Animals are history-shaping actors in many fields of historical research.
Animals have become an important topic in German-language historiography. Following a brief review of the research as a whole, this article will introduce the specific aspects of agency, space and practice (praxeology). While there are struggles over theoretical positions in animal history, the sources are diversified: Animals have always been discussed even though they are new as history-shaping actors in many fields of historical research. When animals are considered historical actors, they can be incorporated in historical processes of transformation based on empirical studies opening new ways of reading the sources.
Presence and Absence
Animals play a significant role in the human present and past. If animals disappeared, the economy and daily life would have to be fundamentally reorganized. Industry, commerce, households, the healthcare system and a substantial part of leisure culture would all be affected. Animals provided the foundation for building industrial societies and are today omnipresent in post-industrial societies with their work power and products. Apart from domestic animals and obvious animal products, such as meat, milk, eggs, leather, down, wax and honey, animal components are contained in foods, clothing, cosmetics, medication and cleaning agents. Dyes are nowadays mostly produced synthetically,1 whale oil has been replaced by other oils, and plastic has taken the place of baleen, ivory and horn. But elsewhere animal components are still found. Red wine is still fined with egg white, isinglass or gelatine, and many additives in the food industry, such as emulsifiers, flour treatments and preservatives, largely consist of animal fats.
We are often unaware of being surrounded by many dead animals, and living and dead animals are doubly invisible. One rarely sees the animals processed in feedlots and slaughterhouses. These processing facilities are shielded from view and spatially located at the margins of towns and settlements. The power of horses, donkeys, mules, cattle and dogs was replaced in rural and urban areas by machines during the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries. By contrast, particularly in the urban context, the beloved pet often possess the status of a family member and, this is a second aspect of disappearance, are often unrecognizable as animals with specific needs and behaviors. While in modern industrial societies of the 21st century, particularly in cities, many animals have disappeared from the human sphere, pets as “companion animals” share the daily life and comfort of human family members.2 In this way, a relationship of proximity and distance, both spatially and emotionally, is created in which love for the “companion animal” and mercilessness toward industrial and lab animals are juxtaposed.
Genealogies and Boundary Crossing
To illustrate the relevance of the history of animals, Reinhart Koselleck (1923–2006), who spoke of a “hippological turn” with “consequences in world history” in his essay of 2003, is often cited in the German-speaking sphere.3 Koselleck attributes from a social historian’s perspective a historical agency to horses so central that he proposes speaking of a “prehorse age,” a “horse age” and a “post-horse age.” According to Koselleck, the post-horse age, in which we live, begins together with modernity at the transition from the 19th to the 20th century. Only as the odor of horse sweat and road apples disappears from towns does the horse retreat to the fields of art, sports and leisure. In this classification of time, the horse age, which began with the first taming of horses – about 4,000 BC – is the longest and culturally most formative age. Even though horses have disappeared as means of transportation as well as draft and work animals in the post-horse age, they remain, as in former ages, status symbols and companions in sports and leisure. The end of the horse age goes hand in hand with the general end of the animal age. Animals gradually disappeared from the ordinary life of most Europeans as work companions and from use in individual consumption (e.g., chicken, rabbits and pigs) at the transition from the 19th to the 20th century. Pit ponies were still active in mining up to the 1970s and canaries still served as gas detectors. Draft dogs, who still transported and guarded goods in hundreds of thousands of towns at the turn of the century, have been replaced by motorized vehicles. Private back-alley slaughter operations in towns gave way during the 19th century to large public slaughterhouses located outside the town perimeters. While one group of animals, those “edible,” were distanced from humans, others “non-edible,” moved ever closer. It is a matter of course for humans to not only move in human company but also in that of animals.4Paul Münch (born 1941) pleaded in 1999 for including the “participation of animals in the human environment” into historical research and to stop viewing the interest of cultural studies in the relationship of humans and animals as a marginal and exotic topic.5 At first, few historians heeded his call but lately a remarkably rapidly growing number of research projects and publications on the topic of animals can be observed.6
In recent years, the focus in animal history has been on pets, while interest in farm and wild animals is in its infancy and barely any research has been done on insects. A clear trend is evident in the growing research on animals as historical actors and their power to effect and act, after initial questions of representation and imagination initially held priority in the German language sphere.7 Thus, empirical, archive-based studies remain rare. Discussions at scholarly conferences revolve around theoretical reflections and methodological debates in which especially the theories and concepts of Bruno Latour (born 1947), Donna Haraway (born 1944), Gilles Deleuze (1925–1995), Felix Guattari (1930–1992), Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Elias Canetti (1905–1994)8 and Giorgio Agamben (born 1942)9 are discussed. As always, when fields of research are being established, new lines of tradition are created and scientific genealogies are reorganized. Thus, Haraway, Agamben, Derrida, Latour, Deleuze and Canetti virtually appear as the founders of “human-animal studies” and further fundamental research questions regarding the status of animals arise from confrontation with their theoretical approaches. There is growing interest in knowing which animals did exactly what, if and how they affected historical events, and what role individual animals, animal groups and genuses played in history.
