“Be[a]ware of the Dog”: A Post‐Humanist Approach to Housing

Abstract

Alongside much talk of the dissolution of a nature /culture binary view of the world, there is also, symmetrically, considerable change observed in the performance of relations with non‐humans and the proliferation of hybrids (Latour 1993 Latour, B. 1993. We have never been modern, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. [Google Scholar], Haraway 2003 Haraway, D. 2003. The companion species manifesto, Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. [Google Scholar]). Through an examination of why and how humans and companion species have begun to live with each other in new ways this paper will challenge (at least) two of those sociological disciplines currently governed by humanist ontologies. It suggests that the sociology of the family and the sociology of housing need a new post‐humanist makeover, for it is increasingly doubtful whether either are exclusively human domains. This is because neither families, households or housing can be thought of any longer as humans among themselves. Companion animals are now found not only in the vast majority of human households / families but their position, role, agency and status has shifted quite profoundly. Using data from a national survey of human–animal relations in Australia it will be shown that companion animals are widely regarded as, and act as, family members and that they occupy housing in profoundly different ways1 1. The study, an Australian Research Council funded project Sentiments and Risks: The Changing Nature of Human‐Animal Relations took place between 2000 and 2004. It combined a nationally representative survey of 2000 respondents with a series of case studies focussed around veterinary practice and relationships with wildlife. The survey was conducted over the telephone with Australians over the age of 16 years and we randomized the choice of respondent in each household by asking to speak with the person whose birthday was next. This guaranteed that all ages and genders are represented. We also created statistically representative interview targets for all capital cities and state rural areas. The main survey was administered by NCS Pearson and the survey instrument was comprised of 13 key questions of which 5 established key data on the type of animals respondents shared their lives with, 7 were Likert‐type questions which investigated values and practices with respect to animals generally and one question was comprised of a battery of sub‐questions obtaining key social , economic and demographic data. The overall response rate was 35% (calculated as a proportion of answered calls). . The paper argues that this new period of intimacy also ushers in the potential for greater mutual becomings (or co(a)gency to use Michael's term2 2. See Michael (2000 Michael, M. 2000. “Narrating co(a)gents: the case of the Hudogledog,”. In Reconnecting culture, technology and nature: from society to heterogeneity, London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]). ) as both companion species and their humans (together with their technonatural contexts) explore even more possibilities of co‐presence. The paper concludes with an example of this, taken from the House Rabbit Society: a radical and ever more popular experiment in becomingrabbitbecominghuman (to use a Deleuzian convention)3 3. This derives from Deleuze & Guatari's work on “becoming animal” in One Thousand Plateaus. This involves a radical decentring of the subject through imagining and practicing what it might mean to be another species. .

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 90 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.