Discipline and puppies: the powers of pet keeping

David Redmalm

18 citations0/0 files storedInternational Journal of Sociology and Social Policy

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Geographies of human-animal interactions Human-Animal Interaction Studies Posthumanist Ethics and Activism

Abstract

Purpose This article adopts Foucault's notion of a bipolar technology of disciplinary power and regulatory biopower to address the tension between discipline and freedom in domestic relationships between human and nonhuman animals commonly referred to as “pets.” In doing so, the article examines the promises and pitfalls of thinking through pet keeping as a form of lived, posthumanist critique. Design/methodology/approach The argument relies on an interview study with 20 pet owners—most of the interviews conducted in their homes together with their pets—to conceptualize how they organize their lives in relation to their pets. Findings The analysis shows that the boundaries of the home, the play of power between bodies, and the “conditions of an unconditional love” are central to producing the pet relationship as inherently meaningful and as an indispensable part of the lives of both pet keepers and pets. A balance between discipline and freedom enables the construction of both human and other identities: pet owners produce their pets' subjectivity by speaking of them as autonomous persons, while pets' presence in the home also enables their owners' subjectivity. Social implications The article critically examines interspecies relationships, which by extension can benefit nonhuman animals. It argues that pet keeping can challenge anthropocentrism and unsustainable consumption lifestyles, but it may also reinforce prevailing biopolitical logics, if it remains maintained within a secluded domestic or cultural sphere. Originality/value The article draws on original data. While Foucauldian theory has been used to discuss pet keeping, empirical studies of pet keeping that rely on this theoretical framework are scarce.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

References

1982The Subject and Power 2003Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter 1984What is Enlightenment 2006Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal–human divide in pet-keeping 2012Species Trouble: Judith Butler, Mourning, and the Precarious Lives of Animals 2006Critical Pet Studies?2015Killing Animals: Sociology, Species Relations and Institutionalized Violence 1999Cat Culture, Human Culture: An Ethnographic Study of a Cat Shelter

Cited by

2024To Roam or Stay Home? Understanding “Pet Parenting” Types in Relation to the Indoor/Outdoor Cat Debate 2025Transnational Encounters with the Non-Human Animal as a Refugee 2022Imagining Home 2023Interspecies care, knowledge and ownership: children’s equestrian cultures in Sweden and Finland 2023Människans sociala relationer med djur

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.