity’ in the urban context is generally superseded by the capitalist roots city life. Due to their inability to participate in our economic society, the value of animals outside of being a resource is hard to determine and makes constructing cities in a way that accommodates animals seem to many a poor way of allocating resources. Even when animals and nature are prioritised by governments and planners, this is often only in pursuing environmental or sustainability objectives, the motives and payoffs of which are inherently human-centric.
Animals in the City in History
Domestication of animals occurred almost simultaneously with the emergence of social human groups, the food scraps and protections provided by humans attracting ancestral animals like wolves. The human intervention of selective breeding initially saw humans retain those animals that were most tame and over time breed for qualities that best suited the newly domesticated dog in serving humans.
The role of the domesticated animal in the city was to provide a function for humans and therefore was one of either work or sustenance. Pre-motor car transport was dominated by horses for riding and carting as well as pack animals like donkeys for transporting goods. The domesticated dog was extremely versatile, bred selectively to perform specific duties such as hunting, protecting and rounding up livestock, bear-baiting and dog fighting as well as personal protection and transporting goods.
Urban agricultural production and processing also once prevailed in the city, most likely as a result of poor options for mass transport of livestock or refrigeration of meat after slaughter. Agricultural industries however brought with them issues of waste and public health concerns and as cities began to be more preoccupied with health and sanitation and increasingly less undeveloped space available, such practices were eventually driven out of the city [Voigt, p.541]. The presence of animals in the city and the issue of public health are heavily embroiled, with the much maligned rat serving as an unstoppable vector for disease in 14th century Europe[WHO] and creating a culturally ingrained aversion to ‘pest’ species and the threat of disease that unwelcome animals present in the city.
Today’s Animals in the City
As animals have proved to be pervasive in the urban landscape, better efforts are being made to understand these animals and where they and their human interactions belong in the city. While there has been a social shift in Western cities to view animals in a less objective light, there is still resistance to truly engage with them in the city context.
Perhaps one of the most harmful urban human-animal paradigms that exists today is the disconnection between the animal products we eat and where they came from. Our ability to remove the realities of meat consumption from view and the intensity in which we can produce it in factory farms is not only at the expense of animals, but also to the environment as meat production puts considerably strain on water, land and air resources and quality.
While Australia is one of the world’s most urbanised countries, we still have very high pet ownership rates with about 63% of households owning a pet [RSPCA]. Consequently domestic companion animals increasingly interact with urban life, a reality that has been addressed well by some cities and not others. Australian cities in contrast to European or American cities are very dog-unfriendly with few public spaces or services allowing access to dogs or only under extremely restricted conditions. Issues of contested space begin to arise when spaces allocated to dogs in cities are opposed by those who feel that the limited urban open space we have should be there to service humans, not animals [Gomez, p.83]. However the provision of spaces for dogs is not just for their benefit alone with spaces such as dog parks proven to be positively associated with creating human-human relationships and attachment to place[Gomez, p. 81].
Though humans express fascination with more exotic wildlife through visiting our cities’ zoos or sponsoring an endangered tiger, this respect for wild animals does not extend to those we are most likely to experience in our own city[Wolch, p. 132]. The underlying view that cities are inherently in opposition to nature sees us struggle to embrace the migration of animals into our urban spaces, believing them to be ‘refugees’ who are truly in need of a ‘natural’ habitat [Thompson, p. 89]. While seem to care more about the habitats of our wildlife we still seem hesitant to allow habitat to become theirs, continuing to exert our dominance over wildlife like possums and bats, relocating them to areas we view as better suited them (though usually better suited for us) [Thompson, p. 80]
I think the key issue moving forward in animal-human relations is finding a balance between viewing them as valuable creatures they are, while recognising they will always need to be controlled by humans. This does not have to be inherently negative however as we can still control and decide for animals while taking their needs and wellbeing into account and does not need to be viewed as ‘dominating’ but rather a necessary partnership. The championing of animal ‘rights’ activism over animal welfare opens up a dangerous territory where the ‘rights’ of animals are perceived through the eyes of humans [Wolch, p. 124] and generally seeks to completely abolish human relations with animals in the pursuit of them being ‘free’ rather than seeking to entrench positive interactions (for both humans and animals) into our urban lives.
References:
Edwin Gomez, “Dog Parks: Benefits, Conflicts and Suggestions”Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 31(4), 2013, 79-91
“How Many Pets are there in Australia?” RSPCA, retrieved from http://kb.rspca.org.au/How-many-pets-are-there-in-Australia_58.html
Jennifer Wolch, “Zoopolis” in Wolch and Emel (eds) Animal Geographies of London, Verson 1998, p 119-138.
Kate A. Voigt, “The Backyard or the Barnyard: Removing Zoning Impediements to Urban Agriculture”, Environmental Affairs 38(2), 2011, 537-566.
Melanie Thompson, “Placing the Wild in the City “Thinking with” Melbourne’s Bats”, Society and Animals 15, 2007, 79-95
“Plague”, World Health Organisation, last modified November 2014, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs267/en/
No comments:
Post a Comment