Animal Deliberation the Co-Evolution of Technology and Ethics on the Farm
AnimalDeliberation
TheCoͲevolutionofTechnologyandEthicsontheFarm
ClemensDriessen Thesiscommittee Promotor Prof.DrM.Korthals EmeritusProfessorofAppliedPhilosophy WageningenUniversity CoͲpromotor DrV.Beekman Researcher,LEIWageningenUR WageningenUniversityandResearchCentre Othermembers Prof.DrH.J.Buller,UniversityofExeter,UnitedKingdom Prof.DrC.Leeuwis,WageningenUniversity Prof.DrA.Mol,UniversityofAmsterdam Prof.DrTsj.Swierstra,MaastrichtUniversity This research was conducted under the auspices of the Wageningen School of Social Sciences.
AnimalDeliberation
TheCoͲevolutionofTechnologyandEthics
ontheFarm
ClemensDriessen
Thesis submittedinfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofdoctor atWageningenUniversity bytheauthorityoftheRectorMagnificus Prof.DrM.J.Kropff, inthepresenceofthe ThesisCommitteeappointedbytheAcademicBoard tobedefendedinpublic onWednesday5November2014 at4p.m.intheAula.
ClemensDriessen AnimalDeliberation:TheCoͲevolutionofTechnologyandEthicsontheFarm, 360pages. PhDthesis,WageningenUniversity,Wageningen,NL(2014) Withreferences,withsummariesinEnglishandDutch ISBN978Ͳ94Ͳ6257Ͳ151Ͳ8
Contents
Prologue
Aphilosopheronapigfarm...... 11
Chapter1
Introduction:ethicsonthefarm?...... 15
1.1Ethicsandfood?Theplaceofethics...... 15
1.2Animalfarming,amosaicofconcerns...... 16
1.3Visualizingthemoralmosaic,or,wheretosituatemoralagency?...... 19
1.4Appliedethicsasagenre,or,howtodoethicswhenethicsisalso ;ŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůͿculture?...... 23
1.5Outline...... 37
PartI
Ethicsonandbeyondthefarm...... 51
Chapter2
Farmersengagedindeliberativepractices–anethnography...... 53
2.1Introduction...... 53
2.2Threeapproachestothemosaicofconcerns...... 56
2.3Researchingethicsbydoingfieldwork...... 58
2.4Farmingasamatterofmixedmotives...... 60
2.5Regimesofjustificationasamodeltodrawoutthemoralcomplexityof ĨĂƌŵŝŶŐpractices͘...... 62 2.6Anexampleofethicaldecisionmakingaspracticalengagement:cowhorns...... 68
2.7Implicationsofthesketchoffarmerethicsfordeliberationsonsustainability....71
Chapter3
Pigtowersandinvitromeat:disclosingmoralworldsbydesign...... 75
3.1Introduction...... 75
3.2Redesigninganimalfarming:pigtowersandinvitromeat...... 78
3.3Thedynamicsgeneratedbypigtowersandinvitromeat...... 83
3.4Dewey,Heideggerandthedynamicsofmoralworlddisclosure...... 93
PartII
Milkingrobots...... 101
Chapter4
Cowsdesiringtobemilked?
MilkingrobotsandthecoͲevolutionofethicsandtechnology...... 103
4.1Introduction...... 103
4.2Conceptualbackground:coͲevolutiononthefarm...... 105
4.3Empiricalapproach...... 111
4.4Ambiguoustechnologyassessment...... 112
4.5CoͲevolutionofethicsandAMStechnology...... 117
4.6Conclusion:ethicalassessmentaspartofcoͲevolutionarydynamics...... 130
Chapter5
Animaldeliberation
takinganimalsseriouslyinpoliticalthoughtandmaterialpractice...... 135
5.1Introduction...... 135
5.2Catsanddoors:animalpoliticsbydesign...... 137
5.3Deliberatinginthefield:makingamobilemilkingrobot...... 139
5.4Politicalanimalsintheory...... 142
5.5Deliberatingonapar...... 146
Intermezzo
Aphilosopherinthemobilerobotfarmers’network
–avisualintervention...... 153
PartIII
Playingwithpigs...... 161
Chapter6
Caringforboredpigs:gamedesignasmultispeciesphilosophy...... 163
6.1ModernhumanͲpigrelations...... 163
6.2Maintaininginterpretiveflexibility:makingaboundaryobjectfordeliberative ƉůĂLJ...... 170
6.3Designingwithpigsasdoingmultispeciesphilosophy...... 172
Chapter7
Fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs...... 181
7.1Subversiveencounters?...... 181
7.2AnimalnatureͲcultures?...... 185
7.3Testingandranking?...... 190
7.4Symmetryandreward?...... 193
7.5Voluntaryandopen?...... 203
Chapter8
Themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay:...... 211 ondesigningamoralsubject...... 211
8.1Genresandmorality...... 211
8.2Movingbeyondtheempathicsubjectanditsperspectivalmind...... 214
8.3Genres, ethics,subjects,experience,mindsandscience:acoͲĞǀŽůƵƚŝŽŶĂƌLJ ecology?...... 219
8.4Playingwithpigsforanewmultispeciescommunity...... 224 PartIV
Conclusion...... 231
Chapter9
Show,don’ttell?Theconclusionofthisthesisisnot(just)atext...... 233
Chapter10
Aconclusioninthemaking...... 247
10.1Ontheveryideaofageneralconclusioninsituatedethics...... 247
10.2Ongoingeffortstowardsplayingwithpigsasaconclusion...... 249
1–Openingupethicsasagenre...... 249
2–AhighͲtechmediatedfarmvisit...... 254
3–Disclosingmoralworldsbygamedesign...... 257
4–IntensifyingthecoͲevolutionofethicsandtechnology...... 263
5–Playfulanimaldeliberation...... 265
10.3Pitfallsandprospects...... 268
Epilogue
Backonthepigfarm...... 279
Bibliography...... 283
Summary...... 315
Samenvatting...... 329
Acknowledgments...... 343
Biography...... 359
Prologue
Aphilosopheronapigfarm
ʹͲͲͻǡ ǤȂ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȃ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǧ ǣ Ǯǯ Ǥ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ
ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 12prologue ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǡǣDz ǡ Ǣ ǫdz ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤǣDz Ǣ Ǥdzǡ Ǥ ǫ Ȃ ǡ ȋͳͻͻͷȌ ȋʹͲͲ͵Ȍ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ ǯAnimalLiberationͳͻͷǤ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ȋͳͻͷȌǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǡ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ͳͻͺǢ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ Ȃ Ǣ Ǥ ͵ͷȋ ǡȌ Ȃ ǫ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡconsumerǦcitizens ǡȂ ȂǤ Ǥǡ
aphilosopheronapigfarm13 ǡǡǦǡǦ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵Ǣ ʹͲͲͳǢ Ǥ ʹͲͲǢʹͲͲͶǢǡǡʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ͳͷ ȋ Ȍ Ǥͳ ǫ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǫ Ǥ ǫ
1 This is especially so as the number of wild boar that are allowed to live in the Netherlands is just a few thousand,reducedbymorethanhalfeachyearthroughhunting.
Chapter1
Introduction:ethicsonthefarm?
1.1Ethicsandfood?Theplaceofethics ǫ Ǥ ȋȀ Ȍǡ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋ ȌǤ ȋ ͳͻͺʹǢ ʹͲͲͳȌǤ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǯǡ ǯǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ȋǤǤ Ȍ ȋ 16chapterone ʹͲͲͶȌǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͺǢʹͲͳͲǡͳͲͲȌǤ
1.2Animalfarming,amosaicofconcerns ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤȋʹͲͲȌǤ ȋ Ȍ ǣ ͳǤ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ʹǤ ǡǡ
ǡ ʹǡ Ǥ ͵Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ͶǤ ǡ Ǣ ͷǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm17 Ǥ ǡ Ǥʹ ͺǤ ȋ ȌǤ ͻǤ ǡ Ǥ ͳͲǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ͳͳǤ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǣ ͳʹǤ ǡǢ ͳ͵Ǥ ǡ Ǣ ͳͶǤ ǡ Ǥ ͳͷǤ Ǥ ͳǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǣ ǡ
2 This thesis does not deal with the aquaculture sector of animal production. Even though in terms of the amountofanimalsinvolveditislargerthanallothersectorscombined,theissuesencounteredthereseemto be significantly different in their internal dynamics and societal meanings to require a study of their own (Driessen 2013). Though it should be acknowledged that this common bracketing off is not innocent, e.g. consideringtheneglectoffishwelfare(Braithwaite2010). 18chapterone ǡǡǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Abolition ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǫ Ȃ ǡ ǡ Ȃǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǧ ͵ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ 3Humanmanureseemsanobvioussolution introduction:ethicsonthefarm19 ǡ ǡǦǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ȂȂǡǤͶ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ȋȌǡ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͳͲǢ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǣ ǫ ǫǤǤ ǫǫ ǫ
1.3Visualizingthemoralmosaic,or,wheretosituatemoralagency? ǫ ǫ
4 Interestingly, some of those debating animal welfare in current day practices express confidence in the continuationof(intensive)animalfarmingonlyforasurprisinglyshortperiod,e.g.‘thenextdecade’(PaulB. Thompson 2012). Nevertheless, proponents of intensive farming tend to point to the ever growing global demand for meat and dairy products with the rise of disposable income in developing countries (Delgado 2003). 20chapterone ǡ Ǥ OurDailyBreadWeFeedtheWorldǤ OurDailyBreadȋ ʹͲͲͷȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ͳ Ǥ Our Daily Breadǡ ǡǤ ǡǡ ǡDzȏȐǡǡ ǯdz ȋ ʹͲͲͷȌǤ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm21 ǡǤ Ǧ Ǥ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳ͵Ȍ Ǥ Ǥ We Feed the World ȋ ʹͲͲͷȌ OurDailyBreadǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǥ Our Daily Bread ǡ We Feed the World ȋ Ȍ Ǥ Ǧ ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǮǯǤ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ ǣ ǡ ǫ Ǧ ǫ ȋȌ ǫ
22chapterone Theethicsofconsumers? ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋʹͲͲͺȌǤ Ǥ ǣ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡȋʹͲͲȌ ȋǤʹͲͲǢʹͲͳͲȌǤ Ǯ ǯȋʹͲͲͻȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͺȌǤǡ ȋǦȌ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͳȌǤ ȋȌ Ǥ Ȃ ǡ ǡ ǡ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm23 ǡ ǡ Ȃ ǣǤ Ethicalagencyonthefarm ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͺǢ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǫ
1.4Appliedethicsasagenre,orhowtodoethicswhenethicsisalso(material) culture? ǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͺʹȌǤ ǡ
24chapterone Ǥͷ ǡ ǡ ǣǡ Ǥ Ȃ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȃ ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ plofkippen Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ 5 We tend (in public at least) to no longer look for religious guidance in moral issues; the bible or other religiousbooksprovide(inapredominantlysecularcountrysuchastheNetherlands)onlyforsomeminorities prescriptionsonwhattoeatandhowtoproducethisfood.Whichinfactisnottosaythatreligiousbeliefs playnoroleintheethicsoffarmers,asasignificantportionofthemalsointheNetherlandsdoderivepractical normsandmotivationsfromreligion. introduction:ethicsonthefarm25 Ǣ ǡ Ǥ AnimalLiberation ǯAnimalLiberationȋͳͻͷȌǤ ǡ animal ethics Ǧ Ǥ ǡ AnimalLiberation ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳʹǡʹͻȌǤ ȋȌ Dz dzǡ Ǥȋ ǡ ǡ ǤȌ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ
6FoerhimselfhasstudiedphilosophyatPrinceton(perhapseventakingclasseswithSinger?)andheexplains thatduringthattimehebecameavegetarianagain.Afterpreviouslyhavingbeenvegetarianaspartofcrafting 26chapterone ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣ ǡ ȋȌ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲǡ ͳǢ ʹͲͲͶǡ͵ͺȌǤǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ AnimalLiberation Ǥ ǡǡǤ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ Thegenreofmoralchange Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ
anadolescentidentity,thistimeitwasbecause“Ithoughtthatlifecould,should,andmustconformtothe moldofreason.Youcanimaginehowannoyingthismademe”(Foer2010,8). 7 The more evocative parts of Animal Liberation are also comparable in style and tone to Ruth Harrison’s Animal Machines, which had influenced Singer in engaging with the issue of intensive farming, and Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (2002), which had rocked agricultural industries in the early 1960s by exposing the ecologicaleffectsofpesticidessuchasDDT.Thatbookcanbeconsideredgroundbreakingalsoforthewayit sought to mobilize what were previously deemed private feelings into new (counterͲ) cultural forms of politicalaction(Lockwood2012). introduction:ethicsonthefarm27 Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǫ ǤǤǣ DzȏǤǤǤȐ ǡ ǡǦǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥdz ȋ ʹͲͲͻǡͺͻȌ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥͺ ȋȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ 8 One of the best known examples in environmental ethics of such a conversion experienceͲand the subsequentcommunicationofitasanevocativeargumentinfavourofanewformofrelatingtonatureand theland–isthatofAldoLeopold.InhisposthumousbestsellerASandCountyAlmanacherecallsto‘watcha greenfiredie’intheeyesofawolfhehadjustshot(Leopold2001).Anexperiencehehadturnedintoan ethicalargumentmorethanthirtyyearsaftertheevent,contemplatingitinthelightoftheemergentscience ofecologyandinfluencedbywiderculturalshifts. 28chapterone
ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǤǤ ȋʹͲͲ͵Ȍ Ǥ ǡevolutionary ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
ThecoǦevolutionofthisandthat? ǫ Ǯǯ Ǥͻǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ
Ȃ Ȃ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ Ǧ ǤͳͲcoǦevolution Dz Ǧ
9 Apart from the critical documentaries described earlier that seemed to profess forms of technological determinism. 10 As Verbeek has argued on technological mediation, incorporating Latourian ideas within ‘postͲ phenomenology’, humans themselves are transformed by the process of technological mediation. “Mediation,”hesays,“doesnottakeplacebetweenasubjectandanobject,butrathercoshapessubjectivity andobjectivity”(Verbeek2005,130).Indeed,asHarawayhasputforward,alsoinresponsetotheworkof introduction:ethicsonthefarm29 dzDz Ǧ dzȋͳͻͻʹȌ Dz Ǧ dzȋǡǡʹͲͲͻȌ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ boundary workǡǡ Ǥͳͳ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͻȌǤ Ǧ ǫ Empiricalandnormativeethics? ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ Dzdzȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͲͷȌ Ǥ Ihde: “Human bodies and technologies cohabit each other in relation to particular projects or lifeworlds” (Haraway2008,262). 11ThenotionofboundaryworkwascoinedbyThomasGieryn(1983)todescribetheprocessesofdemarcation betweenwhatisscienceandwhatisnonͲscientific.Ithassubsequentlybecomeapopularterminphilosophy andsocialsciencestodirectattentiontovariousotherprocessesofinstitutionaldelineation.Inthisthesisthe notionisnotprominent,buttheunderlyingideaofboundariesthatarenottobeassumedasgivenbutas boththesiteandmeansofcontestationisoneofthestartingpointsoftheresearch. 30chapterone ǡ empirical ethicsȋ ʹͲͲͶǢ ʹͲͲͻǢ ʹͲͲͷȌǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡǤǤ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͷȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ò Ǥ ǡ Dz dzȋòʹͲͲͻǡͺȌǤ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǯ ǯǮ ǯǤȋ Ȍ Ǣ ǡ ǡǡǤͳʹ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
12Moreover,itisimportanttonotehowthistypeof(quantitative)socialscienceresearchproducesitsown particularmoralandpoliticalsubject;seeforinstanceLaw(2009). introduction:ethicsonthefarm31 Bringingethicaltheoriestothefarm? Ǯǯǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǡǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡȋ ǨȌ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ reflectiveequilibrium ǫ Ǣ Ǥ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ ǯ Ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ romanticpragmatismǤpoetic 32chapterone world disclosive ǡǡprosaicǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ ǡ constructednessenacted ǣǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ virtueethicsͳ͵ǡ ǡǤǤǡ Ǣ ǫ the good life, Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡǡ Ǥǣ Ǯ ǡǡǡ ǯȋʹͲͲͷǡ͵ͷͻȌǤ
13Anextensivediscussionwithvirtueethicsislackinginthisthesis.Modernvirtueethicssuchastheversionof MacIntyre(2013)islessessentialistregardingthenatureofhumanmoralitythanitsAristotelianinspiration, anditoffersawaytoappreciatetheculturalandchangingcharacterofmoralnorms.Andespeciallymore recentformsofenvironmentalvirtueethics(SandlerandCafaro2005;Coeckelbergh2012)thatacknowledge theprecariousandembeddednatureofmoralsubjectformationmayconstituteafruitfulresourcetofurther explorationsofethicsonthefarm. introduction:ethicsonthefarm33 ǡǮ ǯǡ ǡ ǫ realdirect ǫ ǡǤ ǡǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǤǮ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǤǡDz Ǣ ǡ dz ȋ ʹͲͲͺǡʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ǤȌ ǡ ǡǡǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǣ Dz Ǯ ǯǮ ǯǢ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ dz ȋʹͲͲͻǡʹͲȌǤ
34chapterone ǡ ȋǡ ǡ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ȋͳͻͺͳǡͳͺȌǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ ǡȋȌ Ǯǯǫ Ǯǯǡǡ Ǥǡ ȋͳͻͺͲȌǫ ǡ ǮǦ ǯ ǫ ǡ ǡDz ǡ dz ȋ ʹͲͲǡ ͷȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡȂ ǡȂǤǡ ǣ ǡ Ǥ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm35 Pragmatistethicsbeyondfactsandvalues ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤȋ Ȍ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǯ ǯȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ̶ ǫdzȋ ͳͻͻͻǡ ͷʹȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ǣDz 36chapterone ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ dzȋͳͻͻͺǡʹʹȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Symmetricalstudyofethicsandpolitics ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ symmetry actorǦnetwork theoryȋȌ Ǥ ǡ given ȋ ͳͻͻ͵ȌǤ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǯ ǯǮǯ ǣ Ǥ Ǧ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ science and technology studies ȋȌ ǡ ǤǤ ȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍǡ Ǥ ǡ ontologicalǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻͻȌǤ value pluralism ǡ introduction:ethicsonthefarm37 ǡǡ Ǥ ontological politicsǡDz ǡ ǡdzȋʹͲͲʹǡ ȌǤ cosmopolitics Dz ǡ ǡǡ Ǯ̵ǯdzȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͷǡ ͶͶȌǤ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ȋ ǨȌ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ
1.5Outline What,whereandhowtothinkoffarmingwithanimals? ǣ Ǯ ǯ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ ǫ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǧǫǡ ǣ ǫ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ
38chapterone Ǥ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ PartI Ǥ ȋ ȌǡǡǤ Chapter2:howtointerpretethicsonafarm? Ǥ ǣ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ ǣ ǡ Ǥ TheSimpleLife ȋʹͲͳ͵ȌFarmerSeeksWifeǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm39 Chapter3:canwedoawaywithfarmers? ǤǮagroproductionpark’ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǯvarkensflat’ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯinvitromeat’Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ PartII ȋȌ ǡ ȋȌ Ǧ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ 40chapterone Chapter4:howdoesethicscoǦevolvewithtechnologyonadairyfarm? Ͷǣ ǫ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ȃ ǦǦ Ȃ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Chapter5:cantinkeringwithtechnologybedeliberatingwithanimals? ǫ ǡͷǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǧ ǤǦ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȂȂ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǮǦǦǯ ǡ Ǥ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm41 Intermezzo: what else can a philosopher contribute to animal deliberation on the farm? ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ PartIII Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǫ Ǥǡͺ ǣ Ǥ Chapter6:whynotsetupadesignprojecttodeliberatewithboredpigs? ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǯ ȂǮ ǯȂ ʹǣ ǮǯǤ PigChase Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ Ǥ Chapter7:howbesttoplaywithpigs? ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ 42chapterone Ǥ Ǧ Ǯ ǯǡ ǦǤ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǯ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͳͲȌ ǮǦ Ǧ ǯ ȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͲȌǡ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǢ ǡ Ǥ Chapter8:canwedesignamoralsubjectthatplayswithpigs? ǡ ͺ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǣ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ PartIV ȋȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm43 Chapter9:whywritingethics? ǫ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǫ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǫ Chapter10:howthentoconclude? ǡͳͲǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Casestudiesandethics ǡ ȋȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 44chapterone ȋȌ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ ǫ ǡ ǫǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯȋ ʹͲͲȌȋ Ȍ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǣǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ
introduction:ethicsonthefarm45 Ǧ ǮǯȋǦȌ Ǥ Ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ ǡ ȋǤǤ ʹͲͲͺȌ ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͻǢ ʹͲͲȌ ȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ ͳͷ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣ ƬǤͳͶ ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ 14 Though this often used statistic is skewed as the Netherlands is a logistics hub for various agricultural products(vanderPoel2014). 46chapterone ǮǯȋǤʹͲͳʹǢ ʹͲͲͺǢ ǡ ǡ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǣ ǡ Ǥ BetweenlivestockandnonǦhumananimals:anoteonthechoiceofwords ǮǦǯǤ Ǯ ǯȂ ȂǤ Ǧ Ǥ ǡǤǤȋͳͻͷȌǡ Ǥ ǡ ǮǦǯ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǯǯ ȋ Ȍ Ǯǯ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǤǮ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǮǯȋveehoudersǡboerenȌ introduction:ethicsonthefarm47 Ǯ ǯǤ ǯ Ǯǯǡ ȋbioindustrieȌ Ǯ ǯǤǡ ʹǮ ǯȋ ȌǮǯǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ʹ ǡǮǯȋ ȌǤ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǤǡǮǯ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǦǤ Ǯ ǯǮǯǡǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Ȃ ȋ ǯ ȌǤ ȋ ǨȌ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ ȋʹͲͳͲȌ ǮǯǤ ǤǡǮ ǯǤ
48chapterone Whattolookforelsewhere ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡǡȋʹͲͲͻȌǢ ǤȋʹͲͲͷȌǢ Ǥ ȋʹͲͳͲȌǢ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲʹȌǢ ȋʹͲͲȌǢ ȋʹͲͲȌǢ ǤȋʹͲͲȌǤ Ȃǡ ǡ ȋȌ Ȃ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ ǡ ǤǮǯ Ǥ ǡ ǯǤ ǡ ǣǮǡ ǯǯǡ ǡ Ǥ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋͳͻͻͷǢʹͲͲͶǢʹͲͲͺǢʹͲͲͺȌ ȋʹͲͳͲȌǡ ȋǦǦȌ ǡ ǣȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǢǡǡȋʹͲͳͳȌǢǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͷȌǤǡǯǤ introduction:ethicsonthefarm49 ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
PartI
Ethicsonandbeyondthefarm ǡ ʹ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ͵ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
Chapter2
Farmersengagedindeliberativepractices–anethnography
2.1Introduction15 Talking‘ethics’withfarmers? ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ Ǣǡ ǡǦ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ DzǯǡdzǤ ǡ ǫ ǡ Ǥ ǫ Ǯ ǯǡ ǫ ǫ 15 A slightly abbreviated version of this chapter has been published as: Driessen, Clemens (2012). Farmers Engaged in Deliberative Practices; An Ethnographic Exploration of the Mosaic of Concerns in Livestock Agriculture,JournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics25(2):163Ͳ179. 54chaptertwo Amosaicofconcerns ȋǤǤͳͻͺͶǢ ʹͲͲͳǢʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ ͳǤʹǡǣ - Ǣ - Ǣ - Ǣ - Ǣ - ǡǡǡ - Ǣ - Ǣ - Ǣ - Ǣ - Ǣ - ǡ Ǣ - Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ͳͻͻͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲ͵Ǣ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǮ ǯǡ Ǥǡ ȋǤǤʹͲͲͳǢ ʹͲͲͳǢʹͲͲͷǢ ʹͲͲͻȌǢ Ǥ farmersengagedindeliberativepractices55 Farmerethics Ǯ ǯǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ȋʹͲͲͻȌǤ ȋȌ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡȋȌ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͺȌ ȋ ʹͲͲͳȌǡ Ǥ Outline ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǦǦ 56chaptertwo Ǥ ǡ ǡǤǡ ǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǯ Ǥ
2.2Threeapproachestothemosaicofconcerns Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Principlistethics ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǣ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻͶȌǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲȌǤ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǦǡǦ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǥͳ Ǯ ǯǡ
16Eventhoughethicalanalysisintermsofprinciplescanbeinstrumentalinbroadeningtheunderstandingsof ethicalconcernsinsocietaldebates.Especiallywhenappendingprincipledethicaltheorieswithparticipatory approaches, these can provide ways to guide decision making on societal issues (e.g. Kaiser and Forsberg 2001). farmersengagedindeliberativepractices57 ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ ǦǤ Technologicaloptimization ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲ͵Ǣ ͳͻͻͻȌǤ Ǥ ǮǦ ǯ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ ȋǤǤǤʹͲͲͲȌǤ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǣ Ǯǯȋ ǤʹͲͲȌǤ ȋ ǮǯȌǡ ǡ ȋǤǤ ǤʹͲͲͺȌǤǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ethicsbyengagementinpractice Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǦ Ȍ Ǥǡ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǣ
58chaptertwo ȋ ͳͻͻͻȌǤ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥͳ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǦǤͳͺ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
2.3Researchingethicsbydoingfieldwork EthicsandEthnography ǡ
17 This does not mean a mere focus on the autonomy side of the pluralist ethical approach. In farmers’ decisionsandinpublicdeliberationsthefullspectrumofethicalprinciplesinsomeformcancometothefore. 18Therehavebeennumerousresearchprojectstodesignsustainablefarmingsystemsthatactivelyinvolve farmers (e.g. Bos 2008). And agricultural research, especially within the organic sector, has a tradition of studyingissuesincollaborationwithfarmersandtoincludetheirviewpointsandexperiences(e.g.Waiblinger etal2000).AlsofarmersthemselveshavesetͲuplocalinitiativesfortechnologicalandinstitutionalwaysof dealing with a variety of concerns (e.g. Eshuis and Stuiver 2005). But these are mostly not explicitly understoodasinvolvingethicalchoicesandtradeͲoffs.Thethirdapproachhereisnotmeantinoppositionto theseefforts,buttohighlightwaysofactivelydealingwithethicalconcernswithinthem.Whilethegeneral thrustofpublicdebateandpolicymakingwithregardtotheseissuesisaimedtowardsgenericregulationsand topͲdowndecisionmaking. farmersengagedindeliberativepractices59 Ǥ Ǯ ǯȋͳͻͺͺȌǡ Ǥ Ǥǡǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻȌǤ ǡ ǮǦǯ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲȌǤȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ ȋ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥͳͻ
19Theseincludenotonlythefarmedanimals,butalsowildanimalslivingonfarms,suchasmeadowbirdsand theirpredators:Manyfarmsparticipateinschemestoprotectnestingmeadowbirdsofendangeredvarieties. Volunteersmarkthenestsofofthesebirdssofarmerscanmowaroundthem.However,predatorstendto findoutaboutthemeaningsoftheflagsinthefield,andusethesetofindtheirprey.Farmersandvolunteers havebeensearchingfornewwaysofindicatingnestsinordertopreventthis. 60chaptertwo Howtostudyethicsinthefield ǡǫǡ ǡ ǫ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ Ǣ Ǣ ǤʹͲ ǡǦ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡȋȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ
2.4Farmingasamatterofmixedmotives ǡ Ǯ ǯǫ Ǧ Ǧ ǡ 20Allinall,thenumberoffarmersthatwerevisited,orsomehowinteractedwith,wasaboutfifty,invarious degreesofindividualencountersanddepthoftalks.Aboutthesamenumberofvocationalstudents(inthree weeklongexcursions)ofdifferenteducationallevelswasspokento,mostofwhomhadafarmingbackground, workedonafarm,andplannedtotakeovertheparentalfarm.ThestudyisconfinedtoDutchfarmers,mostly dairy and pig farmers, with a few poultry (laying hen or broiler) farmers. The farmers were predominantly male,thoughmanyofthefarmswereofthe‘maatschap’(partnership)legalformatandincludedanactive roleforwomen;aboutsixofthefarmersandaboutthirteenoftheparticipatingstudentswerefemale.An effortwasmadetointeractwithavarietyoftypesoffarmers,thoughanemphasiswasonmore‘innovative’ ones who experiment with new practices and techniques; Organic (and perhaps somewhat ‘eccentric’) farmersarelikelytohavebeenoverrepresented.Thischapter,northerestofthethesis,notsomuchaimsto be‘representative’offarmersingeneral,butrathertoproposewaysofdiscussingfarmpracticesthatconnect to the experiences and outlooks of farmers who are explicitly reflective and willing to engage in forms of publicdeliberation. farmersengagedindeliberativepractices61 ǡ ǦǤ Ǧ ȋǤǤ Ȍǡ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǮǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ theethical Ǥ ǣDz ǡ ǡǡǤ Ǥ ǯǤdz ǡ ǣ Dz Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǯǡ Ǥdzǡ Ȃ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǣ Dzǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥdz Ǥ
62chaptertwo ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǥ ǣ ȋͳͻͻͷȌǤ ǡdoubleattitude ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǤȋǮǯȌ Ǥ ǡȂ Ȃ Ǧ ȋ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ
2.5Regimesofjustificationasamodeltodrawoutthemoralcomplexityof farmingpractices Ordersofworth ǡ Ǯǯ ȋͳͻͻͳȌǤ ǡ
