What do you think?
Rate this book
The Animal/Human Boundary: Historical Perspectives
An examination of the difficulties in fundamentally differentiating humans from all other animals.
The way in which humans articulate identities, social hierarchies, and their inversions through relations with animals has been a fruitful topic in anthropological and historical investigations for the last several years. The contributors to this volume call attention to the symbolic meanings of animals, from the casting of first-year students as goats in medieval universities to the representation of vermin as greedy thieves in early modern England. But the essays in this volume are also concerned with the more material and bodily aspects of animal-human relations, like eating regulations, aggression, and transplanting of animal organs into human beings [xenotransplantation].
Modern biologists have increasingly problematized the human-animal boundary. Researchers have challenged the supposedly unique ability of humans to use language. Chimpanzees and gorillas, it has been argued, have learned to communicate using American Sign Language. In addition, some scientists regard the sophistication of modes of communication in species like dolphins and songbirds as undermining the view of humans as uniquely capable of complex expressions. As studies of nonhuman primates threaten to compromise the long-held assumption that only humans possess self-awareness. The question How can one firmly differentiate human beings from other animals?
Contributors include Piers Beirne, Richard W. Burkhardt, Jr., Mary E. Fissell, Paul H. Freedman, Ruth Mazo Karras, Susan E. Lederer, Rob Meens, John H. Murrin, James A. Serpell, and H. Peter Steeves.
Angela N. H. Creager andWilliam Chester Jordan are Associates of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, Princeton University.
The way in which humans articulate identities, social hierarchies, and their inversions through relations with animals has been a fruitful topic in anthropological and historical investigations for the last several years. The contributors to this volume call attention to the symbolic meanings of animals, from the casting of first-year students as goats in medieval universities to the representation of vermin as greedy thieves in early modern England. But the essays in this volume are also concerned with the more material and bodily aspects of animal-human relations, like eating regulations, aggression, and transplanting of animal organs into human beings [xenotransplantation].
Modern biologists have increasingly problematized the human-animal boundary. Researchers have challenged the supposedly unique ability of humans to use language. Chimpanzees and gorillas, it has been argued, have learned to communicate using American Sign Language. In addition, some scientists regard the sophistication of modes of communication in species like dolphins and songbirds as undermining the view of humans as uniquely capable of complex expressions. As studies of nonhuman primates threaten to compromise the long-held assumption that only humans possess self-awareness. The question How can one firmly differentiate human beings from other animals?
Contributors include Piers Beirne, Richard W. Burkhardt, Jr., Mary E. Fissell, Paul H. Freedman, Ruth Mazo Karras, Susan E. Lederer, Rob Meens, John H. Murrin, James A. Serpell, and H. Peter Steeves.
Angela N. H. Creager andWilliam Chester Jordan are Associates of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies, Princeton University.
- GenresNonfiction
360 pages, Hardcover
First published December 16, 2002
26 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 24, 2022
*Only read the introduction and "On the Sexual Assault of Animals: A Sociological View" by Piers Beirne
Ever since reading 『聖なるズー』bestiality ("zoophilia") and the relationship between humans and animals (especially pets or cattle) has been on my mind. Beirne's point was sociological, so included studies from anthropology, psychiatry and history which to me gave perspectives of a scientist, social scientist and historian on the same topic. The similarities between feminism and animal rights was eye-opening, but most of all the fact that those wishing to ascribe rights to animals will always be forced to challenge the existence of animals as private property was thought provoking (should look up status of pets in Japan...).
Ever since reading 『聖なるズー』bestiality ("zoophilia") and the relationship between humans and animals (especially pets or cattle) has been on my mind. Beirne's point was sociological, so included studies from anthropology, psychiatry and history which to me gave perspectives of a scientist, social scientist and historian on the same topic. The similarities between feminism and animal rights was eye-opening, but most of all the fact that those wishing to ascribe rights to animals will always be forced to challenge the existence of animals as private property was thought provoking (should look up status of pets in Japan...).
Displaying 1 of 1 review