The objective is to involve animals in the concept of historical change and to introduce a manner of reading the sources in empirical studies that assumes animals as central actors. In this context, reading “against the grain” must be mentioned, which in other historiographical fields, such as women’s and labour history as well as the history of children, the marginalized and other actors who have left few or no written sources of their own, has been practiced for a long time. The proposal that history should be “brushed against the stroke,” which has become proverbial, is based on the seventh thesis of Walter Benjamin’s (1892–1940) posthumous essay Über den Begriff der Geschichte (On the Concept of History).10 In animal history, this may mean not subjecting the sources to readings that duplicate the view of their human authors but to filter out the influence of animals when they act, defend themselves, enter into relationships or affect humans by their presence and their actions. Older research on the history of economics, technology, the environment, the military, transportation and medicine already concerned itself with animals, but this preoccupation with animals, for example in animal experiments, usually was not associated with new theoretical claims but merely wanted to show and interpret the important role of animals in human history. Research has already been conducted on animal experiments, especially relating to the debates on vivisection and anti-vivisection that were eagerly fought in the 19th century.11
Reflection on animals as historical actors currently also occurs in an interdisciplinary context,12with research in English-speaking countries taking a pioneering role.13 Cultural studies and the natural sciences have approached each other especially in the subject of “evolutionary history” in recent years, for example, with the plea to link biology and the humanities more closely to better understand historical processes of extremely long duration and the role of evolution in human history.14
The American biologist and student of the sciences Donna Haraway takes her cue from the oldest human-animal relationship, that of dog and human. She has developed an evolutionary history that removes humans from their privileged position, their uniqueness and an ability to act that was exclusively ascribed to them. Humans and dogs developed in a process of coevolution over millennia, starting in the Ice Age.15 During this period, the timber wolf (Canis lupus), the apex predator in Europe, began to migrate with ungulate herds and encountered humans in the process. During the course of the last glaciation, wolves and humans following reindeer herds joined forces. Initially, some humans presumably assumed the lupine lifestyle by also following reindeer herds. So the first contacts between wolves and humans probably had a mutualistic character. The oldest finds of dogs, that is canids who clearly differ from wolves, are about 100,000 years old and, therefore, older than any finds of goats, sheep or cattle. It is nevertheless difficult to speak of a domestication of dogs or of dogs as pets, especially since the humans with whom dogs initially lived did not stay in fixed homes while canids used sleeping dens before humans. Humans and dogs adapted their behavioral forms to each other and became sedantary together. In this process, dogs entered into close proximity with humans and became domestic animals at the latest when humans shared their campfires and sleeping quarters with them.
Recent Approaches in Animal History
By including biological knowledge, animal history makes possible the dissolution of the nature/culture dualism – Haraway speaks of “naturecultures”16 – and to update a perspective of an extreme longue durée.17 Animal history has become linked to already established approaches in cultural and social history, where most approaches have in common that animals have become understood as creative actors in history.18
It is beyond doubt that animals affect human activity through their actions as well as through their absence and presence. The transfer of animals has changed landscapes and people as well as the ecology and economy of entire continents. As Mieke Roscher (born 1973) writes, it is “the access to animals as historical actors that is ringing in a change in perspective and holds the promise of new results in historical research.” Thus, animals participated in the conquest and colonial settlement of America, for example, when horses were introduced.19 Settlement of the continent in conjunction with animals actually started with whaling on the east coast, while the expansion of cattle herds at the expense of the buffalo can be considered its climax. The history of imperialism in India and Africa was also influenced by animals.20 Colonial rule brought with it the destruction and restriction of domestic and wild animals. In Australia plagues of rabbits and camels strongly affected society, while the industrialization of Europe was closely linked to animal power and the use of animal products.
However, the question of conceptualizing this “agency”, that is animals’ historical ability to act, is one of the main problems of animal history. It is noteworthy that this is not primarily a problem of method or methodology. A large variety of sources from all periods and relating to virtually all relevant topics in cultural history is available to research and can be exploited using tried critical methods. To exaggerate slightly, it can be claimed that hardly any historical material exists in which animals do not occur in one way or another. This wealth of sources is juxtaposed by the problem of how to theoretically conceptualize animal “agency” as a historical force. Naturally, it is possible to describe how animals have defended themselves but should this be considered a particular form of the class struggle?21 A reason for the central position of the “agency” concept in animal historiography, which as conventional environmental or military history would have gotten by without this hypothesis, is probably based on a new need for a symmetrical anthropology. This assumes “that not only the symbolic systems of acting humans but a multitude of heterogeneous elements participate in constituting spaces of experience.”22 It needs to be emphasized that the underlying concept of “agency,” which takes its cue from “actor-network theory” (ANT), does not require any term of intentionality when describing the intermeshing of technology, humans and animals (assemblies). Even though Bruno Latour and other theoreticians of ANT were not primarily concerned with animals and their relationship with humans, animals can consequently be understood as actors just as much as objects and humans.