farmersengagedindeliberativepractices63 ȋ Ȍ Ǥʹͳ ǣ inspirationǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ domestic ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥrenown ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥcivic ȋȌ ǡ ǡ Ǥ market ǡ Ǥ Ǥ industrialǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥʹʹ ǡ Ǥʹ͵ 21Withthismodelforempiricalresearch,conventiontheoryoffersawaytotakeseriouslytheagencyand justifications of actors, while also allowing for the existence of (performed) forms of universality. Thereby creating a middle ground of conceiving agency, between technological or structural determinism and ideal autonomousethicalagents. 22Asanexampleofhowargumentsonanissuecanbedrawnfromthesevariousorders,onecouldfocuson ourethicalconcernsoveranimals:Farmerscouldbeconvincedtoimprovethetreatmentoftheiranimalsin ordertoraisetheirproductivityandlowercosts(industrial),ortheycouldbemotivatedtodosoasabusiness opportunity,bygainingahigherpriceforwelfarelabelledproducts(market).Wemaybeinclinedtowantto treatanimalshumanelybasedonexperiencesofcaringforourpetsandhavingpersonalrelationswithanimals (domestic),orduetocelebritiesthatcampaignfortheethicaltreatmentofanimals(renown).Wemayaswell beconvincedbyactivistgroupsarguingfortheinstitutionalizationofanimalrights(civic),orwemayhavehad a life changing experience after encountering in the wild a whale, dolphin, elephant or another ‘honorary primate’,orholdareligiousconvictionthatrequiresreverenceordutiestowardsanimals(inspired). 23Notalwaysdopeopleengageinjustificatoryexplanationsforwhattheydo;somesocietalprocessesare contingent,sometimespeoplemakeprivatearrangementsoutsideoftheseorders,orvariousformsofpower areexercisedwithoutjustification. 64chaptertwo Ǥ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ ȋͳͻͻͻǢʹͲͲͲȌǤʹͶ ȋǤǤͳͻͻǢ ǡʹͲͲͲȌǤ ǣ Ǣ Ǣ Ǣ Ǥ ȋʹͲͲͻǡ ͶͲȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Farminginmultipleordersofworth ǡ ȋȌǡ ȋ ȌǤ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǯǯǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤDz 24Theorderscanbeunderstoodinavarietyofways.Whentakenasamodelforstudyingcontroversies,the ordersforma‘moralgeography’inwhichthetypesofargumentscanbechartedthatplayaroleinpractices andconflictresolution.Alternatively,itcanbeusedasaframeworkfordevelopingcriticalargumentsinternal or external to an order. When the types of justifications are taken to be incommensurable normative paradigms, the model can even function as an approach to resolve issues, through determining the appropriateorderforeachsituation.Usedinthatwayitwouldresemblethetheoryofspheresofjusticeof Michael Walzer (1984). There the different domains correspond with institutions, such as political, market, loveandreligiousinstitutions,whichareeachorganizedaccordingasinglesocietalprinciple(cf.Lamontand Thevenot2000,6). farmersengagedindeliberativepractices65 Ǣ Ǣ ǡǤdz ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǥ ǤǤ Dz ǫdz ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ȌǮǯǡ ǣ Dz ͵ͲͲ ǡǤdzDz ǫdzDzǥǡǡǤdz Ǯǯ ȏǮǯȐǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ȋȌǡ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋ ȌǤ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǣDzǦǡ ǡ Ǥdz ǡ Ǥ ǡȋȌ ȋ ͳͻͻͻǡ͵ͲȌǡ Ǥ
66chaptertwo ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲͺȌǤDz ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤǦ ǢǡǢ ǡ ʹͷͲͲǡ ͷͲ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥdz ȋ ǡ ȌǤ Ǧ Ǯǯǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ǡǡ ȋȌǤ Ǣ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ȋȌǡ ȋ Ȍǡȋ ȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ǤǤʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ Ǧ ȋ ǡǦ Ǯ ǯ Ǯ ǯȌ Dz Ǥdz ǡ Ǯǯǡ
farmersengagedindeliberativepractices67 ȋȌ ǡǡǤ Ǯǯ ȋȌ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Themorallandscapeoffarmingvscompartmentalizedethics Ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥʹͷ ǡǡ Ǥʹ ȋȌ ǡȋȌ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǣ Dz
25 Of course there are a variety of other institutions where a mixture of orders of worth are necessary to understandtheirmeaningandpractices;thinkonlyofthe(idealofthe)university,whichcomprisesindustrial (producing knowledge workers), market (adding value, spin offs of research), inspired (creativity, self actualization),domestic(campus,modellingteacherstudentrelationsonpatriarchal,ormatriarchal,ideals), and civic (producing autonomous and responsible citizens, doing research for the betterment of mankind) ordersofworth.Buthereaswellitcanbearguedthatindustrial(outputmeasurements)andmarketnorms (increasing numbers of students and tuition fees, and meeting the market demands for workers) are increasinglydominant. 26Regardingtheordersofworthandourdealingwithanimalsitisclearthatourmotivesandjustificationsfor certaintreatmentsofanimalsarevaried,butalsothatinmodernsocietythereisatendencytoseparatethese understandingsofanimalsoverdifferenthumananimalrelationsandsocietaldomains.Animalpracticesand theattendingrelationsandmeaningscanthenlegitimatelyonlybeofonekind,andfarmingisnolongerone ofthese‘singular’practices(cf.Korthals2004;Harbers2004). 68chaptertwo dz Dz ǯ dzǤ ǡDzdzǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ focal practice ǡ responsetoplaceȋʹͲͲͲȌǡ NIMBY Ǥ Ǥ
2.6Anexampleofethicaldecisionmakingaspracticalengagement:cowhorns ǡǫ ǡ Ǥʹ ǫ Hornsanddehorninginthefield ǡǣ DzǡǤ ǡ Ǣ ȋȌ buttedtopiecesȏȐǤǯ ǢǤdz 27Anditisagoodexampleofacomplex,multiͲfactorialissuethatisbeststudiedbyinvolvingtheviewsand experiencesoffarmers,astherehavebeensomeeffortsinthepast(Waiblingeretal.2000;BaarsandBuitink 1995). farmersengagedindeliberativepractices69 grumblingǤ DzǫdzDzǮ ǯǤ ǡǤȏǥȐ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǤȏǥȐ ǡ ǤȏǥȐǡ ǡǤ ǡǤdz ǡ Ǥ Dz ǡ Ǥ Ǥdz ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǦǤ ǣ Dz ȏȐǤ Ǥǡ ȋgezellig)ǡǡ ȋhuiselijker)Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǤdzȏǥȐDz ǡǤ ǣǮ ǡ Ǩǯdz
70chaptertwo Argumentsconcerninghornsanddehorning ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǯǯ ǡȋ Ȍǡ ȋȌ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǮǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲͺǢͳͻͻͷȌǡ ȋȌ ȋ ȌǤǡ ǣ ǡǦǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ farmersengagedindeliberativepractices71 Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǥǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥʹͺ ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
2.7 Implications of the sketch of farmer ethics for deliberations on sustainability Publicdebateinfusedbyfarmerexperiences ǫ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǦǦ Ǥ 28Theissuecanbefoundtocontaindifferentviewsonthecharacterandbehaviourofcows:asinprinciple benevolent(inspired),orasinneedofguidanceandcontrol(domestic). 72chaptertwo Ǯǯ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ethicsasreflexivityinpractice ǡ the Ǥ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯȋʹͲͲͺȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
Chapter3
Pigtowersandinvitromeat:disclosingmoralworldsbydesign ǯ ǡ Ǥ ȏǤǤǤȐ ȏȐ ǡ ǡǡǡǡǡǢ Ǥǯ ǡAModestProposalforPreventingtheChildrenofPoorPeopleFromBeinga BurthentoTheirParentsorCountry,andforMakingThemBeneficialtothePublick,ͳʹͻ
3.1Introduction29 Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ ȋǦȌ Ǥ ǣ ȋvarkensflats Ȍǡ Ǧ Ǯ ǯǤinvitromeatǣ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ 29 This chapter has been published as: Driessen, Clemens, Michiel Korthals. (2012) Pig towers and InͲvitro meat:disclosingmoralworldsbydesign.SocialStudiesofScience,42(6):799Ͳ822. 76chapterthree ǡ ȋǤʹͲͲʹȌǤ Technologybeyondthedichotomyofthreatorsolution ʹͲ ǮǦǯǡ ȋ ͳͻͻǢͳͻͺͺȌ. ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻͻȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǦ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋȌǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͺͺǢʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ Ǧ Ǣ pigtowersandinvitromeat77 ȋʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲǢ ʹͲͲͺȌǡ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǡ subǦpolitical ǡ ȋ ǡͳͻͻʹȌǤ ǡ ȋȌ ǡ Ǥ ȋʹͲͲͷȌǡ Ǥ ǡ ǦȋǤʹͲͲʹȌǤ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ disclose moral worldsǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ͵Ͳ ǡ ȋȌ ȋǦȌǡ ǡ Ǥ
30 The ‘precautionary principle’ is mainly invoked to argue against accepting new technologies, rather than againstputtingupwiththerisksofcontinuingwiththestatusquo(VandenBelt2003;Latour2011). 78chapterthree 3.2Redesigninganimalfarming:pigtowersandinvitromeat ȋǮǯȌ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Pigtowers Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡǤ͵ͳ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ͳͻͻͲ Ǯǯȋvarkensflat ȌǤ DeltaparkǦǡ Ǥ ͵ͲͲǡͲͲͲ ǡ ͳǤʹ ǡ ȋǤʹͲͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤǣ ǡ ǡ
31 Around 2010, Dutch pig farms contained on average about 3000 pigs, which is more than double the number of pigs per farm in 1995. Also, in other sectors of livestock husbandry, the average farm grows continually,withsimilartrendsinothercountries. pigtowersandinvitromeat79 Ǣǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣǮ ǡ ǡ ǯ͵ʹ ȋ ʹͲͲͲǡ ͵͵Ǧ͵ͶȌǤ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǧ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͲǡ ͷǢ ʹͲͲͳȌ. agroparks ȋʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ȋʹͲͲͲǡͳͺȌǡ ȋʹͲͳͲȌǤǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͲǢ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶȌǡ Ǧ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ͷ ʹͲͲͲ ȄǮ ǯȄ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ 32 Already in 1997, a Master’s student at the faculty of Architecture of Delft University of Technology had comeupwithasimilardesign,alsoincludingaslaughterhouseanddeducingitsrationalefromspatialplanning anditsdimensionsfromtheinternallogicofintensivepigfarming(BerghauserPont,1997). 80chapterthree ǡ ȋ ǡʹͲͲͶȌǤ͵͵ǡ ǡǮǯǡ Ǥ ǦͶͶǡ ʹʹǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͳȌǤͶͶ Ǥ͵ʹ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ͳͻ͵ͲȋǤͳͻ͵Ǣ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ʹͲͲǡǡ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ʹͲͲǡ varkensflat ǡ ǡ ͵ͲǡͲͲͲ ǡ Ǥ ȋǦǡȌ Ǥ ǮǦǯ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡǮ ǯǡ ǡ ǡ
33 This public reception had been foreseen in the original report: ‘The husbandry system described above requiresconsiderablechangesin(social)views:provincesandmunicipalitiesshouldbepreparedtoallowpig flats in agriͲindustrial areas; the public opinion should consider such a system of production and housing animalfriendly;thepublicandagrariansectorshouldacceptthechangeoffamilyfarmstoreallyindustrial productionofpigmeat.Currentlytheseconditionsarenotmet’(Thinktank2000,34).Inanalysesofthepublic response,itwasthoughttohave‘animageproblemwithconsumers’(DeWiltetal.2000,18)or,inhindsight, amatterof‘communicationnotadequatelydealtwith’(InnovatieNetwerk2004). pigtowersandinvitromeat81 ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǦǤ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ ǡ ʹ ǡ ȋǤʹͲͲȌǤ Invitromeat ǡ ǡ ȋǡʹͲͲͳȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǮǯǤ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ͵Ͷ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ 34Forthemostpart,thechallengeisnotconsideredamatterofproducingtherighttaste.Themeatindustry hasdevelopedwaysofinfusingtastefulnessintomeatproductsofallkinds.Onewayofusingthistechniquein meatproductionisnotmarketingitassuch,butmixingitwithnormalmeatinproductssuchassausages, therebycreatinganobjectwithanevenmoreambivalentmoralcharacter. 82chapterthree Ǥ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋ ǡȌ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ͵Ͳǡ ʹͲͳʹ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ͵ͷ ǡ ǣǯ ǯǡ Ǯ ȏȐ Ǧ ǡ ǯȋʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ ǤǦ ʹͲͲ ǡ kunstvlees ȋǮ ǯȌ kweekvlees ȋǮ ǦǯȌǤ Ǧ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ ȋ ǡ ȌǤ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ ǣ Ǯǯ Ǯ ǯ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ 35ThedeadlinewasextendedfromtheinitialdateofJune2010. pigtowersandinvitromeat83 ȋȌ ȋʹͲͲʹȌǤ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ ǣ Ǯǯǡ Ǯǯ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ȂȂ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ
3.3Thedynamicsgeneratedbypigtowersandinvitromeat ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǣȋͳȌ ǡ ȋʹȌ ȋ͵Ȍ Ǥ Politicalprocess:Howthingsgenerateissues,debatesandpublics ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǣ Ǧ ǫ Ǥ
84chapterthree ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ǮǦǯǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ ǮǦ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǯ ǯȋʹͲͲͲȌǡǮ ǯ ȋ ǡ ʹͲͲͲǢ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǣ Ǯ ǯǮ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋǮǫǯȌȋȌ ȋǮ ǯȌǤ ʹͲͲǡǡ ǮǦ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ’ȋNieuw GemengdBedrijfȌǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ
pigtowersandinvitromeat85 ȋǮ ǯȌ Ǥ Milieudefensieȋ Ǯ ǯȌǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ varkensflat Ǧǡ Ǥ ǣǮ ǯȋ ʹͲͲȌǡ ȋǤʹͲͳͳȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ʹͲͳͲǡ ǡǮǯǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ not ǣǡǤ Ǧ ǣ ȋVarkensin NoodDierenbeschermingȌǤ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ
86chapterthree Ǥ ǡ ȋBond voor VegetariersȌ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ƬǤǡǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Shiftingissueunderstandings Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ͳͻͻͲǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǯ ǯ ȋʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ
ǣʹ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ȋʹͲͲͲȌǤǡ ǡ ǡ pigtowersandinvitromeat87 Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ ǤǦǦ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣ Ǯ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥǯ ǡ Ǯǡ ǡ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ varkensflat Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ͳͲǡͲͲͲ ǯǯȋ ǡ ǣ ʹͲͲȌǤ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͻǢ Ǥ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
88chapterthree ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳǢ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ͵ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ ǣǮ ǡǨǯ ǯǦ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͳͲȌǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ͵Ǧ
36See,forexample,Langelaanetal.2010:“theproductionprocesscanbemonitoredindetailinalaboratory, which could result in the elimination of food borne illnesses, such as mad cow disease or salmonella infection.” 37 See, for example, Haagsman et al.2009, for a discussion of the possibilities for producing a plant based growthmedium:‘byusingrecombinantͲDNAtechnologyithasbecomepossibletoletplantcellsproducesuch animalproteins.’ pigtowersandinvitromeat89 Ǥǡ ǣ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͳǢ Ǥ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ȋʹͲͲȌǤ Ǯ ǯ ‘bioǦindustrie’ ǡ ǮǦ ǯǤ ǣ varkensflatǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǤǮ ǯǡǮǯǡǮʹǤͲǯǡǮǯǮǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣǮǯǡǮǯǤǡ ǡ ǡ
90chapterthree Ȁ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯǣ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Newmoralsubjectsandnewformsofpoliticalagencyandresponsibility ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ȃ ǡ ȋǤʹͲͳͳǢʹͲͲͻȌȂ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡǡȋ Ǧ Ȍǡ ȋ ȌǤ ǣ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ pigtowersandinvitromeat91 ǡǮ ǯȋͳͻͻͷȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǦǤ agropark ǣǮ Ǩǯ agropark ǣǮ ǯǨǯǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥǡ ǡ ǦǦǡ Ǯ ǯǦǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǮǯǤ ǣǮ Ǧ ǦǦǦǤ ͳͲǡ ̵Dz dz Ǥ ͺͲ ǯȋʹͲͲͺȌǤ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ
92chapterthree ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡǯȋǤʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲͻȌǤǡ ǡ ǣ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǡ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ Ǯ ǯǡ ȋʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǯ Ǧ ǯ ǡ
pigtowersandinvitromeat93 Ǥ ǡ ȋʹͲͳͲȌ Ǥ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ȁ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
3.4Dewey,Heideggerandthedynamicsofmoralworlddisclosure Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ǯǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ȃ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯȋǤʹͲͲȌǤ ȋʹͲͲͷȌǤ Ǯ ǯȋͳͻͷͶǢʹͲͲͲǢʹͲͲǢʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ gatherings
94chapterthree ǡ Ǯǯ ȋ ͳͻͳǢʹͲͲͷǡʹ͵Ǣǡ ʹͲͲͻǡͳ͵ͺǢ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ TechnologiesthatrenderHeideggerianthinkingmainstream ǯǡǣ Ǯǯ ȋGestellȌ ǡ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ ǡ Gestell Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ǯȌǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ ȋʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ Ǯǯǡ Ǣ ǡȋzuhandenȌȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ͵ͺ ǡ ǡ 38‘Agricultureisnowamechanizedfoodindustry,inessencethesameasthemanufactureofcorpsesinthe gaschambersanddeathcamps...’,runstheinfamousquoteintranslation,thoughinGermanitsaysAckerbau foragriculture,thuspointingatarableratherthananimalfarming(Schirmacher1983).ThecharacterElizabeth CostelloinCoetzee’s(2003)novelbythatnamemakesasimilarcomparisonbetweentheslaughterofanimals andtheholocaust,therebyalienatingherselffromthepeoplearoundher.Itisthereforeremarkablethatwith pigtowersandinvitromeat95 ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ǫ ǡ ͵ͲǤͲͲͲ ȋʹͲͲͲȌǤ ǡ ǫ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ ǣʹͳ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ͵ͻǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ Onactivelyrelatingtoprocessesofworlddisclosure ǡǦ Ǥ ǯǡ ǡ
thearrivalofthePigTowerproposal,whatwasamarginalandhighlycontroversialposition(Patterson2002) suddenly becomes broadly considered as a plausible and widely accepted analogy through which to understandanddiscussindustrializedfarming. 39‘Youcan’traise—well,youcanraisepigsinside[theverticalfarm]ifyou’dlike.Alotofanimalrightspeople wouldobjecttothatsowe’veeliminatedthatasapossibility.Butnooneobjectstochickens.Idon’tknow why’(Despommier2009). 96chapterthree ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ͳͻȌǤ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǢ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ Úǣ Ǯ ǡ ǯ Ǯǯ ȋͳͻǡ ʹͺȌǤ Ǥ ǣ ǡ Ǯ ǯȋ ͳͻǡ͵͵ȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͷȌǤ ǡ Ǯ ǯǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͲǡ ͳͲͲȌǤ ǤǤǮ ǯ ǡ
pigtowersandinvitromeat97 Ǥ ȋʹͲͲͶǢ ʹͲͳͲȌǡ ȋʹͲͲʹǢʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ ȋͳͻǢʹͲͲͷǢͳͻͻͶǢͳͻͻͶȌǤͶͲ ǡ ǯ ǫ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ȁ ǤǮǯǡ Ǥǡ ǡȋ Ȍ Ǥ Technologiesfunctioningasart Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣǮ ǡǡǡǯȋʹͲͲͷǡ ͵ͷͻȌǤǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǤǮ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ 40Though,forothers,itisDeweywhoposesathreattodemocracy,withhis‘equationofinquirywithscientific experimentation’, thereby being ‘excessively optimistic about enlightenment rationality’, while ‘lacking a dystopiansensibilityforthetechnocraticthreatsofscience’(Feenberg2003). 98chapterthree ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͷǡ ͵ͷͻȌǤ ǡ techneǡ ǤǦ ǡ ǯ ȋͳͻͳȌǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǤͶͳ ȋʹͲͲʹȌǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͳȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ ǤȋǤʹͲͲǢʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͻȌǡ Ǯ ǯȋͳͻͺͶȌ ǫ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
41Formoreexamplesofhowconjunctionsofartandsciencecanproduceshiftingdefinitionsandpracticesof politics,seeGabrysandYusoff(2011). pigtowersandinvitromeat99 ǡǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
PartII
Milkingrobots ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǣǤ Ͷ Ǥ automatic milking systemǤǦ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǫ ͷǤ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋȌǤ
Chapter4
Cowsdesiringtobemilked? MilkingrobotsandthecoͲevolutionofethicsandtechnology
4.1Introduction42 ͳͻͲǡ ȋȌ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͲǢ ʹͲͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǤͶ͵ Ǥ ǡͶͶ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ
42Publishedas:Driessen,Clemens,andLeonieHeutinck.2014.Cowsdesiringtobemilked?Milkingrobotsand thecoͲevolutionofethicsandtechnologyonDutchdairyfarms.AgricultureandHumanValues.(Onlinefirst) 43InmorelargeͲscaleoperationsthiscanbeupto30cows,asituationwhichiscommonforinstanceinparts oftheUS.ThisintroductiondescribesthecommonsituationondairyfarmsintheNetherlands. 44ThoughforinstanceinthesouthoftheNetherlandsonmanyfarmsmilkingtendstobedoneaccordingtoa laterrhythm,somethingthatissometimesascribedtotheregionbeingCatholicratherthanProtestant. 104chapterfour
ǣ Ǯǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ȅ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǡǯ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹȌǤ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǤǤʹͲͳʹȌǤ ȋȌǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǯ ǯȄ ȄȋvreemdearbeidȌȋ ʹͲͲͶǢʹͲͲȌǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ ǡ ȋȌ ͳͻͻͲǤ ȋǤǤ ʹͲͲͻȌǡ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȍǡ ǡ ǡ ǤͶͷ 45Asof 2012intheNetherlands,morethan 2500farmersoperatean AMS,whichmeansover 10%ofthe Dutch dairy farms, while over the past few years about a third of new milking installations were robotic (Stichting KOM n.d.). The use of AMS in North America is expected to rise as well, for instance, by the manufacturerLely(Hoard’sDairyman2012). cowsdesiringtobemilked?105
ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋǤǤ ǡ ǡ Ȍ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ȋǤʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǧ attention listǤ ǡ ȋȌ waitingarea Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ
4.2Conceptualbackground:coͲevolutiononthefarm ǡ Ǥ ȋȌ ȋȌǡ ǦǤ ǡ ǣ Dz dzȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌDz Ǧ
106chapterfour
dzȋͳͻͻʹȌǡDz Ǧ dz Dz Ǧ dz ȋ ͳͻͻʹȌ Dz Ǧ dz ȋǡ ǡʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ Ǧ Ȁ ȀǤǡ ǡ Ǣ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǣ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǮ ǯ Ǥǡ Ǯǯ ǡ ǦǤ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǡǯ ǡ ǡȋ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡ Ǯ ǦǤǯͶ
46CoͲevolutionmoreoverisacommonnotioninunderstandingsofagriculturalinnovationthatconsiderthe adoption of new technologies and the development of knowledge as intertwined with alternative ways of cowsdesiringtobemilked?107
Ǯ ǯ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ EarlierdairyfarmingcoǦevolution:fromtiestallstoloosehousing Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ ͳͻͲǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͲȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲǢ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋǡ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ
organizingagriculturalpractice.Thisisseentoincludepolicy,legislation,infrastructure,funding,andmarket developments,involvingcompetingworldviewsandredistributionofcostsandbenefits(Klerkx,Mierlo,and Leeuwis 2012). Geels has furthermore pointed at the multiple levels at which this process of coͲevolution takes place: new innovations emerge in niches, compete with established socioͲtechnical configurations, overarchedbyasocietallevelofslowculturalandmaterialchange(Geels2005).Thisthesisdoesnotexplicitly grapple with this work in (agricultural) innovation, though it does figure in the background, and it will be interestingtoseewhatimplicationsmaybedrawnfromacknowledgingparticularrolesofethics‘intransition’. 108chapterfour
ǡ ȋǤǤǤʹͲͳͲȌǤ EthicsincoǦevolution? ǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋʹͲͲͶȌ ǡ ǦǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͷȌǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ȅ Ȅ Ǥ ǣǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹȌǤ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲʹȌ ȋʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ Dz dz cowsdesiringtobemilked?109
Dz Ǥdz ǡ ǡ Dz Ǥdz ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǫ ǯ Ǯ Ǧǯ Ȅ Ǧ actantsȄ ȋʹͲͲͷȌǤ ǫ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲʹǢ ʹͲͲͻǡͶͳȌǤ Ǧ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǣ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͺȌ DzǦǤdz Ǥ Ǧ Dzǡdz Dzǡdz Dzǡdz Dzǡdz Dzdz
110chapterfour
ǦȋʹͲͲͶǢʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡȄ Ȅ Ǥ Commonapproachestofarmanimalwelfare Ǥ Ȅ ǡ ǤDzdzȋ DzdzȌ ǡ ȋȌ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͺǢ Ǥ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ Dz dz ǡ ǤǤǡ Dz dz Ǥ ǡ ǡȋǤʹͲͳͳȌǤ Ȅ ǡǡȋ ͳͻͻͷȌȄ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡDzǡdz ǡ ǡ ǡǡȋʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡǮǯ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ʹȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ cowsdesiringtobemilked?111
ǡ ǣ Ǯ ǯǡȄ ǤͶǮǯ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ȋȌ Ȁǡ ȋȌǤͶͺ
4.3Empiricalapproach ʹͲͲʹͲͳͲ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǧ ȋǦ Ǥ ʹͲͲͳǢ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǯ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 47Thisactiveprocesslearningisalsoclearinthecase ofcowsthatare ‘dedomesticated’andmadetolive independentlyinnaturereserves(LorimerandDriessen2013). 48 This means that in the Netherlands the milking robot, unlike other instances of agricultural automation, tendsnottobeconsideredasanalternativetomigrantlabour. 112chapterfour
4.4Ambiguoustechnologyassessment Technologicaldeterminism:farmtechnologyinnovatorsonalogicaltrajectory ǡ Ȅ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȅ Ǥ ͳͻͺͲǡ ȋǡǡ ǡǡ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǤͶͻ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥǡ Ǣ ǡ ȋǤʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ 49 In terms of Akrich (1992) one could say the robot clearly came with a “script” that required certain behaviors of both human and nonͲhuman actors. This does not mean that thereby necessarily the robot everywhere produces the same behaviors and even discourses, irrespective of particularities of places and farmers. The potential differences in how AMS may be implemented and itself may be changed as part of regional“niches”ofcoͲevolutionisaninterestingthemeforfurtherresearch. cowsdesiringtobemilked?113
Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Nobodyhadaskedforthis‘technologypush’ Ǥ Dz ǡdz ȋͳͻͻ͵ǡ͵ȂͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥǡ ͳͻͻ͵ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǤͷͲ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǤTimebudgets ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲǢ ʹͲͲǢ ǤǤȌǤ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥsomatic cellcounts,ͷͳ ǡ ǡ
50 “Experience teaches however that this type of developments continue and that the results of it will be applied,evenifitisnotalwayseconomicallywarranted.Thereforealsoforthemilkingroboteventuallythere willbeafuture.Alltoohighexpectationshoweverforitsapplicationintheshortrundonotseemwarranted” (ManderslootandVanScheppingen1991,p.30). 51SeealsoAtkins(2010,247)onthebroaderhistoricalshiftindefiningmilkqualityinbacteriologicalterms. 114chapterfour
ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲʹȌǤͷʹ ǡ Ǥ Technologyassessmentinahybrid,dynamicworld ǯ ǫ ǡ ǫ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ͳͻͻͺȌǣ Dz dz Ǥͷ͵ǡǡ ǡ Dz ǦǡdzȄ Ȅ ȋʹͲͲͷȌǤǡ Ǧ Ǥ ȋ ͳͻͻͻȌǤǡǡ ǦȄ ǡ Ǥ ʹͲͲͳǡ ȋȌǡ Ǥ ǣ Ǥ ǡǣǫ ǫ ǫͷͶ ǡ ǫ
52“Iamfondofarobot,butthecellcountisaproblemonmanyrobotfarms.Ihaveseendozensofthem[but] Iamnotsurewhatcausesit.Nottreating[thecows]intime,ortoolittlecheckingup,or[farmers]believingit willbeOKanyway”(Prins2006). 53Severalfarmersandothercommentators(implicitly)usethefarmingstylesframeworkdescribedbyVander Ploeg(2003)toexplainthedifferentfarmeridentitiesandtheirrelationstomilkingrobotpractices. 54InseveralcountriesinitialattemptstocreateaworkingAMSfailed,suchasinJapan,theUS,andGermany (DeKoninginterview2008). cowsdesiringtobemilked?115
ǫ ǡ Ǯǡǯ ȋͳͻͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ Ǧ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǤ AssessingtheimpactoftheAMSondairyfarmingpractice ǡ ǡ ǫ Ǥ Ǥ ȋǤǤʹͲͲͶǢ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ͳͻͻͶǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǤͳͻͻͶȌǤ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ ǡȋǦ ʹͲͲͺǡͶͲǢǤʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ 116chapterfour
ǤǦ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǯ Ǧ ȋʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡǡǤȋʹͲͳͳǡ ʹͲȌ Ǧ Ǥ ǣDz ǡ ͵ǡͲͲͲ Ǥdz ǡ ǡ ǡǡ Dz dzȋǤʹͲͳͳǡʹ͵ȌǤ ThemoralambiguityofAMS Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǡǯͷͷ ǡǤǤ
55FortheoftenͲencounteredpromotionoftechnologyinthisJanusͲfacedrhetoricofthe“futureindustry,”in whichnewtechnologiesaredescribedasbothunavoidableandtobeactivelyembraced,seeDeWilde(2000). cowsdesiringtobemilked?117
ȋʹͲͲͻȌǤͷ marketing rhetoricǡ ȋʹͲͲͲǢ ʹͲͲȌǡ ǫ Ǧ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǤȋȌnatureȄȄ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡǡȄ ǡ ȋ Ȍǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡȋȌ Ǥ Ǥ
4.5CoͲevolutionofethicsandAMStechnology Changingdiscourseoncows ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋǤʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ Ǥ 56“Nexttothatthecowshaveafreechoicetowalkindoorsoroutdoors.Thepinnacleofanimalwelfare,don’t wewanttochoosefreelyourselves”(“Grasbaal”2009). 118chapterfour
ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Freedom ǡǤ ǡǡ ǣVoluntaryMilkingSystem. ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ͳͻͷ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ cowautonomyȋ ͳͻͻ͵ȌǤ ȋʹͲͲͲȌǤ Ǥ fullautonomyǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ ȋʹͲͲȌ ǡ Ǥ ǯ cowsdesiringtobemilked?119
ǡ Ǥ ǤǮ ǡǯ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͲǡͳͲͷͲȌǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Cow autonomy ȋ ʹͲͲͲȌǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡͷ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǮǯǮ Ǥǯǡ ǡ ǡ ǦǤ Lazycows,orincompetentfarmers ǯ Ǥ Ǥ
57 This could of course have been due to the discomfort caused by early versions of the robot, as was suggested by an anonymous reviewer. Then it would be interesting to explore whether current robots are attractiveenoughtomotivatethecowstomilkthemselveswithoutfoodreward. 120chapterfour
Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ Dz dzǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͶǢ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǤȋʹͲͳͶȌ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǡ Ǥǡǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Naturalness ǡ naturalness ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ Ǥ ǯ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣDz ǡ dzȋʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ cowsdesiringtobemilked?121
ǡDzǦǡ Ǥdz ǯ Ǥ ǡ natural Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǣ Dzȏ Ȑ ǡǤ ǡ ȏǥȐ dzȋǤǤȌǤ ǡǦ ǡͷͺ ǡunnaturalǤ ǡ forcedǤ Ǥ Ǥ Changingcows Ǥǡ Ǥ ǮǦǦǡǯ Ǯ ǯ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ
58Indeed,whenallquartersofanudderaremilkedforthesamelengthoftimethisisnotnatural.Acalfwould stopsucklingateatwhentherewasnomoremilk—justastheAMScandobydetachingoneteatatatime. 122chapterfour
Ǥͷͻ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Dzdz ǤͲ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ end users Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ ȋǤͳͻͺͷǢʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǥͳ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǣ Dz dz ȋ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ Dz dzȋǦǤ ͳͻͻͻȌǡ Ǥ ǣ Dz ǡ 59In2010aDutchveterinarianstartedperformingplasticsurgeryoncowudderstoliftthemsothattheywere connectable to the robot (Hofs 2010). In this way the cows were saved from slaughter, even though the veterinarianwasbreakingthelawwhileperforminginvasivetreatmentsoncowsforwhichthereisnoexplicit legalexemption. 60ForinstanceBooij(2004)describesacaseinwhichupto20%ofaherdrefusedtoworktherobot,whichled tothefarmerreturningtoaconventionalmilkingparlour. 61Whichcanalsobetakenasasignalthatcowsareunwillingtoparticipateinthepracticeofdairyfarming,or atleastnotwithoutbeingrewarded. cowsdesiringtobemilked?123
dzȋʹͲͳͲȌǤǡDz ǤdzǡDz dz ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ Ǣ ǯ Dz ǡǡ dzȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Dz ǡdz ȋʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǯ Ǥ ǡǦǤȋͳͻͻȌǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ Ǧ ǡ ǡȋ ʹͲͲͶǢ ǤʹͲͲͶȌǤȋ ǡ ǡǣDz ǤdzȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ
124chapterfour
ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǣ ǡ Dz ǡdz ǡǡȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Changingfarmers ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǣ Dz ǡ ǯ dz ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ fitȋǤǤ ǤʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ȋ ǡ Ȍ ȋ ʹͲͲͷǢ ʹͲͳʹȌǢ Dz ǡ dzȋʹͲͲͷȌǤǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ skyboxǡ ǡ Ǥ Dz Ǥdz ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ cowsdesiringtobemilked?125
ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ DzǡǤdz ǡǦǡ ǮǤǯ ǤȋʹͲͲͲȌǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͲȌǤʹ ȄȄ Ȅ Ǥ commodified ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͳ͵Ǣ ȌǤ Ǥ Deskilling?Disciplining? ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ
62Foranalogousworriesaroundroboticsleadingtoadiminishingqualityofcarerelationsinthesphereof healthcare,seeWynsberghe(2012). 126chapterfour
ǡ Ǥ Ǥǡ attentionlistsǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲȌǤ ȋʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǦǤǡǦ ǡ Ǥrobotfarmer Ǥ attentionlists Ǥ͵ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Dz ǡ dzȋʹͲͲͷȌǤ Dz Ǥdzǡ ȋʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ
63 This is what farmers using an AMS are often called, as for instance can be seen on web forums and in professionalmedia,forinstanceVanDrie(2005). cowsdesiringtobemilked?127
ǡǡǦ ǣ Dz ȏȐǤ dzȋʹͲͲͷȌǤ ǡǡDz Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ dz ǣ Dz Ǥ dz ȋ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ CowǦfarmerrelationsandexpectations ǡ ǡǦǤ ǡ ǣ Dz ǡ ǤdzͶDzǯ dzȋʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǣ Dz ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ dzȋʹͲͲǢ ǤʹͲͲʹȌǤ ǡ Dz Ǥdz ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
64 The fact that cows can tell the difference between a robot and a human being can be considered an interestingcontributiontotheessentialistvsconstructivistdilemmasketchedbyRisan(2005). 128chapterfour
ǡ Ǥ ǣ Ǯǯǡ Ǯǯ ȋǤǤʹͲͲ͵ȌǤͷǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ Gainingtimeorbecomingflexible:newmeaningsofbeingafamilyfarmer ǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǫǡ Ǥ ǡǦ ǡ Ǥ ǡǮ dzȋ ʹͲͲͲǡ͵ͳͺȌǤ liberating Ǥ Ǥ ʹͶ Ǥ ǡ ȋǤǤ ʹͲͳʹȌǤǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ 65Forexample,accordingtoananonymouspostonadairyfarmers’webforum,ananalysisofafarmrevealed that: “a robot would generate absolutely no reduction of labour. To the contrary, it generated a stricter planningofactivitiesaswitharobotoneneedstofeedmore(tomakethecowsmoreactive[…])andyou needtowalkamidstthecowsmoreoftentogetthelazycowstotherobot”(Anon.2008). cowsdesiringtobemilked?129
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ̀ͳͲͲǡͲͲͲǡ capitalgoodǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥǡ ǯ ʹͶǡǤ Ǥ Ǥ Dz ǯ dz Ǥ ǡ ȋȌǡ ǦǤ ǡ Dz Ǥdz ǡ ȋȌ ǡ DzǤdz ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǣ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣDzȏ Ȑ Ͷ ǯ ǡ Ǥdz ǣDz ǢǤdzǡǡ ǣDz ǯ dz
66Whichlimitsthe accesstothistechnology,especiallyincountrieswheretheaveragedairyherdsarefar smallerthanabout60lactatingcowsasistheoptimumforrobotuse. 130chapterfour
Dz Ǥ ǯ dzȋʹͲͳʹȌǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǤǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵ǢʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ͳ ǡǦǤ
4.6Conclusion:ethicalassessmentaspartofcoͲevolutionarydynamics ǡ Ǥ Ȅǡ ǡȄ Ǥ moral geographymoral economy Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǡ ǡǡ Ȅ
cowsdesiringtobemilked?131
Ȅ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǫ ǡ ȋȌ Ǧ Ǥ ǫǣ Ȅ ǫRobotcows individuals careforthemselves Ǥ ǫ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋʹͲͲȌ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲǢ ǤʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȌǤ Ǥ ǡǮ ǫǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ thegoodlifeȋthe bad lifeȌ Ǥ individual freedom ǡ robot farmsǤ ǡ forcedcowtraffic Ǥ
132chapterfour
ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǣ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǤǮ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǦǦ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ variable ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȅ Ǥ Dz dz ǡ ǡǤǤ ȋʹͲͲͻȌǤǮ ǯ ǡǤ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ
cowsdesiringtobemilked?133
ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ȄȄ Ǥ objects Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Dz Ǧ dz ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͻȌǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ smart farming, ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǣ ȋȌǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǤʹͲͳ͵Ȍ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǦǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡǤ
Chapter5
Animaldeliberation: takinganimalsseriouslyinpoliticalthoughtandmaterialpractice
Dzǡ ǤǤdz ǡAReporttoanAcademyǡͳͻͳ
5.1Introduction67 ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Dz dz ȋ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ Ǣ dz dz Dzdzȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ȋ ʹͲͲʹȌǡ Ǧ ȋʹͲͲʹȌǤ 67Aslightlyshorterversionofthischapterisforthcomingas:Driessen,Clemens.(2014).AnimalDeliberation. In:M.WissenburgandD.Schlossberg(ed.),AnimalPoliticsandPoliticalAnimals.PalgraveMacmillan. 136chapterfive ȋʹͲͲȌǤ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǡ Ǯǯǣ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ȃ ǡǡ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥͺ Ǧ ǡǦ ȋ ȌǤ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ȃ Ȃ ȋ ʹͲͲʹǢ 68Thispoliticalprocessissomewhatakintoanimalscienceresearchintothe(revealed)preferencesofanimals (FraserandMatthews1997;Dawkins2003).Thoughthistypeofpreferencetestingcanbecriticizedfor offeringalimitedsetofoptionstotheexperimentalsubjects,whosepreferencesmaydependontheirpast experiences(Haynes2008). animaldeliberation137 Ǥ ʹͲͲͷȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǣ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͷȌ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ Ǧǡ Ǥͻ ǣ Ǥ
5.2Catsanddoors:animalpoliticsbydesign ǡ ȋͳͻͻͷȌǤ ǡ ǦǦ Ǧ ǡ Ǥǡ ǯǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡǤǡ ǣǡ Ǥǡǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǦǤ
69 Numerous others in science and technology studies and associated fields such as (moreͲthanͲhuman) geographyandanthropologyofcoursedid,mostnotablyHaraway(2008)andWhatmore(2002),whoinform therestofthechapter. 138chapterfive ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǣDz ǨǨǨdz Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǮǯȋʹͲͳͳȌǤ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ȌȋȌ ǡ Ǥ ǡȋͳͻͻȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ Dz dz Ǥ Ǧ ǣ ǫ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ
animaldeliberation139 Ǧ ǡ Dz dz ȋ ͳͻͻȌǤ Ǥ Dzdz ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǢ ǡ Dz dz ȋ ʹͲͲͶǡ ͳͷͶȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ
5.3Deliberatinginthefield:makingamobilemilkingrobot Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͳͶȌǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣ Ǯǯ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ freechoice ǡ ȋȌǤ
140chapterfive ȋ ʹͲͲȌǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ʹͲͲǡ ǤͲǡ Ǥ ͳ conceptualǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Steeringthecows? Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ
70Overthecourseof3years,between2008and2010,Ijoinedaseriesofmeetingsofthegroup.Theirtrials involved primarily the study of the technical functioning of the system and whether and how the animals manage to get used to the “machineͲanimal interactions” in the light of pasturing regimes, differences in weatherandthelocationandmovementoftherobot(Houwelingenetal.2009). 71Suchashowtopreventthecowsfromdamagingthegrassattheexit,howtomakesuretheirfeedintakeis adequateandhowtomakethemmilkthemselveswithintheappropriatetimeframe. animaldeliberation141 ǡ Ǥʹ ǡ ǯǡ ǡǤ͵ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ voluntary ȋ ǤʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǤͶ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ true 72Seeforinstance:AgisAutomatiseringBV(2014) 73Seealso:Wredle,Munksgaard,andSporndly(2006).Thistypeofsystemcouldevenbedeployedtodoaway with fences alltogether: with a GPS, the device could be made to stop the cow when she crosses a preprogrammedlineinthelandscape,inawaysimilarto‘shockcollars’,bywhichferalwolvesarebeingkept outoffarmingareasinpartsoftheUnitedStates. 74Hesitationsregardingthistypeofbehaviouralcontrol,assticksinsteadofcarrots,couldbeunderstoodin termsoftheFoucauldiandistinctionbetweenthemoreobtrusivelyforcingandcontrollingmodeofsovereign powerincontrasttomoreintricateformsofbiopowerworkingviainternalizingnormsandaimedat(also)the wellbeingofpopulationsandtheindividualsubjectsofpower(Foucault1998;Srinivasan2012;Curran2001). 142chapterfive ǡ ǡǡ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ bricolageͷ Ǧ Ǥ ǦǦǡ ǡ ǡǡǡǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
5.4Politicalanimalsintheory political animals ǫ ǡǡǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡDz ǡȏǤǤǤȐǡǡ Ǧ dzȋʹͲͲʹȌǤ ȋȌ ǫ ǡ ǡǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳǡ ͳͳͶȌǤ ǡȂ Ȃ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Dz dz ȋʹͲͳͳǡ ȌǤ ǡ
75AprocessconceivedasinvolvingnonͲhumaninputs,tobedistinguishedfrommodern,topdownformsof ‘engineering’(Fuller2012). animaldeliberation143 ȋʹͲͳͳǡͳͳͷȌǤ Ƭ ǡ Dz ǡ ǡ dz ȋʹͲͳͳǡ ͳͲͻȌǤ ǡȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡȋʹͲͳͳǡͳͳȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȋͳͻͻͷǢ ʹͲͲȌ Ǧ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǤǦ Ǥ Deliberativedemocracycomingofage ǡ ǡ ȋͳͻͻͺȌǤǮ ǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǣDz ǡ 144chapterfive ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ dzȋͳͻͻͺǡͶͳͲȌǤ Ǯ Ǧ ǯ ȋ ͳͻͻͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ȃ Ȃ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ȋȌ ȋʹͲͲͲǡͻͶͺȌǤ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ ȋ ȌǤ deliberation Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǮǦǯ Ǥ Ǧǡ DzǦdz Ǧ ǡ ȋ ȌȋͳͻͻͷȌǤ ȋͳͻͺǡʹͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡDz dzȋ ʹͲͲͲȌǤ Ǧ ȋ Ȍ Ȃ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ
76Foradiscussionoftheproblemofhowtoincludeandrepresent‘nature’indeliberativedemocracy,seealso Eckersley(1995;1999). animaldeliberation145 ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲǡ ʹͳͷȌǤ Ǥ Everydaymaterialpolitics politics of nature ȋ ʹͲͲȌ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǦȋʹͲͲͶǡ ͺȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǤǡDzǮ ǯȂdzͺ ȋ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ Dz ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ȏǤǤǤȐ dz ȋ ʹͲͲͻǡ ͳʹͶȌǤ Ǧ Ǣ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲʹǢ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ ǡ Ǧ ǡ
77Thereis,ofcourse,thedangerofmerelyadjustingtheanimaltoamaterialsettinggearedtowardsnarrow human interests, such as making ‘mindless chickens’ (Bovenkerk, Brom, and Van Den Bergh 2002) that no longercanengageinmutuallearninganddeliberation. 78Thoughnotnecessarilyinsilence,whynottinkeramidstthechatteringofbirdsandthemooingofcows? 146chapterfive ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Animalcommunication ȋ Ȍ ǫ Ǧ material politics ȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ deliberative Ǥ Ǧ ǦǮǯ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͲͶǢʹͲͲͳȌǤzoosemiotics ȋȌ ȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ȃ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ
5.5Deliberatingonapar ȋǦȌ Ǯ ǯǡ ǦǦǦǦ Ǥ ǡ ǡ animaldeliberation147 ȋ ʹͲͲͻǡǢʹͲͳͲǡͻͻȌǤ ǫ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ responseǦableȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǦǮǯ ǡǡǤ ȋʹͲͳͳȌ Ǧ ǡ Ǧ Ǣ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ ǣ
148chapterfive DzǦ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡǡ Ȁ dzȋ ʹͲͲǡʹͷȌǤ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǮǯǮ ǯǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣDzǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥdz Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ
animaldeliberation149 ǡǮǯǮ ǦǦ ǦǯǤͻ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋȌ ȋ ǡ ǡ Ȍ Ǧǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ bricolage ǡǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲǢ ͳͻͺȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǣ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǡȋ Ȍ Ȃ Ȃ Ǣ
79Thisopennesstowhatisascribedvalueandwhattoattunetoaspartnersinpoliticalcommunicationalso holdsthepromiseofa morefineͲgrainedandinquisitiveapproachtotheexaggeratedoppositionbetween animalandenvironmentalethics. 150chapterfive Ǯǯ Ǥ Ǣ ǡ ǤͺͲ ǫ Ǥ Ǥ Ǣ Ȃ Ȃ ǡǡǡȋȌ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ Theappealofanimaldeliberation ȋȌ ǡ Dzdzǡ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ʹͲͳͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋʹͲͳͶȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ Dz Ǧ dz ȋ ʹͲͲͲǡ ͻͶͻȌǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ 80Thoughforaconceptionofflourishingdairycowcitizens,seeDonaldsonandKymlicka(2011,139). animaldeliberation151 Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣȂ ǡǡȂ Ǥ
152chapterfive
Intermezzo
Aphilosopherinthemobilerobotfarmers’network –avisualintervention ͵ǡʹͲͲͺʹͲͳͲǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Natureluurȋ Ȍǡ Ǥ ȋȌ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ ȋʹͲͲȌ ǣ ǡ ǤͺͳǮ ǯ ȋǦȌ 81Afewyearsago,afarmerhassolvedthisissuebycreatingaroadcrossingforcowsmodelledonthosefor trains.Thecowsthemselvesaregrantedtheopportunitytodecidewhentheywanttocrossthestreet,making cardriverswaitforthemtocrossover(ANP2011). 154intermezzo Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ȋStaatsbosbeheerȌǤ Ǯ ǯ Ǥͺʹ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ǤǡǡʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǡ ǡǦ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡDz ǡǤdz ǡ Dz ǡdzǮ ǯ Ǥ Dz ǡ Ǣ Ǥdz Dz dz Ǥ Ǥ 82 This would amount to a farm with multiple herds on various pastures in a wide area around it. Such a configurationwouldopenupthewholenotionof‘largescale’and‘smallscale’–asquestionofherdsizerather thanamountofanimalsownedͲandtherebyaddanewangletothedebateontheincreasingscaleoffarming. avisualintervention155 Milkinginnaturereservesasahybridanimalpractice ǡ Ǥ ǡ ʹͲͲǤͲͲͲ ǡ Ǧ ͺ͵ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ Ǧ Ǥ animalpracticesȋʹͲͲͶȌ bovine biopoliticsȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǣ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ǡǤ
83IncreasinglyintheNetherlandsandinotherEuropeancountries,naturereservesaremanagedusingsemiͲ wild‘dedomesticated’grazerssuchasHeck,HighlandorGallowaycattleandKonikhorsesfortheirecological roleascosteffective‘mowingmachines’(LorimerandDriessen2014). 156intermezzo ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ Ǣ ǡ ǡ ȋ ȌǤǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ȍǡ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Avisualintervention:landscapepaintingasaformofethics ǡ ǣ ǦǦǫ Ǯ ǯǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǦȂ ȋǦȌ Ǥ
avisualintervention157
Image1:‘Landscapewithmilkingrobotandcows’Photomontagebytheauthor,2009.Basedona photoofthemobilerobot‘Natureluur’bytheauthorandthepainting‘LandschapmetVee’byJan Kobell,1804(RijksmuseumAmsterdam).
ǡ Ǯǯ ǡ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ ǫ
ǡ Ǯǯ Ǧȋ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ǣ 158intermezzo
Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ
ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͺȌǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ Ǥ
Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ
Ǥ ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ avisualintervention159
Ǥliveliness ȋ Ȍnaturalness ǡ Ǧ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤͺͶ ǡ ǦǦ bricolage Dz ǡ dzȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͳ͵ǡ͵ȂͶȌǤǡ Ǥ
ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥͺͷ ȋȌ ǡ Ȃ rewildingǤ ǡǦǡǤ
84Butthenagain,intheNetherlandsthemostpristinenatureissituatedonrecentlyreclaimedlandaspartof anexperimentinecologicalrestoration(LorimerandDriessen2014).Evenwildernessisbothsymbolicallyas wellasmateriallyconstructed,andtoleavenaturealoneisfoundtorequirealotofeffort. 85CoraDiamondforinstancehaspointedtothewayinwhichpaintingssuchasPotter’sYoungBullmayevoke aworldandlifeforminwhichparticularconceptsaremeaningful(Diamond1988).
PartIII
Playingwithpigs
ǣ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ȋȌǫ bricolage Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡȋȌ Ǥ
Chapter6
Caringforboredpigs:gamedesignasmultispeciesphilosophy
Dz dz ǡʹͲͲͳ
6.1ModernhumanͲpigrelations86
PigboredomrecognizedbytheEuropeanCommission ͳͷͲ Ǥͺ ʹͲͲͳȀͻ͵Ȁǡǡ ͳǡ Ͷǡ
Dz Ǥdz ȋ ʹͲͲͳȌ
Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ
86Chapters6and8areduetoappeartogetheras:Driessen,Clemens,KarsAlfrink,MarinkaCopier,Hein Lagerweij,andIreneVanPeer,(2014).Whatcouldplayingwithpigsdotous?Gamedesignasmultispecies philosophy.Antennae,theJournalofNatureinVisualCulture. 87WhereastheEnglishversionofthedirectivedoesnotusethewordplay,thesamedirectiveinitsDutch translationexplicitlymentionstherequirementtoallowpigstoplay(spelen). 164chaptersix
Image2:twopigsandametalchainwithaplasticball(onafarmthatwedidnotcollaboratewith inourdesignproject).(Photobytheauthor). caringforboredpigs165
ǯǤ Dz dz Dz dzǡ ͺDz DzǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ
Playing with Pigs ͺͺ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ ǤǯƬ ǡȋȌ ȋǣ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ
Ǥ Dzdzȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
Videogamesforpigs ǣ ǡ Ǥ Dzǯ ǫdz Ǥ Ǥ
88Thisdesignprojectinvolvedbesidestheauthorofthisthesisseveralresearchersanddesignersassociated withtheUtrechtSchooloftheArts,departmentofArt,MediaandTechnology:KarsAlfrink,MarinkaCopier, HeinLagerweijandIrenevanPeer.InanearlystagealsoMarcBrackeofWageningenURLivestockResearch wasinvolved.Foranoverviewandthelatestnewssee:www.playingwithpigs.nl 166chaptersix ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
Image3:PigletsandaballthatwasbroughttothefarmbyanimalscientistMarcBracke,forour firstonͲfarmdesignsessionwithpigs.Rightaway,thepigletsstartedtoindividuallydifferentiate themselves, as some were more daring than others. Also it became clear that the piglet in the foregroundwasmoreinterestedinthecameraequipmentandthehumanbehinditthanintheball thatheorshewasmeanttoplaywith.(Photo:PlayingwithPigs).
caringforboredpigs167
Ǥ ǡǮ ǯǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǣ
DzǡǤdz
Pigsplayingwithus:renderingthembothpetandcarcass? ǡ ȋȌǦ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ interspecies playǡ ǡ Ǥ
ȋȌ Ǯ ǯȋʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ȋȌǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵Ǣ ͳͻͺͺȌǡ ʹ ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ 168chaptersix
ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋʹͲͳͳȌ Ȃ ǦǡʹͲ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ Ǧ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǤͺͻ ǡ ǡDz dzȋʹͲͲͳȌǤ ǣ
Dz ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯǤ ǡǡǤdz
ǫ Ǯ ǯȋ ʹͲͳʹȌ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤǮǨǯ ǣ
Dz ǯ Ǩ ǯǡǫ ǡǡ ǡǡǤ Ǥ ǡ ǫ ǯ ǤdzȋǮǨǯʹͲͳͳȌ
89 Thereby eerily resembling a common view of the material organization of the holocaust, for instance described by Bauman (2013) as a prime example of how modern bureaucratic apparatuses produce the absenceofanexperienceofresponsibilityandfosterthe‘overcomingofananimalpity’. caringforboredpigs169
Ǥ Ǧ ʹͳ Ǥ ǡǡǤ ǡ ǡ ȋ ȌǤ ȂȂ Ǥ
Dz ̵ ǡ ̵ ǡ ǡ Ǥdz ȋ ǡǮǤ Ȁ ǯȌ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ citizenconsumerǡ ǡ ǡǣ ȋǡȌǤ schizophrenia ǫ ǡǦ ǡǯ ǫȋ ǡ Ȍ ǫǫ
Dz Ǥdz ȋǡǮǤ Ȁ ǯȌ
ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǯǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͳȌǤ 170chaptersix
Ȃ Ǥǡǡ ǡ ǮǯǤ
ǫ ǡ ǡǤ
6.2 Maintaining interpretive flexibility: making a boundary object for deliberativeplay
ǡ ǣ Ǯ ǯ ǫ Ǧǫ ǫ ǫ ǫ ǡ ǫ
Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯȋ ͳͻͺͶȌ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ transition management system innovationȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ
boundaryobjectȋ ͳͻͺͻȌ ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ caringforboredpigs171
Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ Ǥ
Frompersuasiveorcritical,todeliberativeplaydesign? Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͻȌ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ǮǯǤ ǡ Ǧ Ǣ Ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ
Relatingtoone’smoralself ǡǮ ǯǡ ǡ ͵ ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ ȋǤǤ Ȍ Ǥ
Dz ǡ ǤǤǤǤǤdzȋǮǯǡǮ ǤǯȌ
Ǥ ǡ Ǥ 172chaptersix
Ȃ ǣ
Dz ǯǤ ǯ ǯǤǡ ǤdzȋǮǯǡǮǯȌ
ǣ
Dz ̶ Ǥ̶ ǣ ȋͳȌ ǡȋʹȌ ǤǤǤǤǤȋ͵Ȍ ǨǨǨǨǨǨǨǨǨǨǨ ȋȌǤ ̵ Ǥ Ǥdz ȋ ǡ Ǯ ʹǤ ǯȌǤ
Ǧǣ
Dz ǡ ǤdzȋǮ ǯǮǤ ǯȌ
ǡ ǡ ȋ ǡ Ȍ ǦǤ
6.3Designingwithpigsasdoingmultispeciesphilosophy
ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǫ ǡ ǫ caringforboredpigs173
ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǮǦǦǯ Ǥ
ȋ Ȍ Dz dzȋǡǡʹͲͳ͵ǢʹͲͳ͵ȌǢǦ ȋͳͻȌǤ ȋʹͲͳʹȌǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǣ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ ǡ ǡ ǣ
Dz Ǯǯǡ ǡ dzȋͳͻͻͻǡͶͶȌǤ
Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǮ Ǧǯȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡ Ǥ 174chaptersix
Image4:designingwithpigs,asamaterialandembodiedprocessoffindingthingsandactivities ofmutualinterest.
Ǥȋ ǦǤȌ
Conductingsciencewithanimals ȋȌǡ ǡ Ȃ Ȃ ȋǤǤ ʹͲͲͳȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ȃ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͷǡͳͷͺȌǤ caringforboredpigs175
Image5:prototypetestingattheintensivepigfarm.Thisallowedustotweakourdesigninthe presenceofthepigs,whotherebyprovidedinstantfeedbackonourdesignchoices.
ǡ Ǣ Ǥ ǫ
ȋȌȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ Ǥ ǡ Dz ǯ dz ȋ ʹͲͳ͵ǡ ͷͳȌǤ ǦȀǦǯȋǡǡ ʹͲͲȌǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋ 176chaptersix
ʹͲͳͲȌ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Dzdzȋǡ ǡ ʹͲͲǡ ͳͷȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǯǤ ǮȀ ǯǡ ȋǡǡ ʹͲͲǡͳͷȌǤ ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ
Image 6: screenshot of the concept video, with a young man with an iPad looking at the MichelangeloinspiredPigChase‘logo’ofahandtouchingthesnoutofapig. caringforboredpigs177
PigChase ǣ Pig Chaseǡ Ǥ
PigChaseǦ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǯǤ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ Ǣǡ ǡ Ǥ 178chaptersix
Images7,8and9:screenshotsoftheconceptvideothatshowcasestheintendedPigChasegameͲ play(see:http://vimeo.com/29046176).Thisvideo(andthustheimagesabove)combinesfootage ofafarmwithdigitallymanipulatedimagery.Thegameasitisshownheredidnotexistassuchat thetimeofshootingthevideo.Thepigsthatareportrayeddidinteractwitha(small)dotoflight projectedonthescreen,whichgeneratedtheirinterest.Inthesubsequentprototypetestingthe game as depicted here was toa large extent realized. For (a nonͲtricked) view of that process, which is also depicted in the earlier ‘making of’ images above, and which features the farmer playingwithhisownpigsviaaniPad,see:http://vimeo.com/53161644 caringforboredpigs179
ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ . Chapter7
Fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs
̶ Ǥ ǡdz
ǡEssaysǡͳͷͻͷ
ǡ ǡ ǫ ǫ ǡ Ǧǡǡ ȋȌ ǤǣͳȌǡ ʹȌ ǡ ͵Ȍ ǡ ͶȌ ǡ ͷȌ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
7.1Subversiveencounters?
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ Ǯǯ Ǥ 182chapterseven
ǡ the system Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͻǡͳͲȌǤ
Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǥȋ ǤȌ PigChase ǡ ǡ ǣ Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ̵ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ welfarist ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǣ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǮǯǤ ǣ ǫ fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs183
Ǥ Ǯǯ Ǯǯ ǤǦ ǫ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǫ ǡ ǫ
Pig Chase ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ
Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͳͳǡ ʹͻȌǡ Ǥ ǯ PigChaseǡ ȋȌ ǡ ǡ ǫ ǡ ǣ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ
ȋȌ ǡ Ǥǡ ȋǦͳͻͻǡͷȌǡ Ǥ 184chapterseven
Ǥ Ǥ
Designingwithfarmers:onbecominga‘gamefarmer’ ǡ ǤǮǯ Ǥ ǮǦǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤǦ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ
DzǡǤ ǯǮǯǤdz
ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣDz Ǥdz
ǡǡ ǫ Ǥ ǣDz ǮǯǤ ǡ Ǥdz ǡ ǣDz ǯǢ Ǥdz Ǥ fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs185
7.2AnimalnatureͲcultures?
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣǤ
Dz ̵Ǥ ǡ Ǥdz ȋǡǯǤ ǯȌ
ǡ ǣ
Dzǯǡ ǡ Ǥdzȋ ǡǮ ʹ ǯȌ
ǡ Ǣ Ǥ ǣ
Dz Ǥdzȋ ǡǮǤǯȌ
ǣ ǡǫ
Naturallives ǡȀ Ǥ ͳͻͲǡ Ǧ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǯǯǡ ȋǤǤ Ǧ ͳͻͺͻȌǤ Ǥlandraceǡ 186chapterseven
ǡ Ǥ ǮǯȂǡǡ Ȃ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǣ Ǥǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ
Ǥ Ǥ ǡDzdz ǡ Ǥ ǫ
Technologicallives ͳͻͻͲǡ ȂǮ ǯǮǯȂ Ǥ ǡ ǤͻͲ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ
90 See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RpzpUeJ9HA8#t=154 (accessed 12 March2014). fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs187 ǡ Ǥͻͳ
ǡ ȋȌǤ ȋ ǮǯȌ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ǣ
Dz ǡ ǤdzȋǤȌ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǤPigChase Ȃ ȂǦ ǫ Ǧ ȋ Ȍ ȋʹͲͲͳȌǫ
Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȂǦ Ȃ ǣ Ǥ 91See:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOJJf_zoPDs(accessed12March2014). 188chapterseven
ǡǮǯ Ǥ ǫ ȋ ʹͲͲͻǡ ͵ͲȌ ǫ ȋ ʹͲͳʹǡ ͳ͵ʹȌǤ ǡ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǫ ǯ ǣ ǡǫ
Ǯǯ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǮMatrixǯ Ǥ
ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Dz dzȋ ʹͲͲȌǤǡ
DzǮǯ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥdz ȋʹͲͲǡͳȌ
ǫ Ǥ fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs189
Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲ͵ǡͺͷǢʹͲͲͻǡͳ͵ͷȌ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͳͳȌǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǯǮǯǫ ǫ
ǡ ǡ ǡǡǮǯǫ ǡ ǫ ǡǫ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǫ ǡ ǫ Cat Cat Revolutionǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǫ Dz dz ȋCat Cat Revolution: An InterspeciesGamingExperienceʹͲͳͲȌǤ ǦǤ ǡ ǫ
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋǦ ͳͻͻȌǤ 190chapterseven
Ǥ ǫ ǫ ȋ ǤȌ
7.3Testingandranking?
ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ Ǥǯ Ǥ ǡ ǯȂ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǦǦ ȋǤʹͲͲͻȌǤ Ǯ ǯǣ ǮǦ ǯǤ Ǥ ǮǯǡǮǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǯǫ
ǡ ǡ ǣ
Dz Ǧ Ǥ ȏǥȐ dz ȋʹͲͲͻȌǤ
ǡ fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs191
ȋ ȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ Ǥ Dz dzȋ ʹͲͲǡʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǥ
ǣ
Dz Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǦǤ ǡ ̵ǯ ǤdzȋͳͻͻͷǡͻͷȌ
Ǥ ǡ ǦǦǣ
Dz Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥdz ȋͳͻͻͷǡͻȌ
Playastest? ǡǫ ǫ Ǯǯ 192chapterseven Ǥ ǣǮǫǯ
Dz ̵ ǤȏǤǤǤȐǡǡ Ǥdz ȋǦ ͳͻͻͷǡʹͶȌ homoludensludiccentury ǡ ǡ Ǯǯȋ ʹͲͲͺȌǤǡǡ ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡǡǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ Dz ǫdz ȋ ʹͲͲͺǡʹʹȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǣ ǦǦ Ǥͻʹ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ Ǯǡǯǡ ǣDz ǡdzȋʹͲͲǡʹͲͻǢ Ǥ ͳͻͻͳǡ͵ͳȌǤ 92 See for instance Wemelsfelder’s (1993, 53) argument that empirically there is little support to clearly demarcateassociativefrominnovativestylesoflearning. fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs193
7.4Symmetryandreward?
