ANIMALS AND SOCIETY:
AN INTRODUCTION TO
HUMAN-ANIMAL STUDIES
Chapter 3: The Social Construction
of Animals
C o py r i g h t M a r g o D e M e l l o a n d C o l um b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 01 2
How do we classify animals in
society today?
What is it?
•Wild rabbit?
•Pet rabbit?
•Lab rabbit?
•Meat rabbit?
•Fur rabbit?
•Easter rabbit?
What protections this animal deserve
under the law differ according to how
this animal is used, which itself
governs how it is classified.
Biological Systems of Classification
Linnaean Taxonomy
Other Systems of Classification
Christian Theology
In Medieval Europe, animals were generally classified
according to Christian theology. While all animals were
seen as lower than human—and further from God—some
were more elevated than others. For example, carnivores
like lions and eagles sat at the top of the hierarchy of
animals, while vegetarians and domesticated animals sat
at the bottom. The folklore of the time created animal
heroes who exhibited characteristics like bravery, cunning
and intelligence, and other animals who were seen as
hapless, stupid, or weak. Animals could be noble, evil, or
pure.
Wild or Tame?
Another major way in which we have classified animals has to do with
where they live, and whether or not they are part of human culture. In
this scheme, animals are either wild—living outside the bounds of
culture—or they are tame—living inside of human culture. In this view,
whether or not an animal has been domesticated—selectively bred and
controlled by humans—is the deciding factor as to whether that animal
will be considered wild or not.
Animals who live in a zoo, for example, almost always come from the
wild (no one would visit a zoo to see a dog, after all), but how wild are
they, once they live behind a fence and are fed and raised by humans?
Feral animals, or animals who were once domesticated but now live in
the wild, provide another categorical problem, with real implications for
animal lives.
Wild vs. Tame (Outside of culture
and inside of culture)
Biblical: Fit for Sacrifice
In all cultures, some animals are considered edible and others are
considered inedible. Among Jews and Muslims, for example, pigs,
shellfish, reptiles, and many other animals are considered inedible. In
the United States, dogs, cats, and horses are inedible, while in some
cultures, fish, insects, deer, camel or deer are not to be eaten. Related
to the question of whether an animal is edible or not is whether the
animal is fit to be sacrificed as part of a religious ritual.
Biblical: Fit for Sacrifice
Totem Animals
Totem animals are another example of a system of classification that
includes animals. A totem is an animal which is considered to be
spiritually related to a clan or a tribe, and is generally considered to be
ancestral to a group of people. Today, some people who are not part of
a totemic culture have adopted the concept of a totem, which they see
as a sort of spiritual helper or guardian. Totems are a way not just of
classifying animals but of classifying the natural and cultural world: who
and what are related to each other, and, often, who and what are
considered edible.
Who eats whom
Locomotion
What are the
systems of
classification
used here?
How Does One Become a Type of
Animal?
How do we come up with these categories?
Is there something about a dog, for
example, that MAKES it a pet, and not
meat? Why? Is it something about the dog?
Or is it humans? Or is it something about
the intersection between the human and the
dog, in a particular cultural place and time?
Use Value
“We deny species their being through
reference to animals based on their
function from a human point of view: pet
animals, lab animals, farm animals.”
-- Ken Shapiro
This is not just any classification scheme.
It is one that both classifies and sets out
the ways that we will use these animals.
Use Value
Livestock
Pets
Laboratory Animals
Circus Animals
Working animals
How does
one become
each of these
categories?
How does one become a pet?
 A pet is one who is both in a human household, and is named.
Naming them incorporates them into our social world and allows
us to use their name as both a term of address and a term of
reference. In both cases, this allows for interaction and emotional
attachment. By telling about them to others, the animal then
gains a history, a biography, a subjectivity. All of this remains
even after the animal is dead.
 A lab animal, meat animal or fur animal is both one who is
spatially separate from a pet animal. They are NEVER in a home.
They also never get a name. They are objects, not subjects. They
have no history, no biography, no intentions, and no emotions.
They live in a space where they are crowded with others, reducing
their individuality; they are handled rarely, when necessary,
reducing an emotional connection; they are given numbers if
necessary to refer to them (but not to address them); they do not
feel pain so they are not anesthetized nor killed with humane
methods; and they have no agency, no ability to control their own
lives. Ultimately, they are a product.