However, the central question of the historical ability of animals to act or the question of animals as historical subjects remains unsolved: Do animals make history by themselves? In this context, it is an obstacle to historical studies but not critical that animals do not write and speak. Indirectly, individual animals, groups of animals, genuses and species have left an overwhelming amount of tracks and trails in the archives. A handy example are the many ordinances and laws on handling and restricting animals in towns. They contain much information on urban human-animal relationships from a historical perspective. As sources they represent the actions of animals in many ways because animals cooperate, work and live together with humans in a limited space. They resisted and influenced human practice and thought. However, the “agency” concept bumps against limits and animal “agency” must be differentiated from that of humans. Humans do not always act intentionally when they make history, while animals as feeling, thinking and acting creatures possibly have ideas of the future but they do not have an awareness of history.23
The “agency” of individual animals is evident in direct relationships between humans and animals. This includes, for example, owners, animal keepers and persons responsible in other ways who shared their lives over longer periods with an animal. Toward the end of the 19th century, the genre of animal biography, analogous to the biography of great men, made the lives of popular animals its central theme, thereby providing information on the actions of animals.24In the case of the African elephant Jumbo, who had become an attraction and publicity icon at the London zoo, his keeper Matthew Scott linked the story of Jumbo’s life to his autobiography.25 Biographies were also dedicated to “unknown,” obscure animals, such as grizzly bears,26 to emphasize the exemplary significance of the described animal. In literary animal biographies, the animal tells its own story. As in the novel Black Beauty: The Autobiography of a Horse by the English author Anna Sewell (1820–1878), these works were often designed as works of moral didactics.27 The animal could also stand in for humans and as a fictional author reporting on a historical event28 or a historical period, as for example in the children’s books Jock of the Bushveld (1907) by the South African writer James Percy FitzPatrick (1862–1931) or Michael Morpurgo’s (born 1943) War Horse (1982).29
By contrast, in historical animal biographies, the animal becomes an actor in a particular period, such as the rhinoceros Clara, who traveled in the 18th century through a large part of Europe. Colonial network history is illustrated in her biography.30 Clara arrived on July 22, 1741 in the port of Rotterdam on the ship Knabenhoe under captain Douwe Mout van der Meer. The captain had bought Clara from Jan Albert Sichterman (1692–1764), the director of the Dutch East India Company in Assam and wanted to turn her public display in Europe into a business venture. Clara had been raised by hand and lived in the salons of the colonial residence but had become too large to be kept as a domestic animal. The captain and the rhinoceros travelled for seventeen years in a specially constructed cart to the capitals of Europe until Clara died at age twenty in London. This rhinoceros was such an attraction – even clocks and china with her image were sold – because rhinoceroses had not been seen in Europe since Antiquity. The knowledge of Roman animal traders had been forgotten and, as Clara’s biographer writes, there were even doubts about the existence of these creatures. Clara’s appearance, often painted and drawn, shaped a new image of the rhinoceros that overlaid older European pictures and imaginings. This includes, for example, the tale of the special enmity of rhinoceros and elephant that was related by the text of Albrecht Dürer’s (1471–1528) famous woodcut.31
Old and new, literary and historical animal biographies assume that animals “possess” a biography, that is, their lives represent a story from birth to death (or their afterlife in the most varied media) and can, therefore, be told in a sensible manner. This raises the question whether animal biography should be conceptualized as a historical genre and an analytical approach rather analogous to the “cultural biography of things”32 or whether a loaded and assumption-rich concept of biography underlies it that understands an individual life, like history in general, as a goal-oriented sequence of events. The latter would conform to a concept of historical and biographical identity, which – as already noted – probably does not coincide with a potential self-perception of the animal.33
The view that animals as active entities participate in society is not done justice in the long run with an approach based on mere historical categorization. If the category of space is included, the participatory role of animals in historical processes becomes much clearer.34 Linking the histories of animals and spaces usually derives from the geographers Chris Philo (born 1960) and Chris Wilbert (born 1962). In their collection of essays Animal Spaces, Beastly Places, they emphasize that a view regarding animals in the city alone is insufficient because in this way animals appear as mere blank spaces and not as independent actors. It is more important to look at practices that first constitute a representative function. In particular, it is essential to understand how animals themselves emerge in these practices.35 Due to their demonstrable, historically changeable presence or absence in spaces, animals become a social dimension. Susan J. Pearson and Mary Weismantel counter a history that neglects animals with a redefinition of the concepts of “social” and “space.” They want to have the material presence of animals in social life acknowledged more strongly and,36 for this purpose, call for the spatial dimensions of human-animal relationships to be determined more closely and for “spatial mapping” of human-animal relationships. With their concept of the “instantiation of the social dimension,” they seek to counter the methodological problems of the absence of the animal voice because animals can be understood in this way as silent but still social actors without the questions of freedom of action or self-determination needing an answer.37 To analyse the (spatial) presence of animals in the premodern city, the concept of the “society of presence” or “association among those present,” developed by Rudolf Schlögl (born 1955), is useful.38 The premodern city appears as a concentrated social space in which what happened among those present during interaction and in specific communications was socially relevant and structure-forming. Consequently, the principle of presence for acquiring the power of agency also makes animals into members of society.
Dogs were among the most popular domestic animals in the early modern period. They moved both in the geographical space of the city and in a number of social spaces in different performative associations. On one hand, as status symbols, representation objects, communication media and bearers of symbolizations, they should be factored in as extended bodies of their owners. On the other, they can be conceived as agents with their own bodies who participate in shaping spaces. Regulations demonstrate how society attempted to define spheres of action for dogs. Apart from bourgeois living rooms, dogs populated numerous locations in urban spaces. Contemporary governments considered the many dogs kept as “companion animals” such a nuisance that they prohibited them from entering certain spaces, such as churches, with numerous ordinances.
The specific spatial contexts of human-animal encounters include places such as zoos,39slaughterhouses40 and experimental laboratories.41 Animals also appeared in this spatial dimension as significant members of society during the conquest of new territories, war42and European expansion,43 where in writings on these spaces the respective uses of animals take center stage. European domestic animals introduced to the Americas took possession of their space in a special way, as Alfred W. Crosby (born 1931) writes: “to the extent that these animals reproduce themselves, they are superior to any machine invented so far with regard to the speed and effectiveness that they transform their environment – even an entire continent.”44 The reproduction addressed here was caused by both keeping and multiplying, such as breeding on farms, but also escaped “domestic” animals, such as the horses of the Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century, which formed large wild herds. Their re-domestication fundamentally changed the lifestyle of the indigenous peoples of the Great Plainswhen they turned to hunting buffalo on horseback. The first cattle herds in North America were descendants of Spanish cattle that had been released or lost by Francisco Vázquez de Coronado (1510–1554) on his way northward to the legendary Seven Golden Cities of Cibola.