Ǧ ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǫ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡǦ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ chance automataǤ Ǥ ǡ Roboroach Ǯ ǯ ǡǮ ǯ ȋǮ ǯ ʹͲͳͶȌǤ
Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ ǣ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ 194chapterseven ǡ ǤǤ ǯ Ǥ Ǥ ȋ ȌǤsymmetricalǦ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ Ȃ Ǥ ǯ Augmented Fish Reality ȋʹͲͳͲǢʹͲͳʹȌǤǡ Ǥ ENKI Ǥ ǦǤȀ Ǥͻ͵ ǯǦ Ǥ ǡENKIǦ ȋ ʹͲͳͲǢʹͲͳͳȌǤ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǯ ǯǤ 93See:http://www.antonyhall.net/ENKItech/introduction.html(Accessed12March,2014) fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs195 Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǣ ǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ MudTub ȋȌ ǤͻͶ Ǥ level playingfieldǡ ȋ ȌǤ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǡ DzdzDzǡ ǡ dzȋʹͲͳʹǡͺȌǤ Ǥ ǣ
Dz ǤǤǤǤǡǡ ǯǡ Ǥdz
ǡǤ ȋǤʹͲͳͳȌǡ Ǥ ǡǮ ǯ ǫǡ ǫ
94SeefortheMudTubinterfacebyTomGerhardt:http://tomgerhardt.com/mudtub 196chapterseven ǫ ǣǯǫȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ
Definingplayforpigs:foodreward? Ǥ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǮ ǯǤ ǡ ǣ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǯ ǯȋͳͻͳȌǤ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ
ǡǦ ȋ Ȍǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡǤ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǯǯ ȋǦ ͳͻͻǡ ͳͶȌǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs197 ǡ Ǯǯǡ ǮǯǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ Ǧǯ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ȋǤ ͳͻͻ͵Ǣ ǡ ǡ ͳͻͻȌǤ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡǮǯ ͻͷȋ ʹͲͲ͵Ǣ ǤʹͲͲͺȌǤ
Ǥ Ǧ ǮǯǡǤ ǮǯǮǯǤ ǡ Ǥ
Ǥͻ HomoLudensǡ ǣ
̶ ̵̵ ̵̵ Ǥ ǡ Ǥdzȋ ͳͻͶͻǡͳ͵Ȍ
ǡ Ǯ ǯǯǡ ȋǦͳͻͻǡʹͲ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǤǦȋͳͻͻȌ 95ThatwasaccordingtoBreland&Breland(1961)whattheyrelapsedintoafterbeingconditionedtogather theirfoodmoredirectly. 96 Huizinga assumed culture to be uniquely human. From the fact that animals play he concludes ‘play precedesculture’. 198chapterseven ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǧ ǡ ǫͻ
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͲͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ȃ ǯǡǡ Ȃ Ǧ Ǣ Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Dz dzȋͳͻͺǡʹʹͷǢ Ǥͳͻͻ͵ǡͷͶȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǧȋ ʹͲͲͺǡʹ͵ȌǤǡ ǮǯǤ
97Whenplayisnotnecessarilyopposedtobeingusefulorsetapartfromeverydaylife,variouswaysinwhich humansandanimalscloselyinteractandcollaborate(thinkofguidedogsforinstance)arethenopentobeing interpretedasplayful(too),ratherthanasjustwork. fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs199
Dothey(needto)knowtheyareplayingwithus? ǡǡ Ǥͻͺ ǡǡǤȋ ǡ ǤȌ
Ǧ ǡͳͻͲ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋǤ ͳͻͺͳǢʹͲͲ͵ǡͷͲȌǤǡ ǫ
ǡ ǡ ǤǦ ȋͳͻͺͲǡʹͺȌ ǦǦ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌȋʹͲͲͻȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲͳȌǤ
98AlreadyaoneͲwayvisualconnectiontoanimalsdoesgenerateanethicalspaceforhumanstoengagewith them,asisapparentinpracticesaroundwildlifewebcams(Kamphof2011;2013).Butthatparticularmodeof relatingtoanimalsseemspredicatedontheirbeingwild,andwebcamstocheckinonfarmanimalsarelikely tobemuchlesscaptivatingandgenerativeofaffect. 200chapterseven Ǥ Dz dz ȋ ʹͲͲʹǡ ͳͻȌǡ Ǥͻͻ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ
CrossǦspeciesmetaǦcommunication Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǤǦǡ ǡǤ Dz Ǧ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǮǯdzȋʹͲͲͲǡͳ͵ͻȌǤ ǣ
Dz ǡǡǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥdz ȋʹͲͲͲǡͳͶͳȌ
ǡǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǯǫǯȋ ǤǦ ͳͻͻǡ ʹ͵ȌǤ
99Incontrast,AnatPick(2011, 160) hasamore reservedpositionontheethicalimportofanexchangeof looks. For her, attentiveness as a mode of looking does not require reciprocity and recognition, while she envisagesethicsoutsidethe“levellingsymmetriesofvisualexchange”,wheresheexpectstheabsentgazeto “sharpendifferentsensibilities”.Inthiswaygoingbeyondthe“powerplayofsubjectivityandpersonhood” thatdemandstheothertolookatyou.Elsewhere,sheputsforwardcertain(cinematic)formsoflookingat animals as close to touching them (Pick 2013, 178), a form of contact with a different ethical import. This wouldmakePigChase,asacombinationofbothvisualcontactand(mediated)touch,holdthepromiseofa newtypeofmediatedethicalexperience.Thisthemewillbefurtherexploredinthenextchapter. fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs201 ǡ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͺǡ ʹ͵ȂͻȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ YouTubeȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡǡ ǦǤͳͲͲ
Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ Dz ǡ dzȋʹͲͳͲǡ ͵ʹȌǤ ǡ ǡǡ ǣ
̶ Wittgenstein's lion ǡ̶ȋ ʹͲͲǡͳȌǤ
ǡ ǮǯǤ Ǯǯ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
PigChaseǫ ǡǡǡȋ ʹͲͲͺǡʹ͵ͺȌǤ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͻǡ ͳͳȌ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ ǤǦ 100See‘Animalsatplayremake’https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KͲQBucBlNL4Seealso:‘Polarbearsand dogs playing’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEͲNyt4Bmi8 and ‘grizzly and wolf playing’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I49K_9pcIn8(Allaccessed12March,2014). 202chapterseven
Ǧ ǡ ǮǦ ǯ ǫ
Butisitreallyplay? ǯ ǡ Ǯǫǯ Ǥ ǡsymmetrical Ǥ Ǧ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǣ
Dz ǡ ǫdzȋͳͻͷͺǡ͵͵ͳȌǤ
Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǣ
Dz ͳͷͺͲǯͻͲǡ ǣͳͶͲǡ dzȋͳͻͻʹǡͶͶǢ ǤʹͲͲȌǤ
ǡ ǡ Ǥǯ Ǧǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡͳͷͻͷ ǡ ǡDz dzȋͳͻͷͺǡ͵͵ͳǢ Ǥ ʹͲͳʹǡͳͳȌǤ fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs203
ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͲͻǡͳʹʹǢ ʹͲͲͻȌǤ Ǥ ǣ Ǯǯǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǮǯǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲǢǡ ǡʹͲͲͷȌǤ ǡ Ƭ ǡPigChaseǣ
Dz ǡ ǡ ̵ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ̵̵Ǥ ̵ǡ Ǥdzȋǣ ʹͲͳʹȌ
ǫ
7.5Voluntaryandopen?
Ǯ ǯ ȋ Ȍ ǣ ȋ ͳͻͶͻǡ ʹͺǢ Ǥ ʹͲͳͳǡ ʹͳȌǤ ǡ Ǥ 204chapterseven ǡǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ ǤͳͲͳ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡvoluntary ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Dzdzȋ ʹͲͳͲǡͳͲͺȌǤ ǡ ǡǦǦǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͳǡ ͳʹͳȂʹȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͲǡͳͳͷȌǤǮǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋǦͳͻͻǡͻͳȌǤ
101AccordingtoCouncilDirective2001/88/EContheprotectionofpigs,EUpigholdingswith10gestating sowsormoremayasof1January2013nolongerpermanentlyhousethesesowsinindividualstalls.Instead, gestatingsowsmustbekeptingroupsfromfourweeksafterinseminationuntiloneweekbefore theexpectedtimeoffarrowing.Thisofcoursestillmeansthesowsareindividuallyconfinedforasignifcant period. On the implications for farmer pig relations of the implementation of this directive see De Krom (forthcoming). fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs205 Ǯǯǡǡ Ǥ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǦǤ ǯ ǡ Dz ǡ dz ȋ ͳͻͷͺǡ ͵ͳͺǢ Ǥ ʹͲͳʹǡ ͳͳͶȂͷȌǤ Ǯǯ ǤͳͲʹ Ǯ ǯ Ǣǡ ǡǤ “ Ǥdz ȋǮ̴ ǯǤȌǤ Ȁ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ FarmVilleandthedisappearanceoftheanimalinhumanstereotypy FarmVille disappeared Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǯ ǡ Ǥ
102Montaignedoesnotspecifywhetherhisurgewasduetoamoraldemandbythedog,oradesireintrinsicto theplayexperiencetoengageinplaywiththeanimal. 206chapterseven
FarmVille Ȃ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ȋǡȌ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ȌǤ Ǥ
ǯ Ǥȋ ǡ ȌǤ ǡͲFarmVilleǤ DzSkinnerBoxǡ dzȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡ ȋ ǡ FarmVilleȌ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ Ǯǯ ǣ ȋͳͻͻ͵ȌǤ
Rigidity,stereotypies,oropenness? PigChaseǮFarmVilleǯȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡȋȌ Ǯǯ ǮǯǤ fivecriteriaformeaningfulplaywithfarmedpigs207
ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻͻǡ ͶȌǤ ǡ ǦǤ Ǯ ǯ Ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ
Highscores? ȋȌ ǡ ǡ ǡǮǯǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǣ ǣ Ǥ ȋȌ Ǥ ǮǯǡȋȌ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡǡ ǤPig Chase ǣ ǡhighscoresǤ Ǥ
PigChaseǡ ǡǮǯǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǯǯǡ 208chapterseven Ǯ ǯǫ ǡ Ǥ
Chapter8 Themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay: ondesigningamoralsubject
8.1Genresandmorality
ǡ ǡ Ǥǫ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ͳͻͺͲ Dz dzȋǡ ǡͳͻͺʹȌǤ ǡ ǣ Dz ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ȃ Ȃ 212chaptereight Ǥ ȋ ǡ ǡ ǤȌdzȋͳͻͺ͵ǡͳͲͻȌǤ
Interactivemedia,violenceandaggression–ofhumansandpigs Ǥǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ʹͲͲͷ Ǯ ǯ ǣ Dz ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥdzȋ ʹͲͲͷǡͳȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Pig Chase Ǯǯǡ Dz ʹdzȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ǥ Ǧ ͳͻͻǡ ͳͲͲȌǤ ȋǫȌȋ Ȍ ǫ ǡ Ǥ
themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay213 ȋǦȌ Ǯǯ ǤͳͲ͵ Pig Chaseǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǦǤ Genresofmoralimagination:waysofbeingsubversive,deliberativeandempathic? PigChaseǮǯȂȂ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǮǯǤ Ǥ Ǯǯǫ Ǧǫ ǣ Dz ǡ Ǥ ǡ dzȋ ʹͲͲͺǡ͵ͻȌǤ ǡDz Ǥdz ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍ ǡ ǯ
103 It should be noted that contemporary intensive farms do not provide for these social structures, which means,“Ethologyonamodernfarmonlygoessofar”(Buller2013,162). 214chaptereight Ǯ ǯǤ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǦǤ ǯ ǯǡ ǡ ǫ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ
8.2Movingbeyondtheempathicsubjectanditsperspectivalmind
ǡ Ǧ Ȃǡ ǡȂ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ͳͻͶȌǤ Ǧ ǮȀǯǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤͳͲͶ
104 Nagel’s bat did inspire Donald Griffin, a pioneer of ‘cognitive ethology’ to (starting in the 1970s) boldly postulateanimalmentalinteriority(AllenandBekoff1999,142).Inaseriesofincreasinglydaringbookshe arguedfortheacknowledgementofasubjectiveworldofanimals:from‘thequestionofanimalawareness’ (Griffin 1976), to ‘animal thinking’ (1984), and ‘animal minds’ (1994) culminating in ‘animal minds: beyond cognitiontoconsciousness’(2001).AccordingtoBernardRollin,Griffin’spioneeringclaimthatanimalshavea mind was not based on any new scientific evidence, but consisted of a coherent presentation of existing themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay215 Ȃ ǮǯȂ Ȁ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻǡ ͶǢ ͵ͶȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǫ ǫ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Filmandanimalsubjects ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲʹǡ ͵ͷȌǤ ǡ Ǧȋ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǡ͵ȂͶȌǤ Ǯ ǯǡǡǡ ȋ ʹͲͲʹǡ ͵ͺȌǤ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ
Ǧ Ǥǡ Ǣ ǡ findingsinthelightofthecommonsenseassumptionthatanimalsareconsciouslivingbeings(Rollin1998, 252–3). 216chaptereight
Ǥ ȋʹͲͳ͵Ȍǡ ǡ ȋȌǤ ǡ ȋȌǡ Ǥ
Themoralcharacterofdigitalplay ǣ ǡǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǦ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡFarmVille Ǥ
ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ȋǦ ͳͻͻǡ ͳ͵Ȍ ǮǯǮǯȋ ʹͲͲͻǡͳ͵ȌǤ
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ ǡȋȌ themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay217 Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǯǤ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥǡǡ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǫ NonǦperspectivalsubjects Ǧ Ǥ ȋʹͲͲͷǡ ͶͲȌ ǯ Ǯ ǯ ǤǤǤǯ Ǯ ǯ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Dz Ǥ ǡ ǡ ̵ ȋ ̵ ̵ǡ ȌȄ̶ ̶dzȋʹͲͲͷǡͷʹȌǤ ǣ Dz Ǣ Ǧ Ǧ Ǣ Ǣ Ǣ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ 218chaptereight Ǣ Ǥdz ȋʹͲͲͷǡͷʹȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǣ DzǤ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ Ǥ ȏǤǤǤȐ ǡǡ Ǥǡǡ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǯǤdzȋʹͲͲͶǡͳͳͷȌ Ǥ ǡ ǣ Dz ȀȀ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǯ ǡ Ǥdzȋ ʹͲͳ͵ǡͷͳȌ Sympathyvsempathy ȋʹͲͳͳȌ ǡǡǤ ǡ ǡ
themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay219 ǤͳͲͷ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ǮǯǡǮǯǤ ȋ Ȍ ǣ Dzǡ ǡ ǦǦǦǤdzȋ ʹͲͲͻǡ ͶͲȌ
8.3Genres,ethics,subjects,experience,mindsandscience:acoͲevolutionary ecology?
ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ȋǡǡ ʹͲͲȌǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǣ ǤͳͲ ǡ 105 Whereas empathy is often deemed to be a basically passive and spontaneous event of selfless feeling, sympathy includes a more active and contemplative element, in which the self is also present somehow, though not independently from the other. This seems to be a more interesting way to understand what happenswithidiosyncraticandambivalentsubjectsinmomentsofaffectiveencounter. 106Perhapseventhe‘subjectsͲofͲaͲlife’asdefinedbyRegan(2004) 220chaptereight Ǥ ǣ Ǯǯ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ ǮǦǯǡ ǡ ǤͳͲPigChase ǣ Ǥ ǡȋȌ ǡ ȋǦǫȌ ǣǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǣǡ ǡ Ȁ ȋͳͻͻ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ ǣDz dzȋͳͻͺͲǡͷȌǤ ǡ Ǯǯǡ Ǯ ǡǯǤ ǡ ǣDz ǡ dz ȋͳͻͺͲǡ ͷȌǤ ǡ 107ThisoppositionistosomeextentakintotheonediscussedbyBuller(2013)betweenrelatingtoanimalsas individualsandasmass (herd,flock,etc.),butdiffersasdissolutionandindividuationinthewaydiscussed herebothcanoccurinrelationswithanindividualanimal. themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay221
Ǯ ǯ ȋͳͻͺͲǡ Ȍ ǡ Dz dz ȋͳͻͺͲǡȌǤ
Individuationorimmersion:touchingorbeingtouched? ǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǮ ǯ ȋ ͳͻͻ͵ǡ ͳȌǤ ǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻ͵ǡ ʹȌǤǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋͳͻͷ͵ȌǤ Ǥǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͷ͵Ǣ ͳͻͻ͵ǡ ͵ȌǤ Ȁ Ȁǡ Ȁ ͳͺͻ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ͳͺͻȌǤ ǡǡ Ǥ
Ǧ ǡǦǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯǫ ǡ 222chaptereight ǡ Dz ǡǡdzȋʹͲͳ͵ǡ͵͵ȌǤ Dz ǫ ǡ ǫdzȋʹͲͳ͵ǡ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǣ Dz ȋ Ȍǡ ǡ DzagencementsǤdzȋʹͲͳ͵ǡ͵ȌǤ Dz dz ȋʹͲͳ͵ǡ͵ͺȌǤ Dz ǡ Ǥ dzȋʹͲͳ͵ǡ ͵ͻȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Subjectingourselvestodesignexperiments:on(not)decidingwhetherwetouchorare beingtouched Ǥ Ǥ ǣ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǮǯ Ǥ ǣ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay223 ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǦǦǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤPigChase ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ ǫ Ǯǯǡ ǫ ǡ ǫ ǫ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋȌ Ȃ ǡǡǤ ȋȌ ǡǡ ǡ ǤͳͲͺ 108AnemphasisoncreatingenvironmentsandsituationsformoralsubjectstoemergefitsinwithaDeweyan, pragmatist approach to ethics, in which moral responsibility is thought of to consist in actively seeking environmentsthatwillinduceustobecomeparticular‘good’persons.Thereisnoescapefromthecircularity of somehow deciding what kind of person to become, in seeking out particular environments in which to 224chaptereight ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ Ǧ ǡȋȌǤǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȃ Ǥ
8.4Playingwithpigsforanewmultispeciescommunity
Ǥǡǯǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͻȌǤ ǫ ǡ ǤǮǯ ǮǡǯǡǮǡ
experiencemoralconcerns.Ifthisprocessinvolvesmoralsubjectsactively‘workingonthemselves’,thiscan be seen as a continuation of a Foucauldian genealogy of the moral subject (Foucault 1988). This ‘later’ Foucaultunderstandsethics“astheactiveengagementofpeoplewithgoverningandfashioningtheirown way of being in relation to conditioning circumstances” (Dorrestijn 2012). As Jane Bennett (2001, 145) described,thecareoftheselfforFoucaultisaninherentlyambiguousprocess,inwhichitisunclearwhoitis thatdeploystechniquesoftransformingthemselvesintobecomingsubjects. themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay225 ǯǤǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǣ Dz ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǮǯǮǯǤdzȋʹͲͲͳǡʹͻͻȌ ǡ ȋǡȌ Ǥ ȋ ȌǤ Ǥ Ǧ ǫ ǡͳͻͲ ǡ ͶͲǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Disgustingandperverse?Onproducinganediblecommunity DzȂ ̶̶ǨǨǨ ǨǨǡ ̵Ȃ
226chaptereight ̵ ǨǨǨ ǡ ǫǫǫ ǨǨǨdzȋǡǮ ʹǤ ǯȌ
DzǤdzȋǡǮ ʹǤ ǯȌ
Ǧ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͲͲȌǤ Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ ǯǤǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ Ǥ Ǧ ȂǮ ǡ ǯȂ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǣ DzȏȐǦ Ǥ ǡǦ Ǥ̶̶ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤdzȋͳͻͶͻǡͳʹȌǤ Ǯ ǯǡ
themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay227
Ǥ
ȋʹͲͲͶȌ ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǫǯ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ
Conclusion:aprojectthatcritiquesitself? ǡ Pig Chase Ǥ ǡ ǫ ǮǯǮǯǫ
Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
Pig Chaseǡ Ǧ 228chaptereight Ǥ ? Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ ǯǣ
Dz ̵̶ ̶ Ǥ ̵ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍǡǡ ̵ ̵ ̵ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ̵ ǤǤǤ Ǥdz ȋ ǡǮǤ ȀʹͻͲͶͳǯȌ
Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǥ ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǡ ǯȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ
ǡͳͷǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ ǫ gamificationǤ
themoralityofmediatedinterspeciesplay229 ǤǦǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ǦȌ Ǥ
ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋǡȌ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍ ǦǦ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ȃ ǫ
Dzȏ̴̴Ȑ Ǥ Ǥ ȏ̴̴Ȑǫȏ̴̴Ȑ Ǥ ̶̶ ̶̶̶̶ Ǥdz ȋ ȏ̴̴Ȑ ǡ ǮǤ ǯȌ
PartIV
Conclusion
Ǯǯ Ǥ ǫ ǫ
ͻǡ ͳͲ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ
Chapter9
Show,don’ttell?Theconclusionofthisthesisisnot(just)atext Conclusion ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ ǡȂ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǫ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋǡȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥǡ Ǥ 234chapternine
Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǮ ǯȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
ǡ ǡ ǡ ǣ ȋ ͳȌǢ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ʹȌǢ ǡ ǡȋǤǤȌ ǡ ȋ ͵ȌǢ ȋ ͶȌǢ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ͷȌǢ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ ǡǡ ǡ ȋ ȌǢ ȋȌȋ ͺȌǤ
ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ show,don’ttell235 ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ ǡ Ǯȋ ȌǯǤ Theeffectsofwriting:Socratictechnologyassessment ǡ ǫ ǡ ǫ Ǯǯ ǯǡ ȋȌȋȌǡͳͲͻ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ 109Whichofcourseisnottosayfarmerscannotreadbooks.ThepointIamtryingtomakeisaboutthegenre ofphilosophicalethics,orsocialtheory,thatinexorablyseemstocomewithapenchantfortheoreticaljargon. Towhichthisthesisisnoexception:eventhoughforinstanceanearlierversionofChapter4waslabelledby ananonymous revieweras‘refreshinglyjargonfree’,theotherreviewers ofthejournaldemandeda more thoroughengagementwiththeoreticalpositions. 236chapternine ǡǡǤ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ DzȏǤǤǤȐ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǢ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ ǡdzȋ ͳͻͻͲȏ ʹͷǦȐȌǤ ǤͳͳͲ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥͳͳͳ
110 Socrates’ critique could be thought to imply a rather internalist and individualist notion of mind and wisdom,whichstandsatoddswithunderstandingsofmindandthoughtinchapter8;thoughsomewhatless soifwisdomisconceivedofasnecessarilyembodiedandemergentin(Socratic?)dialoguewithothers. 111 One could argue Socrates was selfͲinterestedly defending his academic business model and educational methodforteachingtheliberalartsagainstmuchcheapercompetitorsofferingspeechwritinganddistance learning.Thishoweverwouldnotmakehispositionnecessarilylessconvincing. show,don’ttell237
Thedreamofdirectaccess ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡǮ ǯ Ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǣ ǡ ǡǮ ǯǡ ȋͳͻͺʹǡͻ͵ȂͶȌǤǮ ǯǣ
Dzǡǡǡǯ dzȋͳͻͺʹǡͻͶȌǤ
ǡ ǯ Ǣ Ǥ ǡǡ Dzǡǡǡǡǡ Ǯ ǯǤdz ǯ Ǥ ǮǯǮǯ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǡ ǡǤͳͳʹ
Ǯ ǯlifeworldȋͳͻͻȌǡ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ
112Whenwetakeupthebasicartisticcriterionof‘show,don’ttell’inthismoreperformativeway,ratherthan asultimatetruthclaimthatdemandsarevealingofwhatisreallythere,thesayingdoesnotcomewiththe metaphysical baggage it has in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. There ‘sagen’ and ‘zeigen’, saying and showing or indicating,areopposedandmutuallyexclusive(Wittgenstein,Klossowski,andRussell1983). 238chapternine Ǥǡ ǡ ǡȋʹͲͳͶȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ethicsbeyond(just)writing avant la lettre Ǥͳͳ͵ Ǧ Ǥ Ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ Ȃ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Dz dz ȋ ͳͻͻͻǢ ʹͲͲʹȌǤ ȋȌ ǤͳͳͶ 113Itmaybestrangetoargueagainstreadingandinfavourofdigitalgamesatatimewhenreadingbooks rapidlygiveswaytomuchmoretransientactivityonsmartphonesandtablets.Butbesidesonlylamentingthis developmentasnecessarilyonlyalossofphilosophicaldepth,otherresponsesarepossible.Instead,wecan explorenewwaystoattainthatdepth.WithinacoͲevolutionaryoutlook,thissearchforalternativeformsof beingphilosophicalislikelytoinvolvealsoshiftsinwhatthinkinglookslikeandachangingappreciationofhow criticalthoughtcanbeexpressed. 114Thisisalsonottosaythattheseemingclarityandunambiguityofmaps,photos,plottedmeasurementsand calculated indicators offer a more direct access to relevant realities; For instance a medium such as cartographybringsitsownimplicitideologiesofempire,travel,landownershipandmodesofgoverningland, peopleandanimals.Butthistosomeextentcanbeengagedwithbymakingalternativemapsthatdisclose show,don’ttell239
ǡ ǡ Ǥ Photoshop Ǥͳͳͷ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ͳͻͻͺǡʹͳȌǤ
ǡ ȋ Ȍǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǮǯǢ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
ǡ Ȃ Ȃ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ethical Ǥ ʹǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
howmapsandmappingtechniquesthatweareusedtoinpracticedirectourgaze,discourseandthoughtin certainways.Writingisnottheonlywaytobecriticalandreflect.Philosophersandothersatthewritingside of the ‘two cultures’ should realize they are using a technology too, which allows for certain things to be communicated,andothersnot. 115 Even though games are now widely believed to ‘spoil the young’, a similar accusation to the one that becamefataltoSocrates. 240chapternine Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǣ ȋȌ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ ǮǯǡǤͳͳȋǨȌ ȋʹͲͲͳǢʹͲͳͲǢǤǡǡ ʹͲͳͲȌǤ Readinganimals Ǧ ǡȋʹͲͳͲǡ ͳȌǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ȋȌ ȋǡ ǡʹͲͳͲǡʹȌǢ ǡǤ
116 In fields such as science and technology studies and (moreͲthanͲ) human geography the critique of languageastheonlyformofcommunicationandcontemplationisgainingterrain.Seeforinstancetheworkin STSon‘materialsemiotics’foranalternativeapproachthatfocusesonthesymbolicfunctioningofmaterial artefacts(Keane2003;Bell2003;Bettany2007;JohnLaw2009)andotherformsofmaterialunderstandingsof politics (Law and Mol 2008; Braun and Whatmore 2010) and ‘political machines’ (Barry 2001). But, with exceptionsofcourse,there’sadangerfor(alsothese)authorstoremainjustthat,authorsofevermorebooks and papers, the success of which now tends to be solely defined in terms of citations in other books and papers.Howmany(e)bookson‘newmaterialism’doweneedbeforeweventureoutandtryanothergenreas a serious vehicle for inquiry, critique, and contemplation? Or, if we are writing to inform and enthuse practitionersofvariouskinds,includingartistsandtechnologists,whatalternativegenresofwritingoranalysis wouldbestcatertothem?Infairness,theserenownedauthorsmayinspirenumerousotherstoindeeddoso, butforamerePhDstudentitseemslesssensibletojoininthechorus. show,don’ttell241 Ǯ ǯ ȋʹͲͲͺǡ ʹͳȌǡ ǡ Dz dzDz dzȋʹͲͲͺǡʹ͵ȌǤ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͺǡ ͵ͳȌǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǦǤ Genresandstyles ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Dz ǡ dzȋͳͻͻǡͳͷͶȌ. ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲͷǡͶȌǤ ȋǡǡǡȌ Ǥ ǮǯǮǯǢ ͳ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͳʹȌ Ǥ ǡlanguagegamesǡ formsoflife ͳͳȋ ʹͲͳͲȌǤǡǤ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǧ
117ThankstoHenkvandenBeltforpointingmetothis. 242chapternine Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǮǯǤͳͳͺ Ȃ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǦǦ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Anethicsinthemaking ǫ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡǮ ǤǤǤǤǯǡ Ǯ ǤǤǤǤǯ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲǡͳʹͶȌǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡǦ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋͳͻͻͶǢʹͲͲͷȌǤǯ Ǯǯ 118Theparticulartypeofwritingthatisidealizedinacademicethicshowevertendstobeaimedatreducing ambiguity, resulting in a genre that brings particular ‘criteria of success’, with particular understandings of clarityandwhatitmeanstobeexplicitandacertainformoflogicalconsistency:somethingthatpeoplemay underwrite. show,don’ttell243 ǡ OurDailyBreadǡ ͳǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳǡͳͶͲȌ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ǡ ǡ Ȍ Ȃ ǡ Ȃ ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡǡǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲͳǢʹͲͳͲȌǤ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯ ǮǯǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǢǯǮǯȋͳͻͻȌ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ȋȌǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋǤǤʹͲͳͳȌǤǡ Ȃ Ȃ Ǣ ǡǡ
244chapternine ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ͳ Ǥ Ǣ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ʹǣ ǡǫ Towardsamultisensoryethics ȋͳͻͺͺȌ Ǯ ǯǡ Ȃ Ȃ Ǣ ǡ ʹǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯȋ Ȍȋ ʹͲͳ͵Ȍǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥͳͳͻ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥȋ ǤȌ 119Leadingthesenovicedairyfarmerstopostselfiesoftheircowinflictedbruisesonsocialmedia. show,don’ttell245 Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǯ ǯǤ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ȋǫȌ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ ȋǦǦȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǯǯ Ǥ