The Sociozoologic Scale
The Sociozoologic Scale
 Since the time of Aristotle, humans have always ranked higher
than animals; the sociozoologic scale ranks animals in a structure
of meaning that allows humans to define, reinforce, and justify
their interactions with other beings.
 Those at the top deser ve more privileges and those at the bottom
have earned their poor place in society.
 In other words, animals can be dif ferent things to dif ferent
people: a beloved Labrador can be a best friend, a chicken can be
dinner, a sea otter can be local color, a lab rat can be a research
subject. And how we respond to their loss tells us a lot about the
value we place on them: while we mourn the passing of a pet, we
tend to write of the death of lab animals as a "loss of data.”
 Good animals are pets and tools (farm, lab, and work animals).
They allow us to use them and thus are nicely incorporated into
human culture.
 Bad animals are vermin and pests, who both stray from their
proper place and also resist being used.
 Rats, for instance, can be both a good animal and a bad animal.
 These categories involve defining the animal to fit the categor y,
and then applying cer tain treatment to them. Cow = food, and thus
the cow is made to be killed and eaten.
Sept . 9, 2005 :
 Amid the hear t -wrenching moments of
devastation from deadly hurricane Katrina, there
is at least one bright spot. Snowball, a small
white dog taken by police from a sobbing little
boy as he and his family were boarding a bus at
the Superdome, has been located, USA Today
repor ted Thur sday. Snowball is now at the
Louisiana SPCA in Gonzalez, La., and will be
reunited with his owner, veterinarian Terr y Conger
told the newspaper.
 When the police took the dog during the
Superdome evacuation, the boy cried "Snowball!
Snowball!" until he vomited. At the time
authorities said they didn't know where the boy
or his dog ended up. The sad stor y of Snowball
prompted an outpouring of emotion from pet
lover s around the countr y who went on the hunt
for the boy and his dog. One woman set up a
reward of fer to encourage the search for
Snowball.
 The media
jumped on the
stor y of
Snowball. But
few wrote about
millions of
chickens that
perished in the
af termath of
Katrina. Why?
Koalas rank high on
the sociozoologic
scale: they are cute
and, therefore, we
want to save them.
WHO SWIMS WITH THE TUNA?
 In an essay called "Who Swims
with the Tuna", David
Quammen asks: why do we
worry about trapping dolphins
in tuna nets, and not worry
about the tuna trapped in tuna
nets?
 The killing of dolphins is a
national outrage; the killing of
tuna is a given.
 Furthermore, on our grocery
shelves nowadays we find cans
of a product called dolphin-safe
tuna. But no tuna-safe dolphin.
But why?
WHO SWIMS WITH THE TUNA?
 One of these animals breathes air. The other doesn't. One is a
mammal, one isn't . One is known for its intelligence, one
isn’t. One seems to have an elaborate system of social
behavior and one doesn't. One has performed altruistic and
astonishing rescues of human swimmers; the other is prized
for sushi. One shrieks with terror and squeals with pain. The
other maintains a stoic silence.
 There's no question that dolphins have an unmatched appeal
to us humans. From our point of view, it's a special kinship.
They are bright, sophisticated, cheery, generous, perceptive,
af fectionate, and yet mysterious —all the things that we value
in our friends. They seem to possess important secrets. They
seem to reciprocate our infatuation. Plus they consent to let
us swim with them.
 On the other hand, who swims with the yellowfin tuna? The
answer is that dolphins do.
A New System of Classification
 Ultimately, there are as many systems of classification
as there are animals and cultures. Rabbits can be pet,
food or tool; they can be sacred or sacrificial; they can
be separate from humans or can share with them a
language and culture.
 If these systems of classification that we have been
discussing are all, essentially, just stories, can we create
a new story that is more inclusive and humane? Can we
conceive of one that does not rank animals on the basis
of their importance to us, but on some other
characteristic? Or one that does not rank them at all?
One possibility would be to try to
flip things around: to try to see the
world through animals’ eyes rather
than to try to see and understand
animals through our own eyes.
“Christmas?
Christmas means
dinner, dinner
means death!
Death means
carnage;
Christmas means
carnage!”
Ferdinand the
Duck, Babe (1995)