Apart from groups of animals that characterized and participated in shaping spaces, individual animals repeatedly gained fame by being present in an extraordinary way and being used in different ways by humans. Elephants, giraffes and rhinoceroses have been displayed in Europe since the Middle Ages. In the 20th century, outer space was added as an area in which animals were used. This included, for example, the Russian female mixed-breed dog Laika, who left Earth as the first living creature in a space capsule. In 1961, the “chimponaut” Ham was sent by NASA into orbit around Earth. This use of dogs and apes in space research and their deployment as astronauts or chimponauts are examples of animals participating as actors in shaping space.
History of Interactions, Praxeology
Examining the specific actions of animals first leads to those humans that the animals have an interactive and reciprocal relationship with. Thus, dogs also share in shaping cultural developments, as Donna Haraway has found. Their actions and being are related to those of humans in multifaceted ways so neither animal nor human can be viewed in isolation but a history of relationships must be written. Assuming the relationship of humans and animals as the lowest unit of historical study in no way denies the active, shared formative role of animals living closely together with humans. Rather, it takes into account the problems of animals not leaving us with artifacts crafted on their own as sources. In this interactive, reciprocal research unit of human and animal, only humans are the authors of sources and the producers of all sorts of remains. This circumstance can be met with praxeological approaches. A change in perspective comes about when social actions are not reduced to intentionality but their performative character is emphasized.45 Not only the bodies of the acting parties but also new groups of actors, that is animals, come into play. With this “embodied agency”, from which praxeological approaches emanate, animals attain a status of actor that is clearly demonstrable in the sources, for they interact with humans and consequently directly affect their actions. Following theories in the social sciences, the relationship of humans and dogs can even be described as a duo of actors. The “doggie walk” constitutes an example. The cultural technology of the walk arose at the same time as keeping dogs could no longer be imagined as absent from bourgeois life. At the same time, authorities imposed nuanced concepts of hygiene to restrict dogs from straying without accompaniment. Dogs had conquered certain (nocturnal) spaces by freely roaming around in towns and joining into temporary packs. This new potential for action entered the new cultural technology in a two-fold manner: It was the starting point or trigger for regulations but also constituted an example of the cooperation between dogs and humans.
The shared travels of humans and dogs illustrates that social practices of humans and animals are due to shared practical knowledge and skill. For example, dogs usually accompany their keeper without a leash on their walks but both know what needs to be done. It is important that the dog knows its name so its owner can call it. For this communication and the natural togetherness while strolling together to function, dogs also have to know the rules on which the shared practice of walking is based. In this way, a potential for action and influence can be ascribed to dogs in this cultural technology of walking.46
The doggie walk as a routine activity of the urban bourgeoisie increasingly gained in significance during the course of the 18th century. Keeping dogs for pure pleasure spread parallel to it.47Walking and keeping dogs – two cultural practices associated with enjoying nature – became very popular among the bourgeoisie at the same time. If dogs are considered partners in an interactive relationship, it appears plausible that keeping dogs and walking didn’t just establish themselves by chance as an urban leisure pastime, the need for dogs to go outside has affected the rhythm of the lives of their keepers.
Animals are part of a shared history in a threefold way. Animals are changed in the course of history, they are the products of historical processes, as the longue durée of co-evolution, domestication and breeding demonstrates. Humans and animals adapt to each other in the process. Thus, research assumes that it was wolves who first moved humans to become sedentary because wolves lived in dens when humans roamed about as nomads. Secondly, animals change history by their specific presence or absence, they are bearers of history because without the participation, for example, of cattle and horses, colonial conquests would not have been possible or would have been completely different. Industrialization would have also sought different pathways without the labor of animals. Thirdly, animals play an important role in history and as sources of human self-understanding. They are part of the historical record and actors in historical periods. They are involved in an indissoluble history of relationship with humans, the smallest unit of which is the animal-human relationship.
- However, the dye E 120 is still obtained from female scale insects (cochineal).
- It has been repeatedly proposed that the love of animals was only “discovered” in the 19th century as a product of bourgeois sentimentality but premodern historical sources clearly demonstrate the love of individual animal owners for their animals. cf. Steinbrecher, Die gezähmte Natur 2009, pp. 125ff.
- Reinhard Koselleck’s essay’s Das Ende des Pferdezeitalters [The End of the Horse Age] in the Süddeutsche Zeitung – originally his acceptance speech on receiving the Historians’ Prize from the City of Münster – did not receive much attention at first but in the meantime has become frequently cited in the context of animal history and human-animal studies to prove that historical interest in animals is not just the preserve of obscure niches. cf. Koselleck, Das Ende 2003. See also: Koselleck, Das Ende 2003, Der Aufbruch 2003.
- However, this facet has only recently come into focus in German-language historical studies. Eitler, In tierischer Gesellschaft 2009. See also Roscher, Human-Animal Studies 2012, http://docupedia.de/zg/Human-Animal_Studies?oldid=84625.
- Münch, Tiere und Menschen 1998, pp. 14–16.