Chapter10
Aconclusioninthemaking
10.1Ontheveryideaofageneralconclusioninsituatedethics ǯ ǣ ǫ ǫ ȋȌ ǫ Ǧ ǫ Ǧ Ǧ ǫ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯǯǣ Ǧ Ǧ ǮüberǦǯ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǣ Ǣǡbricolageǡǡ 248chapterten Ǣ ǡ ǡǡȋ Ȍ ǦǤ bricolage ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌǤǡ ǤͳʹͲ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ǡǡ ȋ Ȍ ǣ ǡ ȋ ʹȌǢ ȋ ͵ȌǢ ȋ ͶȌǢ ȋ ͷȌǢ ȋ Ȍǡ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋ ͺȌǤ
120PublishedinDecember2011,twoandahalfyearslater(July2014)thevideo(http://vimeo.com/29046176) hadbeenviewedover120,000times,whiletheprojectwebsite(www.playingwithpigs.nl)hadreceivedover 60,000 hits. A wide array of public media have reported on the project or interviewed us: Chinese, South American,andRussiangameblogs,French,Dutch,andGermanradiostations,DanishbreakfastTV,aBelgian popular science TV show and late night talk show, magazines on digital culture such as Wired, environmentalist weblogs such as Treehugger, and several North American and Dutch newspapers (NRC, Volkskrant,AD). aconclusioninthemaking249 Ǧ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ
10.2Ongoingeffortstowardsplayingwithpigsasaconclusion ǡǡͺ Ǥ ͳʹͳ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ ǡǯ Ǥǡ ͳͲǤ͵ǡ ǡ Ǥ
1–Openingupethicsasagenre Ǯ ǯ ǫ ǫ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
121Aclaimoflinearlearningandknowledgeapplicationthatcaneasilybedismissedbecauseofthefactthat most of those previous chapters (all apart from chapter 2) were (re)written after the game project had started. 250chapterten ȂȂǦȂ Ǯǯǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǤǡǮ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ acceptable ǫ ǤǦǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͳͳȌǤ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǫ ǫȋ ǫȌǡǡ ǫ ǦǦ ǡǡǡǡ Ǯ ǯȋʹͲͲͶȌǫǦ ȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǢ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȁ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ
aconclusioninthemaking251 ǡǦǡ Ǥͳʹʹ ǡ Ǥ ȋȌ ǡ Ǧ depriǦkinoǤȂ Ȃ ǫ ǫ ǡ ǫ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Willtherealmoralsubjectpleasestandup? ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ǤʹͲͲͺȌǤ ʹǡ Ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǣǮ ǯ
122 Which, however, does not necessarily mean that the situation and the attending practice cannot be questionedintheirentiretyfromamoresituatedposition,cf.Diamond(1978). 252chapterten ȋǤʹͲͲǢǡǡ ʹͲͲȌǤ ǡǡ Ǥ ȋǡȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ǡ ȌǡǡǡǤ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǧǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǡǡ ǡǡ ǡǦ Ȁ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡǡ ǡ OurDailyBreadWeFeedtheWorldǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯǡͳʹ͵ 123Orperhapsvirtually(foraminuteassumingthisdistinctionstillmakessense). aconclusioninthemaking253 ǤǢ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ȋȌ ǣ ǡ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͲʹǢ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȃ ȋʹͲͳ͵ǢǤʹͲͲʹǡʹͷʹȌǤ ǡȋȌ ǡ gamifiedǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤͳʹͶǡ ǮǯǯǤ ȂȂ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ
124Cf.VanderWeele(2013)foradiscussion(inDutch)ofthecomplexitiesofthemoralselfanditsrelationto undesiredknowledge. 254chapterten 2–AhighǦtechmediatedfarmvisit Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ ʹǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ȌǤ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǯ ǫ ǫ Ǧǫǫ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ȃ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ ǡǡ Ǥ ȋ ȌǤ Ǯǯǡ Ǥǡ aconclusioninthemaking255 ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǯ ǡ ʹǤ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǣ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǥ ǣ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǡ ȋͳͻͺͺȌ ǡ ǯ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǫ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ȂǦ ǡ ǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ
256chapterten Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ǥ ʹͲͳͳȌǤ ǡ Ǥ ǯ Ȃ ǡ ǣ Dz Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǫdzȋ ǤʹͲͲǡͷͲͶȌ ǫ Ȃ ǫ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǮ ǯǮǯǡ ǡ ȋʹͲͲͳȌǫ ǡ
aconclusioninthemaking257 ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ȃǫ ǡǡ ǫ ǡ Ȃ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
3–Disclosingmoralworldsbygamedesign Ǧ ͵ Ǯ ǯǤ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡ ǦǡǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǦǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǤǡǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ Ǥ ͵ǡ ȋǤǤ Ȍȋ ȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǤǮ ǯ ǯ ǡ
258chapterten ǯǡ ȋʹͲͲȌǤ ǡ Ǣ ǮǯͳͻͻͲǤ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǯǯ ȋʹͲͳͶȌ ȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ Ǧǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳǢʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳͳǡ ͳͳͶȌǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ͳǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣ Ǣ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡȋʹͲͳͳǡͻȌǤ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǤǡȂ Ȃ ȋ Ȍǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ
aconclusioninthemaking259 Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ ǯ Ǯ ǯǤ Occasionsfordebateswithothersthantheusualsuspects Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯȋ ͳͻͺͻǢʹͲͲʹǡͳ͵ͺȌ Ǥǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Newkindsofargumentsandchangingissueunderstandings ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ
260chapterten Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǯǯǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǤȋȌ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ ǡǮǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǢ ǯ ǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǫ ǡ Ȃǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡȂ ǡ Ǥ
aconclusioninthemaking261 Newmoralsubjects ǣ ǦǦǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǯǯ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ȁ Ǯ ǯǤ ǮǯǤ Ǯǯ ǡ Ǥǣ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ ȋǡ ǡ Ȍ Ǥ Heideggeriandangers? ǫ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǯǯǡ
262chapterten
ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ Gestell, Ȃ ǫ gamification Ǯ ǯȋǦͳͻͻȌǫ
Ǧ Ǥ Ǯǯǡǡǡ Ǥ Ȃ ȂǦ ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǣ ǡ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ
Ǥ
Dzǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǯǡ ǯ ǡ Ǥǡ ǯǯ Ǥdzȋ̵̵ǡ ʹͲͳʹȌ
ǡ ǣ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡǡ ǡǤ aconclusioninthemaking263 4–IntensifyingthecoǦevolutionofethicsandtechnology Ǧǡ ǡȋ Ȍ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǧ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǮǯǮǯ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋǤǤʹͲͲȌǦ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ 264chapterten Ǥ ǡ ǣ ǡ Ǥ Theculturalcharacteroffarmedcowsandpigs Ǥ ǯ ǡȋ ǡ ȌǤ ǡ Ȃ ǡ Ǥ ǡȋ Ȍǡ ʹǤ Ǥǡ Ǯ͵ǯǡǮǯǡ ǤͳͻͷͲ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ Ǧ Ǯ ǯǡ ǡ ǮǯǤ ǡ Ǥ ͷ ǡ Ǥ ǮǦ ǯǡ rewildingǡ Ȃ Ǥ ǯ Ǥǫ ǡ ǫ ǡǡ Ǧ ǮǯǤǫ ǫ aconclusioninthemaking265 ǫ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǦǦ ǣ Ǥ
5–Playfulanimaldeliberation Ǯ ǯ ȋ ǤʹͲͲͶǢʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ ǦǦǫ ǡȂȂ Ȃ Ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
266chapterten ǡ Ǥ Pig Chase Ǥ Ȃ ǡ ȋȌ Ǧ Ǥ Ǥ ǣǫ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǫ Ǯǯ ǫǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤ Ǥ ǮǯǤ ǯȋʹͲͲȌ Ǥ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ȋǮǯ ȌǮ ǯ
aconclusioninthemaking267 ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǯǯǡ ǡ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǣ Ǣ Ȃ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȂǤ ͳʹͷǡ ǡ ǡǡǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǫ ǡ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ
125Eventhough‘games’couldbeseenasreinvigoratingthissenseofdiscreteindividualsbehavinginresponse toothersandwithinfixedstructuresofrulesandpresetgoals,itisnotfornothingthatmostpeopleinthe fieldprefertotalkabout‘play’:anactivitythatis(even)moredifficulttodefineandonethatismoreopen, experimental,andambiguous.Playthusisatermthatimpliesalessprefiguredsenseofthenatureofagency as not primarily goal directed and selfͲaffirming, nor necessarily means thinking in terms of winners and losers,etc.ThePigChaseconceptcombineselementsofboth–offeringanopportunityformerelymoving together,whilealsoprovidinggoalsandregistering‘highscores’. 268chapterten 10.3Pitfallsandprospects Pigsarecute? ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǤǮǯǤ Ǥͳʹ ǡ ǡ ǯ Ǥ ǯǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǦǦ Ǥ Thestatusofexperience,skill,andsituatedness Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǯ ǯ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ͳͻͻͷȌ
126Whenyoustandinthemiddleofapigpen,suchasduringthetestingofthegameprototype,pigsquickly grow accustomed to your presence and start nibbling harder and harder on your legs. This tends to lead farmersandotherhumanvisitorstoengageinakindofdancetogentlybutfirmlykeepthepigsatbay. aconclusioninthemaking269 ǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡȂ Ǥ ǡ ǤȋȌ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Situated,butmorethanlocal ǡǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ ǦǦ ǡ ǡ Ǣ Ǯ ǯͳʹ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ 127 A disruptive technique of sociological inquiry developed by Harold Garfinkel (1964) as a form of ‘ethnomethodology’, aiming to foster an imaginative look at takenͲforͲgranted, everyday background expectations, in order to demonstrate: “the extent to which normative order penetrates the momentͲtoͲ momentaccomplishmentofsituatedsocialactions”(LynchandPeyrot1992,114). 270chapterten ǡǡ Ǯ Ǧ ǯ ǡǦǦ ǡ ǡ ǡǦ Ǥ ǡ ȋȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǣ Ǧ Ǣǡ Ǧ Ǧ ǤǮǯ ǡ Ǧ Ǥ Ǧ ǦǤ Ȃ ǡ Ǥͳʹͺ Ǥ Ǧ Ǥ Ǧ ǦǤǡ ȂȂ ǡ subaltern Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥͳʹͻ ǡ 128 See for instance (Bos and Grin 2008; Elzen et al. 2012) for examples of agricultural design efforts that shuttle between formulating ends in the form of blueprints and adjusting these during phases of practical realization. 129ThedebateaboutGMOsmightbeacaseinpointinwhichprincipledoppositiontomoreopenformsof ‘experimenting’withnewtechnologieswassuccessfulinmakingseveralpoliticalargumentsandpreventing powerfulinterestsfrompushingthroughaparticularagendawithoutcriticalaccountability.Although,evenin thiscase,itcouldbearguedthatmoremuddledandcomplexunderstandingsofformsofgeneticinterventions inorganismscouldhaveinformedamoreinterestingsocietaldebateorlearningprocess;Alearningprocess whichcurrentlyseemstodevelopanywaybutlargelyoutsideofthepublicview. aconclusioninthemaking271 ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ȃ Ȃ Ǧ ǮǯǤ ǣ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ȌǤ Howcanweviewthe‘impacts’ofthePigChasegameconcept? ǡ ǫ Ǧǡ ǡPigChase Ȃ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ ȋǫȌ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯǮǯǤ ȋǦȌ ǡ Ǥ ǦǤ ǡǡ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ ǤǡǮǯ Ǯǯ ǡ
272chapterten ȋʹͲͲ͵ȌǤ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǦǦ Ǥ Ǥǡ Pig Chase Ǥ ǡǦ ǦȂȂ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǤǦ ȋʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǮǯǤ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ MoralagencyincoǦevolutionarytinkeringandtheroleofphilosophy ǡ Ȃ ǡ ǫ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ ǡ ȌǤǡǡ aconclusioninthemaking273 ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǯ Ǥȋǡ ǡ ǨȌ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǯǯǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋ ʹͲͳʹȌǤ Isitjustart,orisitforreal? ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǯǯǫ ǡ ǫ Pig Chase Ǯ ǯȋ ʹͲͳ͵Ȍǡ Ǧǡ Ǥ ǮǯǡǮ ǯǡ Ǯ ǯ ȋ ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ Ǯ ǯǡ Ǧ ǡͳ͵Ͳ Ǥ Ǥ 130See:http://www.fairphone.com(accessed2February,2014). 274chapterten ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ Designassocialmovementandpublicdebate PigChaseǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ TenCommandmentsǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ȃ Ǧ Ǥ ǡǮǯ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǯ ǯǤ ǡ Ǧ ǡ Ǥǡ Ǧ Ǥǡ Ȃ ǮǯȂǡ ǡ Ǥ ȋ Ȍ ȋ ǨȌǤ aconclusioninthemaking275 Ǧ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǣ Ǥ Personalmotivationfordoingphilosophy,or,indefenceoftheridiculous ǡȂ Ȃ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǯǯ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡǡǤ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥǡ ȋǦ ȌǤ ǡǡ ǡǤ ǡǡǡ ǡ ǡǡǤPigChase Ǥ 276chapterten Ǧ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǡ ǦǮǦ ǯ ȋ Ǥ ÚʹͲͳͲȌǡ ȋ ǫȌ Ǥ ȋ ʹͲͳͲǡ ͻͳȌǫ ǯ ǡ Ǥ depriǦkino ͳǤǡ ȋ Ȍ ͳͲǡͲͲͲ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǣDz ǡǤdzǡ Ǯǯ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ǡ ǡ ǦǤ ǡ ȋȌ ǮǯǤ ǡ Ͳ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ
aconclusioninthemaking277 ǡ ǡ Ǥ
Epilogue
Backonthepigfarm Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǧ ȋLandbouwontwikkelingsgebiedȌǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ʹͲͳ͵ǡǡ Ǥ Ǥǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǡ Ǣ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ 280epilogue ǤǣǮ ǡǫǯ Ǥǡ Ǥǡ ǮʹͲ͵ͲǯǤ ȂǤ system innovation ǡ ǡ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǮǦǯǮǦǯ ǡǡǡ ǡǡ Ǥ Sowhatisameaningfulroleforphilosophersonthefarm? ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǯ ǯ Ǯ ǯ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋǦǦȌ Ǯǯ Ǥͳ͵ͳ
131Indeed,likethepigfarmer,Ihavealsomovedandnowworkasaculturalgeographer.
Bibliography ǡǤͳͻͻǤTheSpelloftheSensuous:PerceptionandLanguageinaMoreǦ thanǦHumanWorldǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤBecomingAnimal:AnEarthlyCosmologyǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͺǤDeErfenisVandeUtopieǤǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͶǤThePornographyofMeatǤǤ ǤʹͲͳͶǤǮ̹ǯǤCowManagerSensOren: VoorZorgeloosMelkveeHoudenǤ ǤǤȀ ȀǤǤ ͳͲ ʹͲͳͶǤ ǡǤͳͻͻʹǤǦ Ǥ ǣ Ȁ ǡǤǤǤ ǤǡʹͲͷȂʹʹͶǤ ǣ Ǥ ǡǡ ǤͳͻͻͻǤSpeciesofMind:ThePhilosophyandBiologyof CognitiveEthologyǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤArtandAnimalsǤ ƬǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǯǤAnthrozoos:A MultidisciplinaryJournalofTheInteractionsofPeople&Animalsʹͷ ȋͳȌǣ͵ȂͻͲǤ ǤʹͲͲͷǤResolutiononViolenceinVideoGames andInteractiveMediaǤǣȀȀǤǤȀ Ȁ ǤǤ ǤʹͲͲͺǤǤǤ ǣȀȀǤǤȀ Ȁ͵ͷͺͺͻȀ ͳͳ ʹͲͳͲǤ ǤʹͲͳͳǤǮǯǤAlgemeenDagbladǡ Ǥ ǣȀȀǤǤȀȀȀͳͲͳͶȀȀ ȀȀʹͶʹͷͳ͵ȀʹͲͳͳȀͲȀͲȀ ǦǦǦǦǦǤǤ ǤʹͲͳͲǤǣǣǡʹǡͳʹ ʹͲͳͲǤͳ͵ǣͲͶǤǤ ǣȀȀǤǤȀ ǤǫαͷƬα͵Ƭαͳ͵ʹͲ 284bibliography ͳͳ ʹͲͳͲǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤǮǦ ǯǤ AntennaeǡǤͳ͵ǣʹͶȂ͵Ǥ ǡǤǤʹͲͲͷǤ ǡ ǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics,ͳͺȋ͵Ȍǡʹͻ͵Ǧ͵Ͳ͵Ǥ ǡ ǤǤǤ Ǥ Ǥ ʹͲͲͲǤ ǡǤ ǡ ǤǤǤRoboticmilking,proceedingsof theinternationalsymposiumheldinLelystad,TheNetherlandsǡ17Ȃ19August 2000ǡʹͲͳǦʹͳͳǤǡǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤLiquidmaterialities:ahistoryofmilk,science,andthelaw.ǣ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤͳͻͻͷǤSomepracticalaspectsofpreventingdiseaseinorganic husbandry,healthpromotion,naturalbehaviourenhancement.Driebergenǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤThePostmodernAnimal. Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǯǤApplied AnimalBehaviourScienceͳͳͺȋ͵ǦͶȌǣʹͲͺȂͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤConsumed:HowMarketsCorruptChildren,Infantilize Adults,andSwallowCitizensWholeǤǤǤƬǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤPoliticalMachines:GoverningaTechnologicalSocietyǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͲǤStepstoanEcologyofMind:CollectedEssaysin Anthropology,Psychiatry,Evolution,andEpistemologyǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤDoesEthicsHaveaChanceinaWorldofConsumers? Ǥ ǡǤǡ ǤʹͲͲͳǤPrinciplesofBiomedical EthicsǤǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͻʹǤRiskSociety:TowardsaNewModernityǤǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣ ǯǤJournalof AgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsͳͻȋ͵Ȍǣ͵ͲͳȂͳʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤǮ ǯǤ EthicalTheoryandMoralPracticeͳͳȋͳȌǣͳȂʹǤ ǡǡ Ǥǡ±ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǣ ǡ ǯǤScienceasCultureʹʹȋͳȌǣͳȂͳͷǤ ǡ ǡ ǤͳͻͻǤReadingsinAnimalCognitionǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǣ
bibliography285 ǯǤ Ǥ ǣȀȀ Ǥ ǤǤȀʹͻͳȀǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮǯǤTheAtlanticǡ ʹͶǤ ǣȀȀǤ Ǥ Ȁ Ȁ ȀʹͲͳʹȀͲͳȀǦǦ ȀʹͷͳͻʹͲȀǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͳǤTheEnchantmentofModernLife:Attachments,Crossings,and EthicsǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤVibrantMatter:APoliticalEcologyofThingsǤǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤͳͻͺͲǤAboutLookingǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͳǤǮǣ ǯǤTheThreepennyReviewǡǤͺǣ ʹͺȂʹͺǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤWhyLookatAnimals? Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻǤAPiggeryComplexintheRandstadConurbationǤ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤBeyondObjectivism andRelativism:Science,Hermeneutics, andPraxisǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮ ȋȌ ǫǯResearchinConsumerBehavior ͳͳǣͶͳȂͷǤ ǡǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǤʹͲͳͳǤ Ȅ ǤJournalofFoodScienceTechnologyͶͺȋʹȌǣͳʹͷȂͳͶͲǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͲǤǤ TechniekinNederlandinde TwintigsteEeuwǡVolumeIII,Ǥ ǤǤ ǡʹͳͳȂʹ͵͵ǤǣǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤOfBicycles,Bakelites,andBulbs:TowardaTheoryof SociotechnicalChange.ǣ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤͳͻͻʹǤShapingtechnology/buildingsociety:studiesin socioǦtechnicalchangeǤǡǣ Ǥ ʹͲͲͺǤ ǣȀȀǤǤȀǤǫ ȀȀ̴Ǥ ͳʹʹͲͲͻǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͻǤ ǣ Ǧǫ EthicalTheoryandMoralPractice2ǡ͵ͳͻȂ͵͵Ǥ ǡǤǤǡǤǤ ǤʹͲͲǤǮǣ ǯǤBritishFoodJournalͳͲͻȋͳͳȌǣͻ͵ͳȂͶͶǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤPersuasiveGames:TheExpressivePowerofVideogamesǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͶǤ ǤThesisEleven͵ǣͺʹǦ ͻ
286bibliography ǡ ǤͳͻͻͺǤǮ ǣ ǯǤJournalofPoliticalPhilosophyȋͶȌǣͶͲͲȂͶʹͷǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͲǤPublicDeliberation:Pluralism,ComplexityandDemocracyǤ ǡǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡǤͳͻͻͻǤ ǡ Europ.J.SocialTheory2(3)ǡ͵ͷͻȂǤ ǡ ǤǡǤ ʹͲͲȏͳͻͻͳȐǤOnJustification,economiesof worth. ǣ Ǥ ǡǤǤǡǤǤ ǡǤ Ǥǡ ǤǤǤǡǤ ǤǤʹͲͳͳǤ ǣ ǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsʹͶȋ͵ȌǣʹͷͻȂʹͺʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͶǤǤVeeteeltǤͳǣͶʹȂͶ͵ ǡǤͳͻͺͶǤTechnologyandtheCharacterofContemporaryLife. ǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤ Ǥ Technologyandthegoodlife?ǤǤ ǡǤǡǤǡ͵ͶͳȂ͵ͲǤ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͶǤǮ Ǥ ǯǤMedicine,HealthCareandPhilosophyȋͳȌǣͳȂ͵Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͷǤǮ ǯǤBioethicsͳͻȋͳȌǣͶͻȂͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͶǤEenkwestievanbeheersing,overderolvanplanten,dierenen mensenintechnologischesystemenǤǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǡSocialEpistemology,22(1),ʹͻȂͷͲǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ Ȅ ǯǤLivestockProductionScienceͺͶȋʹȌǣͳͷȂ ͲǤǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǡǤ ǡ Ǥ ʹͲͲǤȀǯǯǤǡͳͳ Ǥ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤǮDzdz ǯǤScience,Technology& HumanValues͵͵ȋͶȌǣͶͺͲȂͷͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤWildlifeFilmsǤǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͲʹǤǮǣ Dz dz ǯǤHastingsCenterReport͵ʹȋͳȌǣ ͳȂʹʹǤ
bibliography287 ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤǣ ǡ ǡ ǤTechnologyandCultureͶʹȋͶȌǣ͵ͳȂͶǤ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǯǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics ͳͻȋͳȌǣȂͺͻǤ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǤǤǤʹͲͳͳǤǮǣ ǯǤAnimalWelfareʹͲȋ͵Ȍǣ͵ͶȂ͵Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤDoFishFeelPain? Ǥ ǡ ǤǤǤͳͻͷǤ Ǥǣ Ǥʹͺ͵Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǤǤʹͲͳͲǤPoliticalMatter:Technoscience, Democracy,andPublicLifeǤǤ ǡǤǡǤǤͳͻͳǤǮǤǯAmerican PsychologistͳȋͳͳȌǣͺͳǤ ǡ ǤǤǡǡ ǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǡǡǣǤǯ UnderstandingConsumersofFoodProductsǡͳͲȂʹ͵Ǥ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǤ Welfare—TheUFAWJournalʹͳȋͳȌǣͳ͵ͳǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮǣ ǯǤ ImprovingFarmAnimalWelfareǡǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǡͶͻȂͻǤ Ǥ ǣȀȀǤǤ Ȁ ȀͳͲǤ͵ͻʹͲȀͻͺǦͻͲǦͺͺǦͲǦ̴͵Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǡ ǯǤTheory,Culture& Societyǡ ǡ͵ͲȋȀͺȌǣͳͷͷȂͳͷǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͳǤǮ ǣ ǯǤSocietyandAnimalsͻȋ͵ȌǣʹͲ͵ȂʹͺǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲʹǤAnimalsinFilmǤǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͲǤ ǤJournalof RuralStudies16,ʹ͵Ȃʹͺ͵Ǥ ǡ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥͳͻͷ͵ǤǮ 3 ±ǯǤArchivesNéerlandaisesdeZoologie ͳͲǣ͵ͶȂͶͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮͳͲ ǯǡ ǤVenturebeat.comǤǣȀȀǤ ȀʹͲͳ͵ȀͳͲȀͲͻȀͳͲǦ ǦǦ ǦǦǦ ǦǦǦǦǦȀʹȀǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲʹǤSilentSpringǤ Ǥ CatCatRevolution:AnInterspeciesGamingExperienceǤʹͲͳͲǤ
288bibliography ǣȀȀǤǤ Ȁ ǫαͲͷǦ ƬǤ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲʹǤ Ǧ ǣ ǤLeonardo͵ͷȋͶȌǣ͵ͷǦ͵ͲǤ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣ Ǧ ǯǤEthical TheoryandMoralPracticeͳͲȋͳȌǣ͵ȂʹͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǡǡ ǯǤEthicsandInformationTechnologyͻȋ͵ȌǣʹͳͻȂ͵ͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤGrowingMoralRelations:CritiqueofMoralStatus AscriptionǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤʹͲͲ͵ǤElizabethCostelloǤǣǤ ǡ ǤǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǯǤ ǣTheDeathofthe Animal:ADialogueǤǡǤǡͺͻȂͻʹǤ ǡǤǡ ǤǡǤǤʹͲͲͻǤ ǣ ǡJournal ofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics,22,͵ͶͳȂ͵ͷͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤǮ Dz dzDz dzǫ ǯ DzǦdz ǯǤAnimalsͳȋͳȌǣͺ͵ȂͳͲͳǤ ǡǡǤ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣ ǯǤProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciencesʹͶ ȋͳʹ͵Ȍǣʹ͵ͳȂʹǤ ǡǤ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǣǢ ʹͲͲͺ ǤAgricHumValues26ǡ͵ȂͳͶ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤǮ ǯǤPoliticalStudies ͶͺȋͷȌǣͻͶȂͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǯǤTheSociologicalQuarterlyͶͶȋͶȌǣ ͷͻȂͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͷǤTheMetaphysicsofApes:NegotiatingtheAnimalǦHuman BoundaryǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǯǤTheVergeǡ ͳǤǣȀȀǤǤ ȀʹͲͳʹȀͳȀͳȀʹͳͲͻȀǦǦ ǦǦǦǦǤ ǡÚǤʹͲͳͲǤHowtoStopLivingandStartWorrying. ǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͶǤ Ǥ
bibliography289 EnvironmentalEthicsʹȋͳȌǣͷȂʹͶǤ ǡǤͳͻͻǤǮǣǡ ǯǤEnvironmentalHistoryͳȋͳȌǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤ Ǧ ǤFarmandDairyǣͳͶ Ǥ ǣȀȀǤǤ ȀǦȀ ǦǦǦǦǦ ǦǦǦǦȀ͵ͺ͵͵Ǥ ͳͺ ʹͲͳʹǤ ǡǤǤʹͲͲͳǤǮ ǣ ǯǤSouthern RuralSociologyͳǣͳʹȂ͵Ǥ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲͷǤThinkingwithAnimals:NewPerspectives onAnthropomorphismǤǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤ ǣ ǡ ǤEnvironmentandPlanningA͵ͺȋ͵ȌǣͶʹ͵ǦͶͶͶ ǡ ǤʹͲͳʹǤǣ ǤEnvironmentandPlanningD:Societyand Space͵ͲȋͶȌǣʹ͵Ȃ͵ͺǤ ǡǤǤǡ Ǥ Ǥ ǤʹͲͲʹǤ ǯǣ ǤNewZealandDairyExporterǤ ǣͷͶȂͷͷǤ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǯǤZoologyͳͲȋͶȌǣ͵ͺ͵ȂͺǤ ǡǤǤǡ Ǥ ǤǤǡ ǤǤǦ ǤͳͻͻͶǤVolautomatische MelksystemenǤǡǡ ǡ ǡǤͶǤ ǡǤ ǤǡǤǤǡ ǤǤǡ ǤǤǤǡǤǡ ǤǤǤ ǡ ǤǤǡǤǡǤǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǫǯEthicsandthePoliticsofFoodǡͳȂͷǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͲǤǦǤ Trouwǡ ʹͳǤ ǡ ǤǡǦǡǤǡǤǤ ʹͲͲͺǤǮ ȋ Ȍǣ ǫǯAppliedAnimalBehaviour ScienceͳͳͶȋ͵ǦͶȌǣ͵ͷͻȂʹǤ ǡ ǤǤǤǡǤ ǤǤʹͲͳͲǤǮ Ǥ Ǧ ǯǤ Appetiteͷͷȋ͵ȌǣͳȂͺǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͻǤZeppelins:OverFilosofie,TechnologieEnCultuurǤ Ǥ
290bibliography ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤ Ǧ ǫ ǤSocialStudiesofScience͵ȋͷȌǣͺͳǦͺͲͻǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤChimpanzeePolitics:PowerandSexamongApesǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤDeVoorspellers:eenkritiekopdetoekomstindustrieǤ ǣǤ ǡ Ǥ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǤǡǤǤʹͲͲͲǤAgroproductieparken: PerspectievenenDilemma’sǤ ǣ ǡǤʹͲͲͷǤ ǤVeeteelt ʹʹȋͳȀʹȌǣͷͲȂͷͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤ ǤVeeteelt ʹͶȋͳͲȌǣʹȂ͵ͳǤ ǤǤǤǮǮǤ ǣȀȀǤǤ Ȁ ǫαʹͶ ͻ ͳͳ ʹͲͳͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǯǤTheJournalofNutritionͳ͵͵ ȋͳͳȌǣ͵ͻͲȂ͵ͻͳͲǤ ǡǡǤ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣ ǯǤSociologia RuralisͶȋ͵ȌǣͳͺͻȂʹͲͶǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤ Ǥ ǤƬǡͳͳ Ǥ Ǥǣ ǣȀȀǤ ȀȀͳ͵ͷʹʹ ʹͺʹͲͳʹǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͶǤǮǣ ǦǦ ǯǤ Body&SocietyͳͲȋʹǦ͵ȌǣͳͳͳȂ͵ͶǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǯǤMakingThingsPublic. AtmospheresofDemocracyǤǣȀȀǤǤ ǤȀȀʹʹͺȀͳ͵ͷͷͻͲǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ Ȃ ǯǤTheory,Culture&Society͵ͲȋǦͺȌǣͷͳȂǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǤHistoryandTheory ͷʹȋͶȌǣʹͻȂͶͶǤ ǡ ǤͳͺͻǤǮ ǤǯPsychologicalReview͵ ȋͶȌǣ͵ͷǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͷͶȏͳͻʹȐǤThePublicanditsProblemsǤǡǣǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͷȏͳͻ͵ͶȐǤArtasExperienceǤǣǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤLogicǦTheTheoryofInquiryǤǤ ǡǤͳͻͺǤǮǯǤPhilosophy ͷ͵ȋʹͲȌǣͶͷȂͻǤ ǡǤͳͻͺͺǤǮ ǯǤEthics ͻͺȋʹȌǣʹͷͷȂǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤ ǤDesignIssues ʹͷȋͳȌǣͶͺǦ ͵Ǥ
bibliography291 ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤWhatIDon’tKnowaboutAnimalsǤǤ ǡǤǡ Ǥǡ Ǥ ǤʹͲͳͲǤ ǤJournalofDairy Scienceͻ͵ǣͶͲͳͻȂͶͲ͵͵Ǥ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤZoopolis:APoliticalTheoryofAnimal RightsǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǣ ǯ ǯǤPhilosophy&TechnologyǡͳȂ ʹͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǣ Ǧ ǯǤ NewVisionsofNatureǡʹͲͷȂʹͺǤǤ ǡ Ǥͳͻͻ͵ǤǮ ǯ Ȁ ǯǤSOCIALRESEARCHǦNEWYORKǦͲǣͳȂͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤ ǣ ǡ ǣ ǡǤǡ ǡǤǡǡ Ǥ ǡǤǡǤSustainablefoodproductionandethicsǤǣ ǡʹͳͻǦʹʹ͵Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤ Ǣ ǤEursafeNewsletterǡͳͲȋͶȌǡͷǦͺǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ Ǣ ǯǤ JournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsʹͷȋʹȌǣͳ͵ȂͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǫ Ǧ ǯǤ TheEthicsofConsumptionǡ Ú ǡʹͷͳȂͷǤ Ǥ ǣȀȀǤǤ Ȁ ȀͳͲǤ͵ͻʹͲȀͻͺǦͻͲǦͺͺǦͺͶǦͶ̴ͶͲǤ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͳʹǤǮǣ ǯǤSocialStudiesofScienceͶʹȋȌǣͻȂͺʹͲǤ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͳͶǤǮǫ Ǧ ǯǤ AgricultureandHumanValuesǤȋȌ ǡ ǤͳͻͺǤRationalEcology:EnvironmentandPoliticalEconomyǤǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͷǤǮ ǯǤEnvironmentalPolitics ͶȋͶȌǣͳ͵Ȃ͵ͲǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͲǤDeliberativeDemocracyandBeyondǤǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤǮ ǯǤEnvironmentalEthics ͳʹȋ͵ȌǣͳͻͷȂʹͳͲǤ
292bibliography ǡǤǡǤǤǡ ǤǤ ǡǤǤǤʹͲͳͳǤ Ǧ Ͷǡ ʹ ǡǤTheriogenologyͷȋ͵Ȍǣͷͳ͵ǦͷʹǤ ǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǮǡǡ ǣ ȀǯǤTheAmericanJournalof BioethicsͻȋǦȌǣͻ͵ȂͻͷǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤǮ ǣ ǯǤEnvironmentalPoliticsͶȋͶȌǣͳͻȂͻͺǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͻǤǮ ǯǤEnvironmentalPoliticsͺȋʹȌǣʹͶȂͶͻǤ ʹͲͲͻǤ Ȃ Ǩ ǤElectroluxNewsroomUKǡͳʹ Ǥǣ ǣȀȀǤ Ǥ ȀȀʹͲͲͻȀͳʹȀͲͳȀ Ǧ Ǧ Ǧ ǦǦǦ Ȁ ǡǡ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǯǤ FarmingSystems Researchintothe21stCentury:TheNewDynamicǡͶ͵ͳȂͷͷǤǤ ǣȀȀǤǤ Ȁ ȀͳͲǤͳͲͲȀͻͺǦͻͶǦͲͲǦͶͷͲ͵Ǧʹ̴ͳͻǤ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͲͷǤ ǣ Ǥ AgricultureandHumanValues22ǡͳ͵ȂͳͶͺ ǤʹͲͲͳǤǮ ʹͲͲͳȀͻ͵Ȁͻ ʹͲͲͳ ͻͳȀ͵ͲȀ ǯǤǣȀȀǦ ǤǤȀȀǤǫαǣ͵ʹͲͲͳͲͲͻ͵ǣǣǤ ǣ ǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǣ ǯǤNewsroomǤ ǣȀȀ ǤǤȀ ǫα̴Ƭ αƬ Ƭ α͵Ͷ͵ͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤMeat:ABenignExtravaganceǤ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻͻǤQuestioningTechnologyǤǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵Ǥ ǤTechnéȋͳȌǣ ͶʹǦͶͺǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͻǤǮǣǡǡ ǯǤ TransactionsoftheCharlesS.PeirceSociety͵ͷȋ͵ȌǣͷʹȂͷͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤCriticalPlay:RadicalGameDesignǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮ Ǧ ǯǤ QualitativeInquiryͳʹȋʹȌǣʹͳͻȂͶͷǤ
bibliography293 ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤEatingAnimalsǤǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͺͺǤTheHistoryofSexuality,Vol.3:TheCareoftheSelfǤǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͺǤTheHistoryofSexuality,Vol.1:TheWilltoKnowledgeǤ ǤǤ ǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤWhenIAmPlayingwithMyCat,HowDoIKnowThatSheIs NotPlayingwithMe?MontaigneandBeinginTouchwithLifeǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤ ǡǡǣDz ǤdzͶȋʹȌǣͳͲ͵ȂͳͳǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͻǤ ǣ ǤAppliedAnimalBehaviourScience65ǡͳͳȂͳͺͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤDz dz ǣ ǡ ǡǤJAnimSci,79ǡ͵ͶȂͶͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤǮ ǣ ǯǤJournalofAppliedAnimalWelfareScienceͶȋ͵ȌǣͳͷȂͻͲǤ ǡǡǤǤǤͳͻͻǤǮ ǯǤ ǡǤ ǤǡǤǡǤǤǤǡǤǤʹͲͲͷǤǮ Ǧ ǯǤ JournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsͳͺȋͶȌǣ͵ͶͷȂǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮǡ ǡ ǯǯǤOxfordLiteraryReviewʹͻȋͳǦʹȌǣ͵ȂͷͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǣǯǤSocialStudiesofScience Ͷʹȋ͵ȌǣͶʹͻȂ͵ͶǤ ǡ ǡǤ ʹͲͳͳǤǡ ǣ ǤScienceasCultureǣͳǦʹͶ ǡ Ǧ ǤʹͲͳͲǤGesammelteWerke:Hermeneutik :Wahrheitund Methode.Ǧ1.GrundzügeeinerphilosophischenHermeneutik.Bd.1Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͷǤTechnologicalTransitionsandSystemInnovations:ACoǦ EvolutionaryandSocioǦTechnicalAnalysisǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤAvailableLight:AnthropologicalReflectionsonPhilosophical TopicsǤ ǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤYesNaturally:HowArtSavestheWorldǤȀǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤMechanizationTakesCommand:AContributionto AnonymousHistoryǤǤ ǡ Ǥͳͻͺ͵ǤǮǦ Ǧ ǣ ǯǤAmerican SociologicalReviewǡͺͳȂͻͷǤ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤAnimalsinTranslation:Usingthe MysteriesofAutismtoDecodeAnimalBehaviorǤ Ǥ
294bibliography Dz dzʹͲͲͻǤ ȄǤ ǣȀȀǤǤȀ Ȁ͵ͳͻͶȀ ʹͶ ʹͲͳͶǤ ǡǤͳͻǤTheQuestionofAnimalAwareness:EvolutionaryContinuityof MentalExperienceǤ ǤǤ ǡǤͳͻͺͶǤAnimalThinkingǤ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻͶǤAnimalMindsǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤAnimalMinds:BeyondCognitiontoConsciousnessǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤDasmoralphilosophischeExperiment:JohnDeweysMethode empirischerUntersuchungenalsModellderproblemǦund anwendungsorientiertenTierethikǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡǡǤʹͲͲͶǤ ǣ Ǥ InternationalJournalofForesightandInnovationPolicyͳǣͳʹǦͳͶͻ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤ ǣ ǤSocialEpistemologyʹͶȋͳȌǣ͵ǦͶǤ ǤǤǡǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤ ǤǤʹͲͲͻǤ ǡ ȋǮǯȌǤ ǡ ǤǣǣȀȀǤǦ ǤȀȀȀ ̴̴̴̴ͳʹͲǤ ʹͺ ʹͲͳʹǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͻǤTechnikandWissenschaftals‘Ideologie’Ǥ ǣ Ǥ ǡǡǤǤʹͲͲͶǤǮ ǯǤAppliedAnimalBehaviourScienceͺͷȋ͵ȂͶȌǣʹͲ͵Ȃͳ͵Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǣ ǯ ǦǦ ǤJournalofRuralStudies͵͵ȋͳȌǣͳͳͻȂͳ͵Ͳ ǡǤͳͻͻͳǤ‘Simians,CyborgsandWomen:TheReinventionofNature’. ǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤWhenSpeciesMeetǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲʹǤ ǡǤ ǣ Pragmatistethics fora technologicalcultureǡǤ ǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤǡ ͳͶ͵ȂͳͶͻǤǣ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤPrinceofNetworks: BrunoLatourandMetaphysicsǤ ǣǤǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤǮ ǡ ǡ ǯǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤAnimalHappiness:AMovingExplorationofAnimalsandTheir
bibliography295 EmotionsǤǤ ǡǤͳͻͳǤPoetry,Language,ThoughtǤǣ ƬǤ ǡǤͳͻǤTheQuestionConcerningTechnologyandOtherEssays. ǣ ƬǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤSenseofPlaceandSenseofPlanet:TheEnvironmental ImaginationoftheGlobalǤǡǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤModelsOfDemocracyǤǤ ǡ Ǥ ǤǤǡǤǡ Ǥǡ ǤʹͲͲͶǤǦ Ǧ Ǥ Automaticmilking:abetterunderstandingǡǤǡǤǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡͶͳͺȂͶͳͻǤǡǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤSomeWeLove,SomeWeHate,SomeWeEat:WhyIt’sSoHardto ThinkStraightAboutAnimalsǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǤʹͲͲǤ Ǥ Sustainablefoodproductionandethics: preprintsofthe7thCongressoftheEuropeanSocietyforAgriculturalandFood Ethics;EurSAFE2007,Vienna,AustriaǤǡǣ ǣʹͶͻȂʹͷͶǤ ǡ ǤǤǡǤʹͲͳͲǤǮǦ ǯǤVǦfocusȋͳȌǣʹʹȂʹ͵Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǡ Ǥ ǤǤǡ ǤǤʹͲͲͶǤ ǣ Ǥ Automaticmilking:abetter understandingǡǤǡǤǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡͶͲȂͶͳ͵Ǥ ǡǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲǤDzdz ǣȀȀǤ ǤǤȀ ȀȀ ȀǤǤ ʹͲʹͲͳͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤ Ǧ ǣ ǤAgricultureandHumanValues23ȋͳȌǡͷͳǦʹǤ ǡǡǤǡ ǡǤʹͲͲͷǤ Ǯǣ ǯǤEnvironmentandPlanning D:SocietyandSpaceʹ͵ȋͷȌǣͶ͵ȂͷͺǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤǦǡǡ ǤEcologicalEconomics ͻȋͶȌǣ͵ȂͶʹǤ ǯǤʹͲͳʹǤ Ǥ ǯ ʹͳ ǤǣȀȀǤǤ Ȁ̴Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ ͵Ͳ ʹͲͳʹǤ
296bibliography ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǫ ǯǤPoliticalGeographyʹȋ͵ȌǣʹͷͲȂǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǯǤGlobalEnvironmentalPoliticsͻȋͶȌǣͶȂͺͲǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͺǤ ǡBoerderij/Veehouderij ͺͶȋʹͳȌǣͳͺȂͳͻǤ ǡǦǡǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǣ Ǧ Ǥ ǣ ǡͷȋ͵ȌǣʹͲǦʹʹͲ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤDzdzǤVolkskrantͶ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡǤʹͲͲͲǤRoboticmilking.Proceedingsofthe internationalsymposiumheldinLelystad,TheNetherlands,17Ȃ19August2000Ǥ ǡǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤǮǣ Ǧ ǯǤJournalofRuralStudiesͳȋ͵Ȍǣʹͻ͵Ȃ͵ͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤ ǣ ǡEnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpaceʹͷǣ ͳͲͶͳǦͲ ǡǡǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǦ ǣ Ȃ ǡǡ ǤJournalof RuralStudiesǣ͵͵ȋͳȌǣͳ͵ͳǦͳͶͲǤ ǡǡǡǤʹͲͳͶǤ ǤAgricultureandHumanValues͵ͳȋʹȌǣͳͺͷȂͳͻͻǤ ǡǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤǣ ?JournalofAgriculturalEnvironmentalEthicsʹͳǣͷͻȂ ͷͻǤ ǡ ǤǡǤǤ ǡ ǤǤǤǡǤǤǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤǦ ǡǤ ǤǤʹͲͲʹǤǣ ǤJournalofDairy Scienceͺͷǣ͵ʹͲȂ͵ʹͳǤ ǡǤǤǡǤ ǤǤ ǡ ǤǤ Ǥ ǡǤǤǡǤǤǤ ʹͲͲͻǤǮǣ α ǯǤ ǣȀȀǤǤȀǦ Ȁ ȀǤǫαʹͲͳʹȀȀʹͲͳʹ͵ͺ͵ͶͶͳʹͲǤǢʹͲͳʹͲ͵ͺͶ͵ͲǤ ǡ ǡ ǤǤʹͲͳͳǤFearoftheAnimalPlanet:TheHidden
bibliography297 HistoryofAnimalResistanceǤǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǣ ȁ ȁǯǤLiveScience.comǤǣȀȀǤ Ǥ ȀͳͻͲͳǦǦ Ǧ ǦǦǤǤ ͳ͵ ʹͲͳʹǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǤBoerderij ͻͶȋʹͶȌǣʹͳǦʹʹ ǡ ǤͳͻͶͻǤHomoLudens:AStudyofthePlayǦElementinCultureǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤInventingHumanRights:AHistoryǤǤǤǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǡ ǤͳͻͻǤǮ ǫ ǯǤAnimalBehaviourͷ͵ȋȌǣͳͳͳȂ ͻͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ȗǯǤAnnualReviewofAnthropology ͶͳȋͳȌǣͶʹȂͶʹǤ ǤʹͲͲͶǤVerguldenVerguisd,AgroparkenindeMedia, ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤǡ ǤǤǤʹͲͳʹǤ ǣ ǡǡǡǤJournalof DairyScienceͻͷǣʹʹʹȂʹʹͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǮǯǤ EnvironmentalValuesͳͺȋͳȌǣ͵͵ȂͶͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵Ǥ ǣ ǤMinervaͶͳȋ͵Ȍǣʹʹ͵ȂʹͶͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤStatesofknowledge:thecoǦproductionofscienceandthesocial orderǤǡǣǤ ǡǤǤǡ ǤǤÞǤͳͻͻͻǤǮ ǯ ǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics11ǡͺͷȂͳͲͲǤ ǡǤǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǣ ǤGeographyCompassȋʹȌǣͳ͵ͻȂͳͶͺǤ ǡǡ Ǥ ʹͲͲͳǤȄ ǤJournalofAgriculturaland EnvironmentalEthics14(2),ͳͻͳȂʹͲͲǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤǮ ǣ ǯǤFoundationsofScienceͳȋʹǦ͵ȌǣʹͷͻȂͶǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ Ǥ ǯǤ YesNaturally.ANewVisionforEcologicalIntelligenceǡͳͶȂͲǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǯǤLanguage &Communicationʹ͵ȋ͵ȌǣͶͲͻȂʹͷǤ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ
298bibliography
ǤʹͲͲͳǤǮǯ ǯǤNature ͶͳͶȋͺͲȌǣͳͷȂǤ ǦǡǤǤǡǤ Ǥ ǤǤǤͳͻͻǤ ǤAppliedAnimalBehaviourScienceͶͻǣͳͻͻȂʹͳͳǤ ǦǡǤǤǡǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ǤǤǡ ǤǤǤǤǡǤ ǤǤ ǤͳͻͻͻǤ ǤNetherlandsJournalof AgricultureScienceͶǣͳȂͳǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǯǤEnvironPhilȋͳȌǣ ͵ͷȂͷͷǤ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡ ȋȌǤ ʹͲͲʹǤPragmatistEthicsforaTechnologicalCultureǤ ǣ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͲͶǤ Ǯ ǣ ǯǤScience,Technology&HumanValuesʹͻȋͳȌǣ͵ȂʹͻǤ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡǦǡ ǤǡǤEthicaladaptationtoclimate change:humanvirtuesofthefutureǤǡǣ ǡͳʹ͵ǦͳͶͶǤ ǡǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǯǤScienceǡ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻͻǤǤ Boerderij/VeehouderijͺͶȋͺȌǣͺȂͻǤ ǡǤǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤǮ ǯǤCulturalAnthropologyʹͷȋͶȌǣͷͶͷȂǤ ǡǡǡ ǤʹͲͳʹǤ ǣ ǡǡǤ ǤǡǤ ǡǤǡǤǡFarmingsystemsresearchintothe 21stcentury:thenewdynamicǡ ǣǡͶͷȂͺ͵Ǥ ǡǤǡǤ ǤǤʹͲͲͶǤǤVeeteelt ʹͳȋȌǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤǤNRCHandelsbladǡͳͶ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵ǤTechnology:Art,FairgroundandTheatreǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣ ǯǤAmericanEthnologist͵ͶȋͳȌǣ͵ȂʹͶǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͶǤ ǣ ǡ Ǥ ThesisEleven͵ȋͳȌǣʹͻǦͶͷǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤPhilosophicalRomanticismǤǤ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡ ǤʹͲͲͶǤ ǣ Ǥ Automaticmilking:abetterunderstandingǡǤǤ bibliography299 ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡʹȂ͵Ǥǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͳǤ ǤInt.J.FoodSci. Technol.36:ͺͳ͵ȂͺʹͲǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲʹǤǮǦ Dzdz ǯǤ PragmatistEthicsforaTechnologicalCultureǡͳʹȂͶʹǤǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͶǤBeforeDinner:PhilosophyandEthicsofFoodǤ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǦǦ ǡJournalofAgriculturaland EnvironmentalEthics,21ǡʹͶͻǦʹ͵Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳʹǤǮǡǣ ǫǯJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsʹͷȋͶȌǣʹͷȂʹͻǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤJohnDeweyandtheHabitsofEthicalLife:TheAestheticsof PoliticalOrganizinginaLiquidWorldǤǤ ,ǤǤǤǡ Ǥ ǡǤǡǤǤʹͲͲʹǤ ǤJournalofDairyScienceͺͷǣʹͷȂʹͷͺͳǤ ǡ ǤǤͳͻͺͶǤ Ȃ ǤAgricultureandHumanValues,1ǡ ʹͲǦʹ͵Ǥ ǡǤǡǤǤʹͲͲͲǤRethinkingComparativeSociology;Repertoiresof evaluationinFranceandtheUnitedStates.ǣ Ǥ ǤǤǤǡǤ ǤǤǡǤǤǡ ǤǤǤǡǤ ǤǡǤǤ Ǥ ǤʹͲͳͲǤǣ ǤTrends inFoodScience&TechnologyʹͳȋʹȌǣͷͻǦǤ ǡǤͳͻͻʹǤǫ Ǥ ǤǤƬ ǤȋǤȌǡ Ȁ Ǥǡǣ ǡʹʹͷǦʹͷͻǤ ǡǤͳͻͻ͵ǤWeHaveNeverBeenModernǤ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤǮǣ ǯǤTechnologyandthePoliticsofKnowledgeǡʹʹȂͺͳǤ ǡǤͳͻͻǤAramis,ortheloveof technologyǤǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͶPoliticsofNature:HowtoBringtheSciencesintoDemocracyǤ ǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͷ ǣ Ǥ Ǥ ǣȋȌMakingThingsPublic: AtmospheresofDemocracyǤǡǣ ǡͳȂ͵ͳǤ
300bibliography
ǡǤʹͲͲǤPoliticsOfNature Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤ ǣ Ǧ ǫNatureandCultureȋͳȌǣͳǦͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͶǤǮ ǯǤHAU:Journalof EthnographicTheoryͶȋͳȌǣͷͲȂͳͲǤ ǡǡǡǤʹͲͲͷǤMakingThingsPublic:Atmospheresof DemocracyǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣ ǦǦ ǯǤMind,Culture&Activityǡͳ͵ǣʹǦʹͶǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǤCulturalSociology ͵ȋʹȌǣʹ͵ͻǦʹͷǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǯǤTheNewBlackwell CompaniontoSocialTheoryǡͳͶͳȂͷͺǤ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͲʹǤǮ ǣ ǯǤUtopiaandOrganizationǡͺʹȂͳͲͷǤ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤǮ Ǧ ǣʹͲͲͳǯǤ MaterialAgencyǡǡͷȂǤ Ǥ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǣ ǤGeoforum39ǡͳ͵͵ȂͳͶ͵ ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤASandCountyAlmanacǤǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮǦ ǦǯǤSocialScienceInformationͶͷȋʹȌǣͳͷͷȂǤ ǦǡǤͳͻǤǮǤͳͻʹǯǤChicago:University ofChicago PressǤ ǡǡ ǤͳͻͻǤEnvironmentalPragmatismǤǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǯǤEnvironmental Humanitiesͳǣͳʹ͵ȂͶͲǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤͳͻͺ͵ǤMindatPlay:ThePsychologyof VideoGamesǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǯǤEnvironment andPlanningDʹͶȋͶȌǣͶͻǤ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǤGeoforumͶͺǣʹͶͻȂʹͷͻǤ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͳͶǤǮ ǣ ǯǤ TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers͵ͻȋʹȌǣͳͻȂͺͳǤ ǡ ǡǤͳͻͻʹǤǮ ǣǯ bibliography301
ǯǤQualitativeSociology ͳͷȋʹȌǣͳͳ͵ȂʹʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤAfterVirtue:AStudyinMoralTheoryǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡǤǤ Ǥ ǤͳͻͻͳǤ ǫPraktijkonderzoek,WaiboerhoeveͶǣʹͺȂ͵ͲǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͳǤǮ ǣǡ ǡ ǫǯGlobalEnvironmentalPoliticsͳȋ͵Ȍǣ͵ͳȂͷʹǤ ǡǤͳͻͺǤǮ ǯǤPoliticalTheoryͳͷ ȋ͵Ȍǣ͵͵ͺȂͺǤ ǡ ǤǡǤǡ ǤǡǤǤͳͻͺͳǤǮ ȋȌ Ǧ ǯǤActaZoologicaetPathologicaAntverpiensiaǣͳͻȂͺͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤ Ǥ ǤSocialStudiesofScience͵ȋͷȌǣ ͷͻǦͺͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǡ ǯǤEuropeanJournalof SocialTheoryͳʹȋͳȌǣͳͳȂ͵͵Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤMaterialParticipation:Technology,theEnvironmentand EverydayPublicsǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡǡǤǡǡǤǡǡǤȋͳͻͻȌ ǣǤEconomicGeography,72ȋͶȌǡ ͵ͳǦ͵ͷǤ ǡ Ǥ ǤʹͲͲͳǤ ǣ ǤLivestockProductionScience72ǣͷȂͺͳ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤRealityIsBrokenWhyGamesMakeUsBetterandHowThey CanChangetheWorldǤǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤ ǣǦ ǡ ǡ ǤConfigurationsͳͺȋͳǦʹȌǣͳͺͳǦͳͻǤ ǡǡǤʹͲͲͶǤAnimalPragmatism:RethinkingHumanǦ NonhumanRelationshipsǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤʹͲͲͻǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡǡǤ Ǥǡ ǡǤǡ ǣ Ǥǣ ǡʹ͵ǦʹͶͲǤ ǡ Ǥǡǡ ǤǤǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣ ǯǤJournal ofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsͳͻȋͷȌǣͶʹȂͶʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǯǤHumanimaliaͷȋͻȌǤ 302bibliography
ǡǤǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤʹͲͲͶǤAutomaticmilking:a betterunderstandingǤǡǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲǤPig05049:1Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǣǡ ǡ ǯǤSymplokeͳ͵ȋͳȌǣʹ͵ȂͺʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤ ǣ ǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics12,ͳͷȂͳǤ ǡǡ ǡǤʹͲͲͷǤǮ ǡ ǯǤ ǣȀȀǤǤ ǤȀͷͺͶ͵ȀǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤ ǣ ǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsͳʹǣ ͶͳȂͷͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤPigǤǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͻǤǮ ǤǯǤThe SociologicalReviewͶȋͳȌǣͶȂͺͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͲʹǤTheBodyMultiple:OntologyinMedicalPracticeǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǮǣ ǯǤThe Lancet͵͵ȋͻȌǣͳͷȂͷǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤCareinPractice:On TinkeringinClinics,HomesandFarmsǤͺǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡʹͲͲǤ ǣǫ AgrarischDagbladʹ͵ ǣǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͷͺȏͳͷͻͷȐǤTheCompleteEssaysofMontaigneǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡǤÞǤʹͲͲͶǤ Ȅǡ ǡ Ǥ Automaticmilking:abetterunderstandingǡǤǤ ǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡʹͺȂʹͻͳǤǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͷǤǮ ǡǦǡ ǯǤJournalofMedicineandPhilosophy͵ͲȋͷȌǣͶȂͻͲǤ ǤʹͲͲͳǤǤǣ ǤǤȀ͓Ȁ Ȁ Ȁͳͺͳ ͷ ʹͲͳͳǤ ǡǤͳͻͶǤǮ ǫǯThePhilosophicalReviewͺ͵ȋͶȌǣ Ͷ͵ͷȂͷͲǤ bibliography303 ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǫ ǤScienceTechnology,&HumanValues͵͵ȋͷȌǣͷͷͻǦ ͷͺͳǤ ǤǡǤǡǤǤǤͳͻ͵ǤEmpiricismandSociologyǤ ǣǤǤ ǡǡ òǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǡ ǯǤ EvaluatingNewTechnologiesǡ òǡͻȂͻʹǤ ǡ ͵ǤǤ ǤʹͲͲǤǣǡǤǣ ǣȀȀ ǤǤȀȀʹͺͷͲʹʹͺȀ ʹʹͲͳʹǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǤNRCHandelsblad ʹͶ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤFrontiersofJustice:Disability,Nationality,Species MembershipǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤAnimalLessons:HowTheyTeachUstoBeHumanǤ Ǥ ǡǤǡǤ ǤǤǤǤʹͲͲͶǤ Ǥ Automaticmilking:abetterunderstandingǡ ǤǡǤǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡͶ͵͵ȂͶͶ͵Ǥǡ ǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤEveryTwelveSeconds:IndustrializedSlaughterandthe PoliticsofSightǤ ǣǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤǮǯǤSocietyand Animalsͳȋ͵ȌǣʹͶͳȂͷǤ ǡǤȋǤȌǤʹͲͲ͵ǤReadingMVRDVǤǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲʹǤEternalTreblinka:OurTreatmentofAnimalsandthe HolocaustǤǣǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤǮ ǯǤ TrendsinEcology&EvolutionͳͲȋͳͲȌǣͶ͵ͲǤ ǤʹͲͲͺǤ Ǥ ǤǣǣȀȀǤǤȀȀ ǦǦǦ Ǥ ʹͺʹͲͳʹǤ ǤʹͲͲͺǤ Ǥ ǤǣǣȀȀǤǤȀȀ ̴̴̴Ǥ ʹͺʹͲͳʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮDz dz Ȃ Dz dzǯǤTransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers͵ȋͶȌǣ ͶͻȂͷͳͶǤ
304bibliography
ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤCreaturelyPoetics:AnimalityandVulnerabilityinLiteratureand FilmǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮDz dzǣ Ǧǯ ǯǤJournalofAnimalEthics͵ȋʹȌǣͳ͵ȂͶǤ ǡ ǤǡǤǤͳͻͺͶǤǮ ǣ ǯǤSocialStudiesofScienceǡ͵ͻͻȂͶͶͳǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͲǤEuthyphro,Apology,Crito,Phaedo,PhaedrusǤ ǡǤǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤǣ ǤJournal ofAgriculturalEnvironmentalEthicsʹ͵ǣͶͷͷȂͶͺǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤǮ ǫ ǯǤ EnvironmentalPoliticsͶȋͶȌǣͳ͵ͶȂͺǤ ǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤǮ ǣ ǯǤBusinessandSocietyReviewͳͳͷȋ͵Ȍǣ͵Ȃ ͻͳǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǣǦ Ǧ ǯǤ LifeSciences,SocietyandPolicyͻȋͳȌǣͳͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǤǤ ǣȀȀǤǤȀ ǤǫαʹͺǤ ʹͳ ʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͺǤǮ ǯǤ DolphinCognitionandBehavior:AComparativeApproachǡ Ǥ ǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤ ǡǤ Ǥǣ ǤǣȀȀ Ǥ ȀȀ ̴ͲͺȀ ̴Ͳͺ̴̴ͲͳǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǣ ǯǤInternationalJournalofCulturalStudiesǡ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͶǤTheCaseforAnimalRights:UpdatedwithaNewPrefaceǤ Ǥ ǡÞǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǣ ǤSocialStudiesofScience ͵ͺȋʹȌǣʹͺͷȂ͵ͲͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͷǤǤEnvironmentandPlanningD:Society andSpaceʹ͵ǣͺȂͻ͵Ǥ Ǯ ǯǤʹͲͳͶǤ ͳʹǤ ǣȀȀ Ǥ Ȁ Ȁ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤǤ ǣ bibliography305
ǤǤǣȀȀǤǤ ȀͳͶǦ ΨʹͲ ΨʹͲΨʹͲΨʹͲΨʹͲΨʹͲΨʹͲǤ Ǥ ͳͶ ʹͲͳʹǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤǮ ǯǤAnimalWelfareʹͲȋͳȌǣͻȂͺǤ ǡǡ ǡ ǡʹͲͲ͵Ǥ Ǧ ǣ Ǧ ǡNetherlandsJournalofAgrarianStudies51(1Ǧ2)ǡ ͳͻͷǦʹͳǤ ǡǤǤͳͻͻͺǤTheUnheededCryǤǤ ǡǤǤʹͲͲ͵ǤFarmAnimalWelfare:Social,Bioethical,andResearchIssuesǤ Ǧ Ǥ ǡ ǤͳͻǤOvercomingthetradition:HeideggerandDewey.TheReviewof Metaphysics͵ͲȋʹȌǣʹͺͲǦ͵ͲͷǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͺʹǤConsequencesofPragmatism:Essays,1972Ǧ1980Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͺǤǮ ǯǤTheRevivalof Pragmatism.NewEssaysonSocialThought,Law,andCultureǡʹͳȂ͵Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͷǤ Ǥ ǣ ȋȌMakingThingsPublic:AtmospheresofDemocracyǤǡǣ ǣʹͶǦʹͷǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤPhilosophyasCulturalPolitics, Volume4:PhilosophicalPapersǤ Ǥ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲͻǤ ǣ ǤJournalofRuralStudies25ǡ ͵ͷǦͶǤ ǡǤǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤǤͳͻͺʹǤǮ ǯǤJAMAʹͶͺȋͳͲȌǣͳͳȂͳͳǤ ǡǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǡͳͻͺͷǤThefeasibilityofmilkinginafeeding boxǤ ͺͷȂʹǤ Ǧ ǡǤ ǤǤǡ Ǥ ǤǤǡǤ Ǥ ǤǡǤ Ǥ ǡ Ǥ ʹͲͲͳǤ Ǥ Proceedingsofthe35thInternationalCongressofthe ISAEǡǤ ǤǤ ǡ ǤǤ ǡǤǤ ǡͳͺͺǤǡǣ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤMyPhilosophicalDevelopmentǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǤWiredMagazineǡ ʹͳǤ 306bibliography
ǡǤǡǤʹͲͲͷǤEnvironmentalVirtueEthicsǤƬ Ǥ ǡǤǤǤ Ǥ Ǥ ͳͻͷͷǤ ͵ȋʹȌǡͶͷǦͷͷ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮ ȂǦ ǯǤJournalofAgriculturaland EnvironmentalEthicsͳͻȋͳȌǣȂͳǤ ǡǤͳͻͺ͵ǤTechnikundGelassenheitǤ ǣǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤǯ ǣ̈́ͳǤǡʹͳ ǤǣǣȀȀǤǤ ȀʹͲͲͺȀͲͶȀʹͳȀȀʹͳǤ ʹͺʹͲͳʹǤ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤSustainismDesignPrimer: CollaborativeDesignforConnectivity,Localism,andSustainableLifeǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǮǫ ȀǯǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsʹͲ ȋʹȌǣͳȂͻ͵Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǣǡ ǯǤ InternationalZooYearbook͵ͺȋͳȌǣͳͳͺȂʹͶǤ ǡ Ǥǡǡ Ǥǡ Ǥͳͻͻ͵Ǥ Ǯ ǯǤZooBiologyͳʹȋʹȌǣʹͲ͵ȂͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤǮǣ ǯǤEnvironmentandPlanning.AͶʹȋȌǣͳʹ͵Ǥ ǡǡ]¤ǡǤÞǡǡǤǡ §ǤʹͲͳͲǤǮ Ǣ ǯǤActaVeterinaria ScandinavicaͷʹȋͳȌǣͳͶǤ ǡǤͳͻͷǤAnimalLiberation:ANewEthicsforOurTreatmentofAnimalsǤ ǣ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͻͶǤǮǦ ǣ ǯ ǯǤCambrianL.Rev.ʹͷǣͻǤ ǡǤǤʹͲͲǤGreenportShanghai;Bettercity,BetterAgriculture,Better Life;MasterplanGreenportShanghaiAgroparkǤǡǣ ǣ ǣȀȀǤǤ ȀͲȀȀǤ ʹͺ ʹͲͳʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤExpeditionAgroparks:ResearchbyDesignintoSustainable bibliography307 DevelopmentandAgricultureinNetworkSocietyǤǣ Ǥ ǡǤǤʹͲͲǤǣǤ Ǥʹ Ǥ ǣȀȀǦǤ ǤȀȀǤǤ ʹͲͲͻǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǣ Ǧ ǯǤSocietyandAnimalsͳͳȋʹȌǣͳͺͳȂͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͳǤǮ ǯǤJournalofConsciousness Studies,8ͷȋȌǣʹͻ͵Ȃ͵ͲͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ ǣ ǯǤTransactionsoftheInstituteofBritish GeographersǤ ǡǡ Ǥ ǤͳͻͺͻǤǮ ǡǯ ǣǯ ǡͳͻͲǦ͵ͻǯǤSocialStudiesofScienceͳͻȋ͵Ȍǣ͵ͺȂͶʹͲǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǡ ǡ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤLivestock’sLongShadowǤ Ǥ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ Ǥ ǯǤMedicine,HealthCareandPhilosophyȋ͵Ȍǣ ʹ͵ͷȂͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤ ǣǫǣʹSCRIPTed͵ͻͶǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͲǤǮǣǡDz ǡdz ʹͲͲͶȁǯǤWIREDǤ ǣȀȀǤǤ ȀʹͲͳͲȀͲȀǦǦǦǦǦ ǦǦʹͲͲͶȀǤ ǡ ǡ ǡǤǤʹͲͳͲǤEnaction: TowardaNewParadigmforCognitiveScienceǤ Ǥ ǤǤǤ Ǥ ǣȀȀǤ ǤȀǤȀ ̴Ȁ ȀǤ ͳ ʹͲͳͶǤ ǡǤǡǤ ǤǤǦ ǤͳͻͺͻǤǮǦ ǯǤAnimalScienceͶͺȋͲʹȌǣͶͳͻȂʹͷǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤ ǣ ǤScienceTechnology,&HumanValues͵ǣͺͺǦͳʹ͵Ǥ ǤʹͲͲͻǤ ǣǤǣ ǣȀȀǤǤ ȀȀʹͲͲͻȀͲͺȀ ǦǦʹͲͲͻǦǦǦǦ ǦǦǦǦǦ ǤǤ ʹͺʹͲͳʹǤ ǡǡ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǣ ǤSociologia
308bibliography
Ruralisͷ͵ȋʹȌǣʹͲͳȂʹʹʹǤ ǡǤǡǤǤʹͲͲͶǤAnimalRights:CurrentDebates andNewDirectionsǤǤ ǦǡǡǤǤͳͻͻͷǤTheFutureofPlayTheory:A MultidisciplinaryInquiryIntotheContributionsofBrianSuttonǦSmithǤ Ǥ ǦǡǤͳͻͻǤTheAmbiguityofPlayǤ Ǥ ǦǡǤǤǡ ǤǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǤJournalofAnimalScienceͺȋͳ͵Ȍǣ͵ȂͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͲʹǤǮ ǯǤ Pragmatist EthicsforaTechnologicalCultureǡʹʹ͵ȂͶͲǤǤ ǣȀȀǤǤ Ȁ ȀͳͲǤͳͲͲȀͻͺǦͻͶǦͲͳͲǦͲ͵ͲͳǦͺ̴ͳͺǤ ǡǡǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǦǣǯǤ EvaluatingNew TechnologiesǡͳͳͻȂ͵ͺǤǤ ǡǡǡǤʹͲͳͲǤǣ ǤScienceandEngineeringEthics. ǤʹͲͲͲǤBrinkhorstzetvarkensmetflatsophogerplanǤDeTelegraafǡͳͶ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡ ǤǤǡǤǤǤǤʹͲͳͲǤ ǣ ǦǤ ǣ ȋǤȌKnowledgeDemocracy.Consequencesfor Science,Politics,andMediaǤ ǣǡͻͻǦͳͳͳ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤǮǣ ͳͻͲͲǦͳͻͷͲǯǤJournaloftheHistoryofBiology ͶͳȋͶȌǣ͵ȂǤ ǤʹͲͲͲǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǣ ȋ ȌǤ ǡǤͳͻͻͷǤTheSpiritoftheSoil,AgricultureandEnvironmentalEthicsǤ ǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤ Ǥ ǣ ǡǤǡǤǤ ǤȋǤȌTechnologyandthegoodlife? ǣ ǡͳǦͳͺͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͶǤǮ ǯǤAnimal Pragmatism:RethinkingHumanǦNonhumanRelationships.Ǥ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǡǡͳͶͲȂͷͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͺǤTheEthicsofIntensification:AgriculturalDevelopmentand CulturalChangeǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤǮ Ǥ Ǥǣ bibliography309