- A series of historical journals have also been published with an emphasis on animals in recent years: Berlanger, Traverse 2008, vol. 3 http://retro.seals.ch/digbib/voltoc?pid=tra-001:2008:3; Roscher, WerkstattGeschichte 2011, vol. 56 http://www.werkstattgeschichte.de/index.php?ref=56_inhalt.html; Krüger, Historische Anthropologie 2011, vol. 19,2; Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, vol. 8–9 http://www.bpb.de/apuz/75803/mensch-und-tier. See also: Daston, Thinking with Animals 2005; Rothfels, Representing Animals 2002; Henninger-Voss, Animals in Human Histories 2002; Böhme, Tiere 2004; Dinzelbacher, Mensch und Tier 2000; Münch, Tiere und Menschen 1998.
- For a survey of the research landscape: Eitler, In tierischer Gesellschaft 2009; Roscher, Where is the animal 2011; Steinbrecher, Auf Spurensuche 2012.
- Canetti, Über Tiere 2002.
- Agamben, Das Offene 2003.
- See Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin zum Gedächtnis 1942.
- cf.: Bretschneider, Der Streit 1962; Rupke, Vivisection 1987; Maehle, Kritik und Verteidigung 1992; Beers, For the Prevention 2006.
- cf. the issues of various historical journals that focus on the topic of animals: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 2012, vol. 8–9 http://www.bpb.de/apuz/75803/mensch-und-tier; Krüger, Historische Anthropologie 2011, vol. 19,2; Wischermann, Informationen 2009, vol. 2; Berlanger, Traverse 2008, vol. 3 http://retro.seals.ch/digbib/voltoc?pid=tra-001:2008:3; Roscher, WerkstattGeschichte 56 (2011) http://www.werkstattgeschichte.de/index.php?ref=56_inhalt.html; Pögginghege, Westfälische Forschungen 62 (2012).
- An example from the German-speaking region is the pertinent collection of essays in Brantz, Tierische Geschichte 2010.
- Evolutionary history considers both humans and non-human organisms actors in the development of human and non-human species. (cf. Russell, Evolutionary History 2003 http://envhis.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/2/204.) Thus, it no longer assumes a single directional evolution but speaks of “coevolution” in which humans and other species develop and change by acting on each other. In this dynamic concept, cultures and genes interact just as societies and organisms do. (See: Schrepfer, Industrializing Organisms 2004; Russell, Evolutionary History 2011.) It needs to be emphasized that this new evolutionary history decidedly distances itself from disciplines that tend toward ideas of biological determinism, such as sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. In contrast to these approaches, genes constitute a dynamic object in evolutionary history that is in continuous interaction with cultural and social factors.
- Bodenburg, Auf den Hund gekommen 2008, p. 288; Coppinger / Coppinger, Dogs 2001; by contrast Clutton-Brock, A Natural History 1987, chap. 3; see also Ritvo, Animal Planet 2004, p. 211.
- Haraway, The Companion Species Manifesto 2003.
- Braudel, Geschichte und Sozialwissenschaften 1977.
- This also includes, for example, spatial and urban history. Urban space as the location for encounters between humans and animals are examined, for example, in Brantz, Slaughter 2003; Eitler, Ambivalente Urbanimalität 2009 and Wischermann, Informationen 2009, vol. 2. Furthermore, the fields of history of science, environmental history, network history, subjectivization history and the histories of colonialism and postcolonialsim belong here. cf. regarding the last, e.g., Gißibl, Das kolonisierte Tier 2010, http://www.werkstattgeschichte.de/index.php?ref=56_inhalt.html and Armstrong, The Postcolonial Animal 2002. Research on “postcolonial animals” is found especially in the literature-oriented Postcolonial Studies, see Huggan / Tiffin, Postcolonial Ecocriticism 2010. Media history, the history of praxeology and the history of emotions also concern themselves with the ability of animals to act and their roles.
- DeJohn Anderson, Creatures of Empire 2004; Melville, A Plague of Sheep 1994.
- MacKenzie, The Empire of Nature 1988; Storey, Big Cats 1991.
- ^ Hribal, When Animals Resist 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/14/kasatka-the-sea-world-orca.
- Tanner, Historische Anthropologie 2009, p. 154. The following example may serve as an illustration: “In the meantime, cyberspace has become an extension as a space of information and communication that is neither comprehensible nor controllable for humans and, together with other computer-based networks such as cellphones, has a sustained effect on social interaction between humans that can neither be described as actions by individual choice nor as an unintended side effect.” Tanner, Historische Anthropologie 2009, p. 154.
- Even when animals defend themselves and offer resistance, they are not striving for emancipation encompassing future generations. cf. Hribal, Animals 2007 http://docupedia.de/zg/Literatur:Hribal_Animals_Agency_Class_2007; Hribal, Animals 2007, When Animals Resist 2006 http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/14/kasatka-the-sea-world-orca.
- Scott, Autobiography 1885 http://archive.org/details/autobiographyofm00scot. As far back as 1905, two books were reviewed in the journal Nature under the keyword “animal biography.”
- cf. Scott, Autobiography 1885 http://archive.org/details/autobiographyofm00scot. Scott already associated human and animal biography with each other in the title.
- Seton, The Biography 1899–1900 http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015065541008.
- Sewell, Black Beauty 1877.
- Morpurgo, War Horse 1982.
- FitzPatrick, Jock of the Bushveld 1907 http://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.$b33740. While FitzPatrick was a contemporary of the story told by him, Morpurgo narrates retrospectively (Morpurgo, War Horse 1982).