ǣ ǯǤJournalofAgriculturaland EnvironmentalEthicsʹȋʹȌǣͷͳȂʹͳǤ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǯǤǣȀȀǤǤȀǤ ǡǤͳͻͺʹǤǮ ǤǯPerspectivesin BiologyandMedicineʹͷǣ͵ȂͷͲǤ ǡǤͳͻͻʹǤCosmopolis: TheHiddenAgendaofModernityǤ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǯǤǣȀȀǦ ǤǤǤȀȀʹͲͳͲǦͲͳͲͺǦʹͲͲͳͶͲȀǤǤ ǤʹͲͲǤǢ ͳǤ ǡǦ ǤʹͲͲͶǤDominanceandAffection:TheMakingofPetsǤ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲʹǤǮ ǯǤTheModernLawReviewͷȋʹȌǣʹͲͶȂʹͺǤ ǡ ǤǤǤ ǤǤʹͲͳͳǤ ǤEnvironmentalScienceandTechnologyͶͷȋͳͶȌǣͳͳȂͳʹ͵Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǫǯ ConfigurationsʹͳǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤCiferae:ABestiaryinFiveFingersǤǤ ǡǤ ǤͳͻͲǤDeontwikkelingvandeNederlandse rundveehouderijindezeeeuw.Eenhistorischoverzichtoverdeperiodetot1970Ǥ ǤǤǣǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵Ǥ ǣǮ ǯǮ ǯǫPlantPhysiologyͳ͵ʹȋ͵ȌǣͳͳʹʹȂǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǤVeeteelt ʹͲȋͳͳȌǣʹͲȂʹͳǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵Ǥ ǤVeeteelt ʹͲȋʹͳȌǣͶȂͷǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͺǤǤVeeteelt ʹͷȋͳͳȌǣͺͲȂͺͳǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤTheVirtualFarmer:Past,PresentandFutureofthe DutchPeasantryǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳͶǤǮ ǯǤNRCnextǡ ͳǤǣȀȀǤ ǤȀȀȀʹͲͳͶȀȀͲͳȀǦǦ ǦǦǦͳ͵ʹͷ͵ͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǤSimulacrumArt &Science ͳͷȋ͵ȀͶȌǣʹͺǦ͵ͲǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤ Ǧǣ ǨȋǫȌǢ Ǥ ǦͳͲǦͳͻ Ǥ ǡǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤǮǯǡǯǢǡ 310bibliography
ǯǤBiologyandPhilosophy ʹȋͶȌǣͷͺ͵Ȃͻ͵Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮǣȀǡȀǯǤ ǣȀȀǤǤȀȀ ȀȀʹͲʹͷͻʹͶǤ ǡǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ Ǣ ǯǤAnimals͵ȋ͵ȌǣͶȂʹǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǤVeeteelt ʹͲȋȌǣͳȂͳǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͲͷǤǤVeeteelt ʹʹȋ͵ȌǣͶȂͷǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤ ǤǣȀȀ ǤȀǦǦǦǦǦ Ǥ ͳʹ ʹͲͳͶǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͶǤǮ ǫ ǡ ǡǯǤJournalof ResponsibleInnovationͳȋͳȌǣȂͺǤ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǤVeeteelt ʹͲȋͺȌǣͳͶǦͳͷǤ ǡǤʹͲͲǤǤVeeteelt ʹͶȋͳͲȌǣ͵Ȃ͵Ǥ ǮǨǯʹͲͳͳǤVegansaurusǤǣȀȀǤ ȀȀͳͶ͵ͳͶͷͲͻͲǤ ʹ͵ǡʹͲͳͳǤ ǡ ǤǡǤǡǤ ǡǤǤʹͲͲͺǤ ǤAppliedAnimalBehaviorScienceͳͳ͵ȋͶȌǣʹͻȂʹͻǤ ǡ ǡǡǤʹͲͲʹǤǮ ǣ ǯǯ ǯǤJournalofAgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthicsͳͷȋʹȌǣ ʹͲ͵ȂͳͻǤ ǡǤǤǡǤǤ ǤǡǤǤ ǡ ǤǤǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǣ Ǧ Ǥ JournalofDairyScienceͻȋͻȌǣͳͲͷȂͳͳǤ ǡǦǤʹͲͲǤǡ ǤScience,Technology,&HumanValues͵ͳȋ͵Ȍǣ͵ͳǦ͵ͺͲ ǡǤǡǤǤʹͲͲ͵ǤBurgeroordelenoverdeveehouderij.Uitkomsten publieksonderzoekǤǣǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤǮ ǣ ǯǤ QuaestionesInfinitaeǤ ǡǡǤʹͲͳͳǤǮ ǣDz dzǯǤAmericanJournalofPrimatology͵ȋ͵ȌǣʹͳͳȂͳ͵Ǥ ǡǤǤ ǤǡǤǤǡǤǡǤ ǤǡǤ Ǥ ǡǤ ǡǤ Ǥǡ ǤǤ ǡǤǤǡǤ ǤǤʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ǣǤJournalofDairyScienceͻȋͻȌǣ bibliography311
ͷͶͲͷȂͷͶʹͷǤ ǡǤʹͲͲʹǤǮǣǯǤ BorderlandsͳȋʹȌǤ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǤ ʹͲͲͲǤ Ǧ Ǧ Ǥ Proceedingsofthe3rdWorkshopoftheNAHWOAȋǦ ǡ ǡ ʹͲͲͲȌǡʹǦ ǡ Ǥͳͻͺ͵ǤSpheresofJustice,AdefenceofpluralismandequalityǤ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǤʹͲͲǤȀǣ ǤAI&SocietyʹͲȋͳȌǣͺʹǦͳͲʹǤ ǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǣ ǡǡ ǤJournalforCriticalAnimalStudiesȋʹȌǣʹʹȂʹǤ ǡǤǡǤ ǡǤǡǤ ǡǤǤ ʹͲͲͶǤ ǤJournalofAnimalScienceͺʹǣͷ͵ǦͷͲǤ ǡ Ǥͳͻͻ͵ǤAnimalBoredom:TowardsanEmpiricalApproachof AnimalSubjectivityǤǡǤ ǡ ǤͳͻͻͻǤǮ ǯǤAttitudesto Animals:ViewsinAnimalWelfareǡ͵Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲʹǤHybridGeographies:Natures,Cultures,SpacesǤǡǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͲͲǤǮ ǫǦ ò ǯǤPoliticsʹͲȋ͵ȌǣͳͶͷȂͷͳǤ ǡ ǡǡǤʹͲͲͻǤǮ ǣ ǯǤTheAmericanJournalof BioethicsͻȋǦȌǣͻͻȂͳͲͳǤ ǡǤǤͳͻͻ͵ǤGedrag,welzijnenduurzaamheidǤ ȋ ȌǡǡǣǤ ǡ Ǥǡ ǤǤʹͲͲͶǤ Ǥ automaticmilking:abetterunderstandingǡǤǡǤǡ Ǥ ǡǤ ǤǤǤǡ͵ͳȂ͵ͺͳǤǡǣ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮ ǣ ǦǯǤSociologyǡ Ǥ ǡǤͳͻͺͳǤMoralLuck:Philosophical Papers1973Ǧ1980Ǥ Ǥ 312bibliography
ǡ ǤǤ ǤǤǤʹͲͳͲǤ ǤExperimentalCellResearch͵ͳȋ͵Ȍǣ ͵ͶͳǦ͵ͷʹǤ ǡǤͳͻͺͺǤTheWhaleandtheReactor:ASearchforLimitsinanAgeof HighTechnologyǤ ǣ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǡ ǡǤʹͲͳͳǤǮ ǫ Ǧ ǯǤ DiGRA2011Conference, UtrechtSchooloftheArts(14Ǧ17September2011)Ǥ ǣȀȀǤȀ̴ʹͲͳͳ̴ ǤǤ ǡǡǡǤͳͻͺ͵ǤTractatus LogicoǦPhilosophicusǤǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤPhilosophicalInvestigationsǤ ƬǤ ǡǤʹͲͲ͵ǤAnimalRites:AmericanCulture,theDiscourseofSpecies,and PosthumanistTheoryǤ Ǥ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤWhatIsPosthumanism? Ǥ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͳ͵ǤǮǣ ǫǯSocialStudiesofScienceͶ͵ȋ͵Ȍǣ͵ʹͳȂͶͲǤ ǡǤǡǤǡǤǤʹͲͲǤǮ ǯǤJournalofAppliedAnimalBehaviourScienceͳͲͳȋͳǦ ʹȌǣʹȂ͵ͻǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤDesigningrobotswithcare:creatinganethical frameworkforthefuturedesignandimplementationofcarerobotsǤ ǡǤ ǡǤʹͲͳͲǤ Ǥ Ƭǡ ͳͺǤǣȀȀǤǤ ȀȀǦǦ ǦǦ ǦǦ ǦǦǦȀͳͷͳͷ͵Ǥ ͳͺ ʹͲͳʹǤ ǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤJusticeandthePoliticsofDifference(NewinPaper)Ǥ Ǥ ǡ ǤǡǤ ǤʹͲͲ͵ǤǮ ǫǯJournalofAppliedAnimalWelfareScienceȋͶȌǣ ͵ͲͻȂͳͺǤ ǡǡ ǤʹͲͳͳǤǮ ǯǤ WileyInterdisciplinaryReviews:ClimateChangeʹȋͶȌǣͷͳȂ͵ͶǤ ǡǤʹͲͳʹǤ Ǥ Ǥ ǣȀȀǤǤ ȀǤǫαʹͶͻͳ ͳͷʹͲͳʹǤ bibliography313
Summary
Animaldeliberation:
thecoͲevolutionoftechnologyandethicsonthefarm
What can a philosopher contribute to understanding and debating ethical concerns regardingthefarmingofanimals?Thisthesisstartswithaprologue,whichsketchesthe situation of someone asking himself this question at a pig farm while discussing the problem of pig boredom and how to meet the regulatory requirement of pigpen enrichment.
Animal farming is an increasingly problematic and contested activity. A mosaic of interlockingconcerns,whichisoutlinedinchapter1,isbecomingevermoreprominent. Theseconcernsincludeanimalsuffering,environmentalpollutionofwater,soilandair, emissions that induce climate change, zoonotic diseases, antibiotic resistance, food risks, deforestation, global nutrient imbalance, eutrophication of marine ecosystems, depletionofscarceresources(includingfossilfuels,phosphorousandfreshwater),and issuesofglobaljustice,landuseandhunger.Apartfromtheseexternaleffects,animal farmingismeanttoprovideaffordable,goodquality,safefoodthatishealthyandtasty. Thisalsoinvolvesworkingconditionsonfarms,farmers’incomesandrurallivelihoods, theculturalvalueofagriculturallandscapes,andthetraceabilityoffoodforconsumers. Whatstandsoutfromthisoverviewisthesheervarietyofissues,aswellastherangeof institutionsandscientificdisciplinesassociatedwithregulatingandassessingthem.
The myriad of interconnected concerns –or even merely the plight of production animals– may suggest a rather simple and obvious ethical solution: the complete abolition of using animals to produce food. By situating ethics on the farm, this dissertation starts from the idea that it might be possible to retain forms of animal 316summary productioninamoreorlesssustainableworld,withaperhapsacceptableamountof animalsuffering.Nevertheless,eventhoughitwouldinvolvehubristotaketheroleof global decision maker on this, the more radical solution to the whole pressing conundrumofanimalfarmingdoesspringupinthethesisinvariousways. Whoistodecideuponthisethicalconundrumisunclear.Onewayinwhich,overthe past decade, the wider public has learned about these concerns is through visually strikingdocumentariessuchasOurDailyBread.Fromthese,onemaygetasensethat humans are caught up in industrial food chains in which little moral agency or even subjectivityremains.Therebyaseriesofquestionsemergesthatthisthesisdelvesinto: how to conceive of moral and political agency in our contemporary highͲtech food system? Where to situate ethics and where to look for ethical subjects? And what genres of moral debate and philosophical inquiry are appropriate and helpful (or irritatinganddisruptive)forengagingwiththeconcernslistedabove? Thegenreofappliedethicsasafieldofacademicresearchtendstobegearedtowards certaintypesofinstitutionalinterventions–procedures,protocols,ethicscommittees, andpolicyadvice–thatimplyaparticularunderstandingofwhatitmeanstoengagein ethics:namelythesystematic,rational,andconceptuallyclearreflectiononwhatright andwrongactions.Oftenthisformofethicsinvolvesexplicatingandweighingvalues and principles. However, critics of this type of ethical theorizing and reflection have pointedtohowtheseapproachestendtolimittherangeofconsiderationsthatcanbe articulatedandthusdepoliticizesituationswhileturningthemintostaticdilemmas.On topofthis,ethicalargumentsinthisgenredonotseemveryconvincingtoconsumers andfarmersalike,justasmerelylistingtheissuesabovedoesnotresultinwidesocietal change. Inpractice,ourethicalunderstandingsofissuescanbefoundtobeinfluencedbythe developmentofnewtechnologies.Thisthesisisinformedbyrecentworkinpragmatist ethics and science and technology studies (STS) that highlights the ‘coͲevolving’ character of moral norms in relation to technological change as a promising way to understand ethics in our technological culture. Ethics in philosophical pragmatism meansafocusontheexperienceof‘problematicsituations’.Pragmatistethicalinquiryis notaboutjustifyingabstractanddistancedpositionsbutaboutembodied,active,and lively engagement in situations. Besides the rational, ‘prosaic’, problemͲsolving orientationthatpragmatismisknownfor,thereisalsoa‘romantic’or‘poetic’sideto
summary317 pragmatistphilosophy,whichemphasizesthecreativeand‘worldͲdisclosing’character ofthought.Inthisformofpragmatism,ethicscanbeunderstoodasanongoingprocess of directing attention, offering rich interpretations of practices, cultivating moral experiences,andimaginingalternativeworlds.Thisthesisoffersarangeofexperiments with genres of inquiry and intervention (such as ethnography, case studies, photomontageandgamedesign)tofindouthowtoinvolveparticularmoralsubjects andpromotepossiblemodesofdeliberatingethicsonthefarm. Theextensiveethicaldebatesthathaveemergedonthevariousissueslistedinchapter 1tendtofocusonsingleissues,suchasanimalwelfareorenvironmentalpollution.The viewsoffarmersinthesedebateshavebeenlargelyabsent,orhavemerelyfiguredas (increasinglymarginal)interests,insteadofbeingconsideredmorallyworthwhileinand of themselves. As an alternative to seeing ethical issues as mere challenges for technological optimization or as dilemmas to analyse in terms of ethical principles, chapter2looksatethicsonthefarm,offeringanethnographicexplorationofthemoral experiences of farmers. The variety of norms that figure in contemporary farming practicesissystematicallychartedintermsofdifferentformsofjustification.Reviewing thepracticalargumentsandcommitmentsoffarmerswithinthisframeworkrevealsthat farming practices are subject to mixed motives, in which an amalgam of types of concernsplaysarole.Farmsarenotjustindustrialsitesforefficientfoodproduction, butalsodomesticplaceswherefarmingfamilieslive,whocanstillbethoughttohave multifacetedrelationstotheiranimalsandland. When focusing on single issues, the full range of justifications in farming life comes across as an inefficiently muddled practice or even an ‘ethical chaos’. But when consideredasanintricatemeshofsocietaldomainsandnormativelogics,thepeculiarly entanglednatureofethicsonthefarmcouldbebetterarticulatedinpublicdebates.A moreencompassingdescriptionofparticularissues,then,canbedevelopedthatdoes justicetothewaysinwhichfarmersintegratethemosaicofconcerns,informedbya variety of moral experiences. This may counter the tendency in policymaking, technologicalinnovation,scientificresearch,andethicalthoughttocompartmentalize ourmorallandscape. Ethicsthenbecomesanongoinglearningprocessinwhichconsiderationsfrommultiple orderscanplayarole,andinwhichembodiedformsofexperience,skills,selfͲidentity, and relations are part of the dynamic. Thus, questions about ethics on the farm can
318summary rarelybeexpectedtoproducesingle,genericallyrightanswers,asthesealwaysinvolve interconnected ideas on what kind of farmer one should be, what a good life for an animalis,andhowtorelatetotheland. In chapter 3, the focus moves to technology. Whereas technological change is often consideredasathreattoduedemocraticprocessandmoraldecisionmaking,hereitis arguedthatthecoͲevolutionofethicsandtechnologyisaprimeopportunityforpolitical and moral engagement. Two technological projects that proposed to do away with farmsandfarmersandthepublicreceptiontotheseproposalsareanalysed:schemes for pig farming in highͲrise ‘agroͲproduction parks’ that came to be known as ‘pig towers’(varkensflats),andeffortstodeveloptechniquesforproducingmeatbygrowing cellsoutsideofanimals,labelled‘invitromeat’.Ratherthanassessingthepossiblepros andconsoftheseproposals,thischapterfocusesonthedynamicethicalprocessesthey instigated.Bycloselyexamininghowfeaturesofthesedesignsenteredpublicdebates and ethical thought, this chapter traces the moral ‘worldͲdisclosing’ character of technologicalprojects. Firstofall,evenbeforebeingrealizedsystemsorcommerciallyviableproducts,these two technologies functioned as fresh occasions for debate. Not just on whether to accepttheproposedtechnologyornot,butalsoonthewiderissuetheyweremeantto intervene in. These debates occurred in very different settings from the ones where agriculturalissuesusuallytendtobediscussed,andtheyinvolvedpeopleotherthanthe usual suspects. On the one hand, new coalitions sprang up around the new technologies, such as those between farmers and urbanite protesters and between biotechnologists and vegans. While on the other hand, rifts occurred within existing organizations,suchasanimalrightsorganizationsandenvironmentalNGOs. Secondly, both designs gave rise to shifts in understandings of the existing societal issues that surround farming. While imagining these newly proposed alternatives to farming practices, implicitly new benchmarks by which to judge the existing situation arose. Both pig towers and in vitro meat revealed contemporary intensive meat production to be, in many ways, inefficient and suboptimal. System boundaries were redrawn,andparticularkindsofargumentsemergedwitheachtechnology.Analogies betweenintensivefarmingandtheholocaustsuddenlybecamemainstreaminresponse tothepigtowers.WhereashighͲrisepigfarmsproducedacollectivepublicrefusalto seriously discuss the proposal, in vitro meat was much less controversial, making the
summary319 issueprimarilyintoasubjectivequestionofwhetherornotonewouldliketoeatit.In discussing the design proposals, even ontological shifts could be seen to occur in relationtowhatistobeconsidered‘realmeat’andthe‘truenature’ofanimalfarming. And thirdly, responding to these new technologies involved a renewed sense of the characterofpoliticalandmoralagency,whilethesensibilitiesthatconstituteamoral subject in relation to an issue were also rethought. This involves ideas on what are deemedappropriatesensibilitiesandashiftedappreciationofembodiment,emotions, experience, and the relevance of particular moral commitments. For instance when learningtorelatetothephysicaldisgustthatforsomeisarousedbythethoughtofin vitromeat. Thechaptercontemplatestheinnertensionsandambiguitiesofthisprocessofmoral and political change by confronting the different understandings of world disclosure developedbyDeweyandHeidegger.Partofthecritiquesofboththepigtowersandin vitro meat tend to align with the Heideggerian dismissal of modern technology on metaphysical grounds: as a wrong kind of thinking’ that turns everything, including ourselves, into mere resources. With Dewey, however, we can point to how these proposalscouldbeconsideredpartofanexperimentalformofcreativeinquiry,whichin a dramatic way integrates technological design, scientific research, and artistic imagination. The influence on public debate and the (moral) imagination of these technologiescanbeviewedasakintothatofthearts,makingartisticdesignawayto relate actively to world disclosure andprocesses ofcoͲevolution. Buteven thoughall kindsofsocietalactorsgatheredtodiscussthesedesigns–andthusalsoconventional farming– in heated and sometimes constructive debates, there was very little (pig towers)orno(invitromeat)roleforfarmers.Theirexperiences,ideas,andknowledge wereimplicitlydefinedasobsolete,atbestonlypartoftheproblem. Chapter4bringsusbacktothefarmagain,toseehowcoͲevolutiontakesplacenotjust in public debates evoked by spectacular designs, but also in more mundane material processesoftechnologicalchange.Milkingrobots,whicharelittleknowntothewider public,have,overthelastdecade,becomeincreasinglyusedonDutchdairyfarms.At firstitseemedtobeasmalltechnologicalstepofautomatingtheattachmentoftheteat cupsofthemilkingmachinetotheuddersofthecows.Butinpracticethishasbeen foundtoentailacompletereorganizationofdairyfarming.Theethicalimplicationsand evaluation of this device are not selfͲevident, but are themselves part of a dynamic
320summary processinwhichwhatisconsideredagoodfarmer,agoodcow,andagoodrobotcan beseentoshift. Thischapterexploresthequestionofhowtoengageinethicsfromarelationalandfluid understanding of humans, animals, and technologies. Based on interviews, attending farmers’networkmeetings,takingabriefpracticaltrainingcourseindairyfarming,and studying professional literature and web forums, the coͲevolution of ethics and technologyisdescribedindetail.Witharobot,cowsarenolongermilkedtwiceadayby thefarmer,butinsteadmustvoluntarilypresentthemselvestobemilkedindividually. Thismeanstheyneedtolosesomeoftheirherdmentalityanddecideforthemselves when it is time to be milked. Atthe same time farmers need to learn to leave these decisions to the cows in such a way that they remain productive. In the wake of implementing this robot on farms, an ethical norm of (individual) freedom or even autonomyforcowshasgainedground.Thisisnotonlypartofthemarketingrhetoricof robotproducers.Evencriticsoftherobotformulatetheirconcernsintheseterms:itis arguedthattherobotisnotasliberatingaspromised,oronlypromotesaparticularidea offreedomandsubjectivity. Farmerswhoinstallarobotgraduallyfindoutthat‘robotcows’reallyaredifferent.This meansthatinpractice,animalwelfareisnoteasilydefinedingenericterms,butalso dependsoncontextsandrelations.Thus,whatacowis,andhowbesttorelatetoher,is theoutcomeofongoingprocessesofsocioͲtechnicalchange. ‘Robotfarmers’changedtoo.Theynolongerhaveroutineinteractionwiththecowsbut move to a regime of management by exception. Whereas automation is generally thoughttoleadtodeskillingoflabourandalienation,whatfarmersfoundoutwasthat they developed a more calm and friendly relation with their cows, who no longer associatedthefarmerwithbeingmilkedandpushedaround.Withtherobot,anidealof ‘notinterferingwiththeherd’emerges,whichmeansthatthefarmerleavesmoreto processesintheherd,whiletherobotchangesthese.Therebytheresponsibilityofthe farmeristhoughttoshiftfromcaringfortheanimalstowardsallowingtheanimalsto takegoodcareofthemselves.Similartothecasesinthepreviouschapter,heretoothe dynamics of ethical evaluation involves changing the terms of debate and the subjectivities of, in this case, both farmers and cows. At the same time – in true coͲ evolutionaryfashion–weseehowthesenewrolesandethicalnormsfeedbackintothe materiallayoutoftherobotinthebarn.Farmersnowtendtomoveawayfromearlier
summary321 setͲupswith‘forcedcowtraffic’thatrequiredthemtopasstherobottogettothefeed, offeringinsteadopportunitiesto(insomesense)morefreelydeterminetheirbehaviour. EmbracingcoͲevolutionanddoingawaywithstablenormsandmoreformalmodesof moralcritiqueinvolvestheriskoflosingethicalgroundandgivingupcriticaltermssuch as ‘natural’, ‘autonomy’, ‘freedom’, ‘exploitation’, and ‘alienation’. On the one hand, these terms can indeed be found to lack stable meanings in a dynamic technological culture.Butontheotherhand,thischapterarguesthat,throughbeingcontested,these terms are still vital in making sense of the changing experiences and moral commitmentsoffarmers. Chapter5alsousestheexampleofthemilkingrobot.Butratherthanmerelyexpanding thedescriptionofcoͲevolutioninthepreviouschapterwithfurtherdetails,itiswritten inamoreargumentativestyle:asakindofmanifestoforappreciatingtheactiveroleof animalsaspoliticalbeingswithwhomweengagein‘animaldeliberation’. Thereisagrowinginterestinnotjustthemoralbutalsothepoliticalstatusofanimals. This raises a challenge of how to conceive of animal politics both in theory and in practice.Againstthecommonassumptionthatanimals‘havenovoice’andthatbeing somehow represented by humans is all they can hope for, this chapter develops an understandingofdeliberativedemocracywhichacknowledgesexistingformsofpolitical communicationacrossthespeciesbarrier.Thechapterintroducestheideaofdesignas political anddesigning withanimals as deliberative via a simple domestic technology: the cat flap. This everyday example already shows how people and domestic cats negotiate and probe their human–feline relations. When technological design is understood as a process of tinkering with our ideas of the good life and appropriate human–animalrelations,thendesigningforandwithanimalscanbeappreciatedasa kindofmultispecieslearningprocessesthatcouldbeaccordedpoliticalstatus. The chapter follows a group of farmers and technologists who,together with a small herdofdairycows,overthecourseofseveralyearsexperimentedwithamobilemilking robotthatwouldmilkcowsoutinthepasture.Again,aseeminglysimpleadjustmentof a technology entailed a complex dynamic. Technical challenges in making this new deviceworkandhavingthecowsperformproductivelyweremixedwithwhatinethical theorizingwouldbeconsideredconceptualquestionsonthecentralityandappropriate meaningsofnaturalness,freedom,voluntariness,andfarmerresponsibility.Thesewere
322summary not taken up as questions to be answered purely or primarily on a discursive level. Variouspracticalmeaningsofthesenotionswereexperimentedwithbycreatingnew material arrangements and watching the subsequent interactions. Continually, the characterofthecowsissubjecttointerpretationbythefarmer:toassesswhetherthey aregenetically‘lazy’ordonotreceivetherightfeed,whethertheyaretoostubbornor notintelligentenoughtovisittherobot,orwhethertheydislikebeingforcedtowardsit andwouldratherdecideforthemselveswhentoenterit.Theprocessoftinkeringor bricolage revealed how in situations of technological innovation a responsive relationshipemergesofmutuallearning,inwhichbothfarmerandanimalsubjectivities arecontinuallyredefinedanddelineated. Thetheoryofdeliberativedemocracyemphasizesthatthepoliticalprocessisnottobe thought of as an encounter between individuals with given preferences, but as something that encompasses their formation. Recent theorists of deliberation stress that it is a style of politics which is grounded in everyday experiences and that deliberativeformsofinteractioncanbefoundinunexpectedsites.Acknowledgingthe active and meaningful role of animals and appreciating that these everyday, partly material and nonͲdiscursive processes are of a deliberative kind may contribute to taking animals seriously in public debates over how to farm, manage, conserve, or liberateatleastanumberofhithertoignoredmembersofourpoliticalcommunity.By recognizing the interdependence, reciprocity, and inherent ambiguity in our dealings with animals, and in theirs with us, we can experience a call for an inquisitive, experimental,andongoingpoliticsofeverydayanimalencounters. In an intermezzo, the author of the thesis again finds himself sitting with a group of farmers.Similartothesituationsketchedintheprologue,butthistimeatadairyfarm discussingthemobilemilkingrobot.Ratherthanofferingconceptualanalysisandtrying tomakethefarmersinternalizeparticularnotionstomakethemunderstandtheethical character of what they are doing, he started experimenting with a different, more evocative,visualapproach. Inchapter6wereturntothepigfarmandtotheEUrequirementforpigpenenrichment thataimstodiminishpigboredomandpreventpigsfrombitingeachother’stails.When spectacular technological proposals can publicly disclose moral worlds, and when implementing farm technologies can lead to animal deliberation on the farm, then a promisingwaybothtostudyandtointerveneinthissituationistodesignanevocative
summary323 farmingtechnology.Extrapolatingtherequirementforpigstoreceivesomethingtoplay with,aprojectisoutlinedtocreatevideogamestoentertainthem.Thisinitselfcould beawaytodrawattentiontothewelfaresituationaswellasthecognitivepotentialof pigs.Butitisevenmoreinterestingtotrytointerveneinhuman–animalrelationsby creatingagamethatwouldallowthepigstoplaywithhumans. ThisprojectconnectsdebatesonanimaluseandanimalwelfarewithJohnBerger’sidea ofthe‘disappearanceoftheanimal’inmodernculture,where”onlypetsandcarcasses remain.”Playingwithpigs,moreover,offersawaytoactivelyexplorerecentdebateson alternativemodesofscientificallyunderstandinganimalcognitionandbehaviour,such asthosediscussedunderthebannerof‘multispeciesethnography’. Thischapterdescribesafirstgameconcept,forwhichthedesignerscreateda(partly mock up) video: Pig Chase connects humans and pigs by enabling them to together move a sparkling dot over a screen in the pigpen and on an iPad. The evocative characterofthisinterventioninpublicdebateentailedthatwedidnotfullycontrolor even imagine its possible meanings and full potential for rethinking human–pig relations.Thereforethevarietyofresponsestheprojecthasalreadygeneratedisused to outline the kinds of implications that ‘playing with your food’, as the project was labelledinthepopularpress,couldbethoughttohave. Chapter7probestheextenttowhichthedesignofplayingwithpigscanfunctionasa subversive intervention visͲàͲvis existing animal practices such as farming and pet keeping. Questions that are dealt with in the design process concern the ideal of naturalness,thehierarchicalrankingofspeciesbasedoncognitiveabilities,notionsof symmetry in human–animal relations, and the character of play defined in terms of openness. Ideas concerning these themes were partly conceived at the outset of the projectasdesigncriteria,toensurethatanimalsduringthedesignprocessandinthe eventualgameemergeasmeaningfulandactiveparticipants.Thesethemesarefurther elaboratedhere,informedbyworkonhuman–animalrelationsanddiscussionsofnew modes of doing research into animal behaviour that allow or even call for an active humanpresence.Butthesethemesarealsothecoreissuesthatwehavebeengrappling withinthedesignprocess.Thefocushereultimatelycomesdowntothequestionof whatitmeanstoplayandthepeculiarcharacterofinterspeciesplay.