- Ridley, Claras Grand Tour 2008.
- There it says with regard to the rhinoceros: “Das dosig Thier ist des Helffantz todt feyndt. Der Helffandt furcht es fast vbel / dann wo es Jn ankumbt / so laufft Jm das Thier mit dem kopff zwischen dye fordern payn / vnd reyst den Helffandt vnden am pauch auff vnd er wuorgt Jn / des mag er sich nit erwern. Dann das Thier ist also gewapent / das Jm der Helffandt nichts kan thuon. [trans. This docile animal is the elephant’s mortal enemy. The elephant fears it horribly/ because where he encounters it,/ the animal runs with its head between the [elephant’s] front legs/ and tears open the elephant’s belly and kills him./ He cannot defend himself against that. For the animal is armored/ so the elephant cannot harm it.]”
- Kopytoff, The Cultural Biography 1986.
- cf. Bourdieu, Die biographische Illusion 1990.
- Eitler / Möhring, Eine Tiergeschichte 2008, p. 101 http://retro.seals.ch/digbib/view?pid=tra-001:2008:3::106.
- Philo, Animal Spaces 2000, p. 5.
- Pearson / Weismantel, Gibt es das Tier? 2010, p. 387.
- Pearson / Weismantel, Gibt es das Tier? 2010, p. 392.
- cf. Schlögl, Vergesellschaftung 2004; Schlögl, Vergesellschaftung 2004, Kommunikation 2008.
- It is not possible to provide an overview over this broad field of research here. The following are some significant studies: Baratay / Hardouin-Fugier, Zoo 2000; Dittrich / Rieke-Müller, Der Löwe 1998; Dittrich, Die Kulturgeschichte 2001.
- cf. Brantz, Slaughter 2003; Kathan, Zum Fressen gern 2004; Mohrmann, “Blutig wol ist dein Amt…” 1991; Roscher, Urban Creatures 2009.
- cf. Eitler, Ambivalente Urbanimalität 2009; Ritvo, Plus Ça Change 2010; Rupke, Vivisection 1987.
- cf. Pöppinghege, Tiere im Krieg 2009.
- Well-known and still worth reading is Crosby, Die Früchte 1991.
- Crosby, Die Früchte 1991, p. 172.
- Wulf, Mimesis 2001, p. 253.
- On the cultural technique of dog walking, cf. especially König, Eine Kulturgeschichte 1996. On the shared walks of dogs and human, cf. Steinbrecher, Eine praxeologisch performative Untersuchung 2012.
- In this regard, cf. especially Steinbrecher, Die gezähmte Natur 2009.
- Agamben, Giorgio: Das Offene: Der Mensch und das Tier, Frankfurt am Main 2003.
- Armstrong, Philip: The Postcolonial Animal, in: Society & Animals 10,4 (2002), pp. 413–419.
- Baratay, Eric / Hardouin-Fugier, Elisabeth: Zoo: Von der Menagerie zum Tierpark, Berlin 2000.
- Beers, Diane L.: For the Prevention of Cruelty: The History and Legacy of Animal Rights Activism in the United States, Athens et al. 2006.
- Berlanger, Silke et al. (eds.): Traverse: Zeitschrift für Geschichte: Revue d’histoire, vol. 3: Tiere – eine andere Geschichte?, Zurich 2008, online: http://retro.seals.ch/digbib/voltoc?pid=tra-001:2008:3 [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Bodenburg, Julia: Auf den Hund gekommen: Tier-Mensch-Allianzen in Donna Haraways Companion Species Manifesto und Thomas Manns Erzählung Herr und Hund, in: Jessica Ullrich et al. (eds.): Ich, das Tier: Tiere als Persönlichkeiten in der Kulturgeschichte, Berlin 2008, pp. 283–294.
- Böhme, Hartmut et al.(eds.): Tiere: Eine andere Anthropologie, Cologne et al. 2004 (Schriften des Deutschen Hygiene-Museums Dresden 3).
- Bourdieu, Pierre: Die biographische Illusion, in: BIOS: Zeitschrift für Biographieforschung, Oral History und Lebensverlaufsanalysen 3,1 (1990), pp. 75–81.
- Brantz, Dorothee: Slaughter in the City: The Establishment of Public Abattoirs in Paris and Berlin, 1780–1914, Diss. University of Chicago 2003.
- Brantz, Dorothee et al. (eds.): Tierische Geschichte: Die Beziehung von Mensch und Tier in der Kultur der Moderne, Paderborn et al. 2010.
- Braudel, Fernand: Geschichte und Sozialwissenschaften: Die longue durée, in: Claudia Honegger (ed.): Schrift und Materie der Geschichte: Vorschläge zur systematischen Aneignung historischer Prozesse, Frankfurt am Main 1977, pp. 47–85.
- Bretschneider, Hubert: Der Streit um die Vivisektion im 19. Jahrhundert: Verlauf – Argumente – Ergebnisse, Stuttgart 1962 (Medizin in Geschichte und Kultur 2).
- Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (eds.): Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, vol: 8–9: Mensch und Tier, Bonn 2012, online: http://www.bpb.de/apuz/75803/mensch-und-tier [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Canetti, Elias: Über Tiere, Munich 2002.
- Clutton-Brock, Juliet: A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals, Cambridge et al. 1987.
- Coppinger, Raymond / Coppinger, Lorna: Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution, New York, NY et al. 2001.
- Crosby, Alfred W.: Die Früchte des weißen Mannes: Ökologischer Imperialismus 900–1900, Frankfurt am Main et al. 1991.
- Daston, Lorraine et al. (eds.): Thinking with Animals: New Perspectives on Anthropomorphism, New York, NY 2005.
- DeJohn Anderson, Virginia: Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America, New York, NY et al. 2004.
- Dinzelbacher, Peter (ed.): Mensch und Tier in der Geschichte Europas, Stuttgart 2000.
- Dittrich, Lothar et al. (eds.): Die Kulturgeschichte des Zoos, Berlin 2001.
- Dittrich, Lothar / Rieke-Müller, Annelore: Der Löwe brüllt nebenan: Die Gründung Zoologischer Gärten im deutschsprachigen Raum 1833–1869, Cologne et al. 1998.
- Eitler, Pascal: In tierischer Gesellschaft: Ein Literaturbericht zum Mensch-Tier-Verhältnis im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, in: Neue Politische Literatur 54,1 (2009), pp. 207–224.
- Eitler, Pascal: Ambivalente Urbanimalität: Tierversuche in der Großstadt (Deutschland 1879–1914), in: Informationen zur modernen Stadtgeschichte 40,2 (2009), pp. 80–93.
- Eitler, Pascal / Möhring, Maren: Eine Tiergeschichte der Moderne: Theoretische Perspektiven, in: Traverse: Zeitschrift für Geschichte: Revue d’histoire 15,3 (2008), pp. 91–105, ed. by the ETH-Bibliothek supported by e-lib.ch, online: http://dx.doi.org/10.5169/seals-99718 [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Gißibl, Bernhard: Das kolonisierte Tier: Zur Ökologie der Kontaktzonen des deutschen Kolonialismus, in: WerkstattGeschichte 56 (2010), pp. 7–28, online: http://www.werkstattgeschichte.de/index.php?ref=56_inhalt.html [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Haraway, Donna Jeanne: The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness, Chicago, IL 2003.
- Henninger-Voss, Mary J. (ed.): Animals in Human Histories: The Mirror of Nature and Culture, Rochester, NY et al. 2002.
- History & Theory: Theme Issue 52: Does History need Animals? (December 2013).
- Horkheimer, Max et al. (eds.): Walter Benjamin zum Gedächtnis, Frankfurt am Main 1942 [first published under the title Geschichtsphilosophische Reflexionen].
- Hribal, Jason C.: Animals, Agency, and Class: Writing the History of Animals from Below, in: Human Ecology Review 14,1 (2007), pp. 101–112, online: http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her141/hribal.pdf [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Hribal, Jason C.: When Animals Resist Their Exploitation: Kasatka, the Sea World Orca, in: CounterPunch (14.12.2006), online: http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/14/kasatka-the-sea-world-orca [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Huggan, Graham / Tiffin, Helen: Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment, London et al. 2010.
- Kathan, Bernhard: Zum Fressen gern: Zwischen Haustier und Schlachtvieh, Berlin 2004.
- Kopytoff, Igor: The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process, in: Arjun Appadurai (ed.): The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge et al. 1986, pp. 64–91.
- Koselleck, Reinhart: Der Aufbruch in die Moderne oder das Ende des Pferdezeitalters, in: Berthold Tillmann (ed.): Historikerpreis der Stadt Münster: Die Preisträger und Laudatoren von 1981 bis 2003, Münster 2003, pp. 23–39.
- Koselleck, Reinhart: Das Ende des Pferdezeitalters, in: Süddeutsche Zeitung (25.09.2003), pp. 18.
- König, Gudrun M.: Eine Kulturgeschichte des Spazierganges: Spuren einer bürgerlichen Praktik 1780–1850, Vienna et al. 1996.
- Krüger, Gesine / Steinbrecher, Aline (eds.): Historische Anthropologie 19,2: Tierische (Ge)Fährten, Cologne et al. 2011.
- Krüger, Gesine / Steinbrecher, Aline / Wischermann, Clemens (eds.): Tiere und Geschichte. Konturen einer Animate History, Stuttgart 2014.
- Latour, Bruno: Eine neue Soziologie für eine neue Gesellschaft: Einführung in die Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie, Frankfurt am Main 2007.
- MacKenzie, John M.: The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation and British Imperialism, Manchester et al. 1988.
- Maehle, Andreas-Holger: Kritik und Verteidigung des Tierversuchs: Die Anfänge der Diskussion im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Stuttgart 1992.
- Melville, Elinor G. K.: A Plague of Sheep: Environmental Consequences of the Conquest of Mexico, Cambridge et al. 1994.
- Mohrmann, Ruth-E.: “Blutig wol ist dein Amt, o Schlachter…”: Zur Errichtung öffentlicher Schlachthäuser im 19. Jahrhundert, in: Siegfried Becker et al. (eds.): Mensch und Tier: Kulturwissenschaftliche Aspekte einer Sozialbeziehung Marburg 1991, pp. 101–118 (Hessische Blätter für Volks- und Kulturforschung: Neue Folge der Hessischen Blätter für Volkskunde 27).
- Münch, Paul et al. (eds.): Tiere und Menschen: Geschichte und Aktualität eines prekären Verhältnisses, Paderborn et al. 1998, online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn%3Anbn%3Ade%3Abvb%3A12-bsb00046086-8 [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Münch, Paul: Tiere und Menschen: Ein Thema historischer Grundlagenforschung, in: Paul Münch et al. (eds.): Geschichte und Aktualität eines prekären Verhältnisses, Paderborn 1998, pp. 9–37, online: http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0004/bsb00046086/image_7 [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Pearson, Susan / Weismantel, Mary: Gibt es das Tier? Sozialtheoretische Reflexionen, in: Dorothee Brantz et al. (eds.): Tierische Geschichte: Die Beziehung von Mensch und Tier in der Kultur der Moderne, Paderborn 2010, pp. 379–399.
- Philo, Chris et al. (eds.): Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations, London 2000.
- Pöppinghege, Rainer (ed.): Tiere im Krieg: Von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Paderborn et al. 2009.
- Pöppinghege, Rainer (eds.): Tier und Mensch in der Region: Westfälische Forschungen 62 (2012).
- Ridley, Glynis: Claras Grand Tour: Die spektakuläre Reise mit einem Rhinozeros durch das Europa des 18. Jahrhunderts, Hamburg 2008.
- Ritvo, Harriet: Plus Ça Change: Antivivisection Then and Now, in: Harriet Ritvo (ed.): Noble Cows and Hybrid Zebras: Essays on Animals and History, Charlottesville, VA et al. 2010, pp. 73–90.
- Ritvo, Harriet: On the Animal Turn, in: Daedalus 136,4 (2007), pp. 118–122.
- Ritvo, Harriet: Animal Planet, in: Environmental History 9,2 (2004), pp. 204–221.
- Roscher, Mieke: Urban Creatures: Die britische Tierschutzbewegung als urbanes Phänomen, in: Informationen zur modernen Stadtgeschichte 2 (2009), pp. 65–79.
- Roscher, Mieke: Where is the animal in this text? Chancen und Grenzen einer Tiergeschichtsschreibung, in: Chimaira: Arbeitskreis für Human-Animal Studies (eds.): Human-Animal Studies: Über die gesellschaftliche Natur von Mensch-Tier-Verhältnissen, Bielefeld 2011, pp. 121–150.
- Roscher, Mieke: Human-Animal Studies, Version: 1.0, in: Docupedia-Zeitgeschichte, 25.01.2012, online: http://docupedia.de/zg/Human-Animal_Studies?oldid=84625 [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Roscher, Mieke et al. (eds.): Tiere: Werkstatt Geschichte 56 (2011), online: http://www.werkstattgeschichte.de/index.php?ref=56_inhalt.html [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Rothfels, Nigel (ed.): Representing Animals, Bloomington, IN et al. 2002.
- Rupke, Nicolaas A. (ed.): Vivisection in Historical Perspective, London et al. 1987.
- Russell, Edmund: Evolutionary History: Uniting History and Biology to Understand Life on Earth, Cambridge et al. 2011.
- Russell, Edmund: Evolutionary History: Prospectus for a New Field, in: Environmental History 8 (2003), pp. 204–228, online: http://envhis.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/2/204 [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Schlögl, Rudolf: Kommunikation und Vergesellschaftung unter Anwesenden: Formen des Sozialen und ihre Transformation in der Frühen Neuzeit, in: Geschichte und Gesellschaft 34,2 (2008), pp. 155–224.
- Schlögl, Rudolf: Vergesellschaftung unter Anwesenden: Zur kommunikativen Form des Politischen in der vormodernen Stadt, in: Rudolf Schlögl (ed.): Interaktion und Herrschaft: Die Politik der frühneuzeitlichen Stadt, Konstanz 2004, pp. 9–60.
- Schrepfer, Susan R. et al. (eds.): Industrializing Organisms: Introducing Evolutionary History, New York, NY et al. 2004.
- Steinbrecher, Aline: Die gezähmte Natur in der Wohnstube: Zur Kulturpraktik der Hundehaltung in frühneuzeitlichen Städten, in: Sophie Ruppel et al. (eds.): “Die Natur ist überall bey uns”: Mensch und Natur in der Frühen Neuzeit, Zurich 2009, pp. 125–143.
- Steinbrecher, Aline: Auf Spurensuche: Die Geschichtswissenschaft und ihre Auseinandersetzung mit den Tieren, in: Westfälische Forschungen 62 (2012), pp. 9–29.
- Steinbrecher, Aline: Eine praxeologisch, performative Untersuchung der Kulturtechnik des Spaziergangs (1750–1850), in: Tierstudien 2: Tiere auf Reisen (2012), pp. 13–24, online: http://www.academia.edu/4648975/Eine_praxeologisch_performative_Untersuchung_der_Kulturtechnik_des_Spaziergangs_1750-1850_2012_ [last accessed: 2016-08-22].
- Storey, William K.: Big Cats and Imperialism: Lion and Tiger Hunting in Kenya and Northern India, 1898–1930, in: Journal of World History 2,2 (1991), pp. 135–173.
- Tanner, Jakob: Historische Anthropologie, in: Eike Bohlken et al. (eds.): Handbuch Anthropologie: Der Mensch zwischen Natur, Kultur und Technik, Stuttgart et al. 2009, pp. 147–156.
- Wischermann, Clemens (ed.): Tiere in der Stadt: Informationen zur modernen Stadtgeschichte 2 (2009).
- Wulf, Christoph: Mimesis und Performatives Handeln: Gunter Gebauers und Christoph Wulfs Konzeption mimetischen Handelns in der sozialen Welt, in: Christoph Wulf et al. (eds.): Grundlagen des Performativen: Eine Einführung in die Zusammenhänge von Sprache, Macht und Handeln, Weinheim et al. 2001, pp. 253–272.
Originally published by EGO: Journal of European History Online under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license.