324summary ByinͲdepthdiscussionofparticulardesignchoicesforthefirstprototypeofthegame, whichwearecurrentlytesting,thechapterexplicatesthewayinwhichtheprocessof design can function as a form of multispecies philosophy: as both a material and a discursivewayofinvestigatinginterlinkedethical,philosophical,andscientificquestions onhowwecould(andperhapsshould)relatetopigs. Thenextchapter,8,offersfurtherspeculationsonthemoralcharacterofthistypeof mediatedintervention,inthelightofhistoricalprocessesofcoͲevolvingmoralitiesand genres.Intheongoingreflectionsonthedesignprocessandthepotentialimpactsofthe experienceofinterspeciesplayonhumanandnonhumanplayers,questionsregarding human(moral)subjectivityarefoundtobedeeplyintertwinedwiththeissueofhowto conceive of (animal) minds. Thus, this chapter explores how an understanding of morality as coͲevolving with particular cultural genres such as novels, film, or video games,canbethoughttoresonatewithalternativeformsofrelatingtoanimals.Aseries ofdiscussionsonhuman–animalrelationsisbroughtintoconnectionwithoppositions such as those between empathy and sympathy, and those between liberal ideals of individuationvspostͲhumanistcommitmentstotheprimaryrelationalityofindividuals, human or otherwise. Ultimately, it is argued that the tension generated by these oppositions,whicharefoundtobecentralinenvisagingtheexperienceof(premodern) farmers and animals, comes down to whether or not we can distinguish between touchingandbeingtouched.Thechapterendsbytakingseriouslytheaccusationmade by numerous (online) commentators that the project is deeply problematic, or even disgusting and perverse. With that we (re)turn to the question of the potential for a multispeciescommunityinourtechnological(farming)culture. The conclusion of this thesis is that we should go to farms, talk to farmers, live with animalsanddesignnewfarmequipmentasthebestwaytodoagriculturalethics.But when tinkering in practice is the ideal, is it not strange to argue for this in written words?Chapter9springsfromasenseofwonderabouttheselfdefeatingcharacterof writing a long winding academic treatise that is meant to argue that ethics actually happens in material practices on the farm. This is the paradox of writing pragmatist ethics: when viewed pragmatically, all that writing and reading about situated experience,embodiedpracticesandtheimportanceofstandingwithyourfeetinthe mud actually turns us into brains on sticks. The inescapable subtext of a PhD thesis seemstobethattrueknowledgeandethicalargumentsarewritteninacademicprose.
summary325 After contemplating the various implicit effects of writing and language as the commonlyassumedmodeofengagingwithethicalconcerns,thethesisarguesthatfully disbandingwithwordswouldgotoofar.Languageandwritingscaninspireandcritique creativematerialpractices,inabackͲandͲforthbetweenreadingandtinkering.Justas theoreticaldiscussionsinformedthemakingofPigChaseandviceversa;aslongasitis clearthatdeployingthealphabetisnotaneutralchoiceindoingethics,andmaterial practicesaretakenseriouslyasformofethicalreflectiontoo. Thischapterendswiththeideathatthepointofthethesiscanbestbeunderstoodasto show, not tell. The least self defeating way to conclude is then by showing how the Playing with Pigs design project itself, as a situated and material endeavour, can be consideredtobetheconclusiontothistheoreticalandpracticalresearch. Chapter10indeedtriestorefrainfrommakinggeneralclaims.Nordoesitofferasetof tools for policy makers. Instead, this chapter looks back at how the various earlier chaptersinformedthepiggamedesignprojectandhowthatcouldhelpusunderstand, in a handsͲon way, processes of coͲevolution between technology and ethics on the farm.Thechaptersofthethesiscanbeseenasattemptstogenerateenthusiasmfor joiningindeliberationsunderstoodinevermoreexpandedways:includingfarmersand their embodied practices, radical technological designs, tinkering with farm technologies, animals as active participants in this, and creative design as a way to activelyrelatetothisprocess. Next to the evocative genres, which we have discussed, that call for action on environmentalandanimalissues,interspeciesvideogamedesignwasexploredasanew modeofcreatinginterestingsituationsformoralexperience,reflection,anddebate.In thegameprojectadifferentmoralsubject,beyondcitizenandconsumerisinvitedand generated, opening up a new genre of engaging in ethics by involving us in affective relations. Theproposeddesigndoesnotcomewithaclaimtobemorallyneutral.Instead,itaims to intensify the experience of ambivalence with regard to animal farming, combining industrial food production and ideals of meaningful humanͲanimal interaction of contemporary pet keeping. In the design project, the process of socioͲtechnical coͲ evolution is used to intervene and study the way technological change generates occasions for debate, new understandings of an issue and of what it means to be a
326summary
moralsubjectinrelationtoproducingfoodwithandfromanimals.Ratherthanoffering a purely technological fix, or succumbing to technological determinism, this type of design means actively relating to coͲevolving norms, including shifting meanings of central terms. What it means toplay, and what the moral meaningof mediatedplay withotherspeciescouldbe,canbecontestedinthelightofthisproject.
WesetupourdesigninterventionexplicitlyasanexperimentwithnewhumanͲanimal relations,whichinvolveddevelopingnewsensibilitiesandincreasingourresponsiveness to animal behaviour. This made it evident to grant animals a serious role as coͲ designers. In the process we became more responsive to their behaviour while developingvariouswaystointerpretitsmeanings.Aswewereinteractivelyreimagining life on the farm and ways to connect that to wider audiences, thegame project was envisagedasaplatformfor‘animaldeliberation’.
It can be challenging to locally engage with issues that cannot be fully grasped by situated experience. There does not seem to be a generic answer to this type of concern.TodoethicsinacoͲevolutionaryveinwecanindulgeininspiringexamplesof artists and designers. In order to open up our sensibilities to forms of suffering and increaseourimaginationofthewaylocalsituationsareconnectedtoglobalconcerns– concernswhichthemselvesarealwaysalsolocalandarenottobesolvedsolelyfrom afar.
Intheepiloguewerevisitthepigfarmeroftheprologue,whointhemeantimehad beenradicallyalteringherfarm.
Samenvatting
Deliberatiemetdieren:
decoͲevolutievantechnologieenethiekopdeboerderij Wat kan een filosoof bijdragen aan het begrip van en debat over ethische kwesties rondomdeveehouderij?Ditproefschriftbegintmeteenvoorwoordwaarindesituatie wordtgeschetstvaniemanddiezichditafvraagtopeenvarkensboerderijtijdenseen discussieoverhetprobleemvanvervelingbijvarkensenhoetevoldoenaandevereiste vanhokverrijking. Het gebruik van productiedieren is een in toenemende mate problematische en omstreden activiteit. Een mozaïek van onderling verbonden zorgen, geschetst in hoofdstuk1,komtsteedsmeeronderdeaandacht.Dezezorgenbetreffenhetlijdenvan dieren,milieubelastingvanwater,bodemenlucht,emissiesvan stoffendieleidento klimaatverandering, uitbraken van voor mensen gevaarlijke dierziekten, antibiotica resistentie, voedselveiligheid, ontbossing, onbalans in de wereldwijde verdeling van nutriënten,eutrofiëringvanwaterecosystemen,hetoprakenvanschaarsegrondstoffen (waaronder fossiele brandstoffen, fosfaten, en zoet water) en kwesties aangaande wereldwijde rechtvaardigheid, landgebruik en honger. Buiten deze effecten, is veehouderijeropgerichtombetaalbaar,kwalitatiefenveiligvoedselteproducerendat gezondenlekkeris.Hierbijkomtooknogdekwaliteitvanarbeidopboerderijen,het inkomen van boeren en de leefbaarheid van het platteland, de culturele waarde van agrarische landschappen en de traceerbaarheid van voedsel voor consumenten. Wat opvaltbijdezeopsommingisdegrotevariatieaankwestiesendediverseinstitutiesen wetenschappelijkedisciplinesdiebetrokkenzijnbijhetregulerenenbeoordelenervan. De overdaad aan onderling verbonden kwesties –of alleen al het lijden van productiedieren–suggereerteenevensimpelealsvoordehandliggendeoplossing:de volledige afschaffing van het gebruik van dieren voor voedselproductie. Met het 330samenvatting
situerenvanethiekopdeboerderijvertrektditproefschriftvanuitdegedachtedathet mogelijkisombepaaldevormenvandierlijkeproductieterealiserenalsonderdeelvan eenminofmeerduurzamewereld,meteenwellichtaanvaardbarehoeveelheiddierlijk lijden.Desalniettemin,ookalzouhetnogalovermoedigzijnomhieromtrentderolvan wereldwijdebeslisserintenemen,demeerradicaleoplossingvanheturgentealgehele vraagstuk van de veehouderij komt her en der in het proefschrift op verschillende manierennaarvoren.
Wiezoumoetenbeslissenoverditvraagstukisonduidelijk.Eenmanierwaaropinhet afgelopendecenniumeenbrederpubliekmetdezezorgenwerdgeconfronteerdisdoor inhetoogspringendedocumentaireszoalsOurDailyBread.Opgronddaarvanzouje het gevoel kunnen krijgen dat mensen gevangen zitten in industriële voedselketens, waarin weinig ruimte voor moreel handelen of zelfs morele subjectiviteit overblijft. Hiermee komt een reeks vragen op waar dit proefschrift mee aan de slag gaat: hoe kunnen we de morele en politieke handelingsruimte opvatten in ons hedendaagse hoogtechnologischevoedselsysteem?Waarkunnenweethieksituerenenwaarmoeten we op zoek naar morele subjecten? En welke genres van moreel debat en filosofisch onderzoek zijn geschikt en nuttig (of irritant en ontwrichtend) om met de zorgen die hierbovenwerdenopgesomdaandeslagtegaan?
Het genre van de toegepaste ethiek als terrein van universitair onderzoek is veelal gericht op bepaalde soorten insitutionele interventies –procedures, protocollen, ethischecommissiesenbeleidsadvies–dieeenspecifiekbegripimplicerenvanwathet betekentomonsmetethiekbezigtehouden:namelijkdesystematische,rationeleen conceptueelhelderereflectieopjuisteenonjuistehandelingen.Vaakgaathetindeze vormvanethiekomhetexpliciterenenafwegenvanwaardenenprincipes.Criticivan dit soort ethisch theoretiseren en reflecteren hebben er echter op gewezen dat deze benaderingen de diversiteit beperken van het soort overwegingen dat kan worden gearticuleerd. Iets dat kan leiden tot het depolitiseren van situaties en het omzetten ervaninstatischedilemma’s.Daarbovenoplijkendeethischeargumentendieditgenre voortbrengtnietergovertuigendvoorconsumentennochboeren,netzoalshetslechts opsommenvandekwestieshierbovennietzomaarresulteertinbredemaatschappelijke verandering.
Indepraktijkblijktonzeethischekijkopkwestiestekunnenwordenbeïnvloeddoorde ontwikkelingvannieuwetechnologieën.Ditproefschriftbouwtvoortoprecentwerkin samenvatting331 pragmatische ethiek en wetenschapsͲ en techniekonderzoek (STS) waarin het ‘coͲ evoluerende’ karakter van morele normen en technologische verandering wordt uitgelichtalseenveelbelovendemanieromethiektebegrijpeninonzetechnologische cultuur. Binnen het filosofisch pragmatisme gaat het bij ethiek om de ervaring van ‘problematischesituaties’.Pragmatischethischonderzoekisnietzozeergerichtophet rechtvaardigenvanabstracteenafstandelijkepositiesmaaropbelichaamde,actieveen doorleefde betrokkenheid bij deze situaties. Naast de rationele, ‘prozaische’, probleemoplossendegerichtheidwaarhetpragmatismeombekendstaat,iserookeen ‘romantische’of‘poetische’kantvanpragmatischefilosofie,waarindenadrukligtop het creatieve en ‘wereld ontsluitende’ karakter van denken. In deze vorm van pragmatismekanethiekwordengezienalseenvoortdurendprocesvanhetrichtenvan aandacht, het leveren van wijdlopige interpretaties van praktijken, het cultiveren van moreleervaringenenhetverbeeldenvanalternatievewerelden.Ditproefschriftbiedt eenreeksvanexperimentenmetgenresvanonderzoekeninterventie(vanetnografie, casestudies,enfotomontagetothetontwerpenvancomputerspellen)omuittevinden hoespecifiekemorelesubjectenkunnenwordenbetrokkenenhoemogelijkevormen vanmoreledeliberatieopdeboerderijtebevorderen. De uitgebreide ethische debatten die zijn opgekomen rond de verschillende zorgen opgesomdinhoofdstuk1zijndoorgaansgerichtoplossekwesties,zoalsdierenwelzijn of milieuvervuiling. Het perspectief van de boer is hierin meestal afwezig, of komt slechtsvooralseen(steedsmarginaler)deelbelang,inplaatsvantewordengezienalsin zichzelfmoreelrelevant.Alsalternatiefvoorhetkijkennaarethischekwestiesalslouter technischeuitdagingenofalsdilemma’steanalyserenintermenvanethischeprinicipes, richt hoofdstuk 2 de blik op ethiek op de boerderij. Dit hoofdstuk biedt een etnografische verkenning van de morele ervaringen van boeren. De verscheidenheid aannormendievoorkomeninhedendaagseboerenpraktijkenwordthierinsystematisch weergegevenintermenvanverschillendevormenvanrechtvaardigen.Hetviaditkader beschouwen van de praktische argumenten en inzet van boeren laat zien dat boerenpraktijkenonderwerpzijnvangemengdemotieven,waarineencombinatievan soorten zorgen een rol speelt. Boerderijen zijn niet alleen industriële locaties voor efficiëntevoedselproductie,maarookhuiselijkeomgevingenwaarboerenfamiliesleven, vanwiejenogaltijdzoukunnendenkendatzeveelzijdigeverhoudingenhebbentothun dierenenland.Wanneerweonsrichtenoplossekwestieskomthetvolledigespectrum vanrechtvaardigingeninhetboerenlevenoveralseenonefficienterommeligepraktijk ofzelfseen‘ethischechaos’.Maarwanneerwedezebeschouwenalseenfijnzinnigweb
332samenvatting
vanmaatschappelijkedomeinenennormatievelogica’s,zouheteigenaardigeverweven karaktervanethiekopdeboerderijbeterwordenverwoordinpubliekedebatten.Een meeromvattendebeschrijvingvanspecifiekekwestieskandanwordenontwikkelddie rechtdoetaandemanierenwaaropboerendemozaïekvankwestiessamenbrengen, geïnformeerddooreendiversiteitaanmoreleervaringen.Ditzoumogelijkdeneiging binnen beleidsontwikkeling, technologische innovatie, wetenschappelijk onderzoek en ethischdenkenomonsmorelelandschaptecompartimentaliserenkunnentegengaan.
Ethiek wordt dan een voortgaand leerproces waarin overwegingen uit verschillende ordes van rechtvaardiging een rol kunnen spelen en waarin belichaamde vormen van ervaring, vaardigheden, identiteiten en relaties onderdeel zijn van veranderingsprocessen.Jekandanmaarzeldenverwachtendatethischevragenopde boerderij eenduidige en algemeen geldende antwoorden opleveren, aangezien deze altijdzijnverbondenmetideeënoverwatvoorsoortboerjezoumoetenzijn,wateen goedlevenvooreendieris,enhoeonstothetlandteverhouden.
In hoofdstuk 3 verschuift de aandacht naar technologie. Terwijl technologische verandering vaak wordt beschouwd als een gevaar voor democratische processen en morele besluitvorming, wordt hier beargumenteerd dat de coͲevolutie van ethiek en technologiebijuitstekgelegenheidbiedtvoorpolitiekeenmorelebetrokkenheid.Twee technologische projecten die voorstelden om boerderijen en boeren af te schaffen worden bekeken: plannen om varkens te houden in grote ‘agro productieparken’ die bekend werden onder de naam ‘varkensflats’, en pogingen om technieken te ontwikkelen waarmee vlees kan worden gemaakt door cellen te laten groeien buiten dieren, onder de naam ‘kweekvlees’. In plaats van de mogelijke voors en tegens van deze voorstellen te analyseren,gaathet in dit hoofdstuk om de dynamische ethische processendiezijingangzetten.Doornauwgezetteonderzoekenhoekenmerkenvan dezeontwerpenwerdenopgenomeninpubliekedebattenenethischdenken,volgtdit hoofdstukhetmorele‘wereldontsluitende’karaktervantechnologischeprojecten.
Ten eerste, zelfs nog voor zij gerealiseerde systemen of commercieel levensvatbare productenzijn,functioneerdendezetweetechnologieënalsnieuwegelegenheidvoor debat. Niet alleen over het al dan niet accepteren van de voorgestelde technologie, maarookoverdebrederekwestiewaarindezewarenbedoeldominteinterveniëren. Deze debatten vonden plaats in hele andere omstandigheden dan waar landbouwkwesties gewoonlijk worden bediscussieerd, en er waren anderen dan de samenvatting333 gebruikelijkedeelnemers bij betrokken. Aan de ene kant ontstonden nieuwe coalities rond de nieuwe technologieën, zoals tussen boeren en stedelijke protesteerders, en tussen biotechnologen en veganisten. Terwijl aan de andere kant bestaande groepen verdeeldraakten,zoalsdierenrechtenͲenmilieuorganisaties. Tentweedegavenbeideontwerpenaanleidingtotverschuivingeninhoedebestaande maatschappelijkekwestiesrondomdeveehouderijwerdenbegrepen.Doordezenieuw voorgestelde alternatieven voor veehouderijpraktijken in te beelden ontstonden impliciet nieuwe standaarden om de bestaande situatie mee te beoordelen. Zowel varkensflatsalskweekvleesonthuldendatdehedendaagseintensievevleesproductieop allerlei manieren inefficient en suboptimaal is. Systeemgrenzen werden opnieuw getrokken en specifieke soorten argumenten kwamen naar voren met de beide technologieën. Analogieën tussen intensieve veehouderij en de holocaust werden plotselingdoorvelengebezigdinreactieopdevarkensflat.Enwaardezeeencollectieve publiekeweigeringomhetvoorstelserieusteoverwegenvoortbracht,waskweekvlees veelmindercontroversieel,metalsvoornaamsteonderwerpvandebatofmenhetal dan niet zou willen eten. In de discussie over deze ontwerpvoorstellen konden zelfs ontologischeverschuivingenwordenontwaardtenaanzienvanwatwezoudenmoeten zienals‘echtvlees’ende‘wareaard’vandeveehouderij. Entenderdebrachthetreagerenopdezenieuwetechnologieëneenhernieuwdidee overhetkaraktervanpolitiekenmoreelhandelen,terwijleveneensdegevoeligheden die een moreel subject vormt in relatie tot een kwestie werden heroverwogen. Dit betrofideeënoverwatpassendegevoelighedenzijneneenverschovenopvattingover belichaming, emoties, ervaring en de relevantie van bepaalde morele posities. Bijvoorbeeld bij het leren om zich te verhouden tot de fysieke weerzin die voor sommigenwordtopgeroependoordegedachteaankweekvlees. Het hoofdstuk doordenkt de interne spanningen en ambiguïteiten van dit proces van moreleenpolitiekeveranderingdooreenvergelijkingvandebetekenissenvan‘wereld ontsluiten’ zoals die door Dewey en Heidegger zijn beschreven. De kritiek op zowel varkensflats als kweekvlees is meestal in lijn met de Heideggeriaanse afwijzing van modernetechnologieopmetafysischegronden:hetzijnuitingenvaneenverkeerdsoort denkendatalles,onszelfincluis,totslechtshulpbronnenmaakt.MetDeweykunnenwe daarentegenwijzenophoedezevoorstellenkunnenwordenbeschouwdalsonderdeel van een experimentele vorm van creatief onderzoek die op dramatische wijze
334samenvatting technologisch ontwerp, wetenschappelijk onderzoek en artistieke verbeelding in zich verenigt.Deinvloedvandezetechnologieënkanwordengezienalsvergelijkbaarmetde kunsten, waarmee artistiek ontwerpen een manier is om ons actief tot wereld ontsluiting en processen van coͲevolutie te verhouden. Maar ook al kwamen allerlei soorten maatschappelijke groepen samen om deze ontwerpen –en daarmee dus ook gangbareveehouderij–opvaakverhitteensomscreatievewijzetebediscussiëren,er was een zeer kleine (varkensflats) of geen (kweekvlees) rol voor boeren. Hun ervaringen, ideeën en kennis werden impliciet weggezet als achterhaald, hoogstens onderdeelvanhetprobleem. Hoofdstuk 4 brengt ons weer terug op de boerderij, om te zien hoe coͲevolutie niet alleen plaatsvindt in publieke debatten in gang gezet door spectaculaire ontwerpen, maar ook in meer alledaagse materiële processen van technologische verandering. Melkrobots, die nauwelijks bekend zijn bij een groter publiek, zijn het afgelopen decennium meer en meer in gebruik genomen op Nederlandse melkveebedrijven. In eerste instantie leek het een kleine technologische stap om het aansluiten van de melkmachineopdeuiersvandekoeteautomatiseren.Maarindepraktijkbleekditeen volledig nieuwe opzet van het melkveehoudersbedrijf met zich mee te brengen. De ethischeimplicatiesenbeoordelingvanditnieuweapparaatsprekennietvanzelf,maar zijn onderdeel van een dynamisch proces waarin verschuift wat wordt gezien als een goedeboer,eengoedekoeeneengoederobot. Dithoofdstukverkentdevraaghoewemetethiekaandeslagkunnengaanvanuiteen relationeelenveranderlijkbegripvanmensen,dierenentechnologieën.Opbasisvan vraaggesprekken, het bijwonen van boerennetwerkbijeenkomsten, een korte praktijkcursus melkveehouderij, en het bestuderen van professionele literatuur en webfora,wordtdecoͲevolutievanethiekentechnologiegedetailleerdbeschreven.Met eenrobotwordendekoeiennietmeertweemaaldaagsgemolkendoordeboer,maar moetenzijzichzelfvrijwilligindividueelmeldenbijderobot.Ditbetekentdatzijeendeel vanhunkuddementaliteitmoetenkwijtrakenomvoorzichzelftebeslissenwanneerhet tijdisomgemolkenteworden.Tegelijkertijdmoetenboerenlerendezebeslissingenaan dekoeienovertelatenopzo’nmanierdatzijproductiefblijven.Inhetkielzogvanhet installeren van de robot op boerderijen heeft een ethische norm van (individuele) vrijheidofzelfsautonomievankoeienterreingewonnen.Ditisnietslechtsonderdeel vandeverkoopretoriekvanrobotproducenten.Zelfscriticivanderobotformulerenhun bedenkingen in deze termen: er wordt gesteld dat de robot niet zo bevrijdend is als
samenvatting335 beloofd,ofslechtseenbepaaldideevanvrijheidensubjectiviteitbevordert.Boerendie een robot in gebruik nemen komen er gaandeweg achter dat ‘robotkoeien’ daadwerkelijkanderszijn.Ditbetekentdatindepraktijkdierenwelzijnnieteenvoudigin algemenetermenisvasttestellen,maarookafhangtvancontextenenrelaties.Dus, wateenkoeis,enhoeweonshetbestetothaarkunnenverhouden,isdeuitkomstvan voortgaandeprocessenvanmaatschappelijkͲtechnologischeverandering. ‘Robotboeren’veranderdenook.Nietlangerhebbenzijeenroutinematigeomgangmet alle koeien maar gaan ze over tot management op basis van uitzonderingen. Terwijl automatisering veelal wordt geassocieerd met vervreemding en een afname van ambachtelijkheid,kwamenboerenerjuistachterdatzeeenrustigereenvriendelijkere verhoudingtothunkoeienontwikkelden,aangeziendezedeboernietlangerinverband brachtenmetgemolkenenopgedrevenworden.Metderobotkwameenideaalopom ‘dekuddenietteverstoren’,watbetekentdatdeboermeeraanprocessenindekudde overlaat,terwijlderobotdezeverandert.Daarmeeverschuiftdeverantwoordelijkheid vandeboervanhetzorgenvoordierennaardiereninstaatstellengoedvoorzichzelfte zorgen.Netalsbijdecasusinhetvorigehoofdstukomvatookhierdedynamiekvan ethischebeoordelenveranderingenindetermenvanhetdebatendesubjectiviteiten van,inditgeval,zowelboerenalskoeien.Tegelijkertijd,alsdaadwerkelijkecoͲevolutie, zienwehoedezenieuwerollenenethischenormenookweerdemateriëleorganisatie vanderobotindestalbeïnvloeden.Boerennemeninveelgevallenafstandvaneerdere opstellingen met ‘gedwongen koeverkeer’, waarbij de koeien verplicht door de robot moestenomhunvoertebereiken,ominplaatsdaarvangelegenheidtebiedenvoorhen om(inzekerezin)meervrijelijkhungedragtebepalen. MethetomarmenvancoͲevolutieenhetloslatenvanvastenormenenmeerformele vormenvanmorelekritiekontstaatereengevaardatweethischterreinverliezenen kritischetermenzoals‘natuurlijk’,‘autonomie’,‘vrijheid’,‘exploitatie’en‘vervreemding’ moeten opgeven. Enerzijds hebben deze termen in een technologische cultuur inderdaadgeenvastebetekenis.Maaranderzijdssteltdithoofdstukdatdezetermen, juist doordat ze worden betwist, nog steeds belangrijk zijn bij het omgaan met veranderendeervaringenmorelebetrokkenheidvanboeren. Hoofdstuk5gebruiktookhetvoorbeeldvandemelkrobot.Maarinplaatsvanslechtsde beschrijvingvancoͲevolutieuithetvorigehoofdstukmetnaderedetailsuittewerken,is dithoofdstukgeschrevenineenmeerargumentatievestijl:alseensoortmanifestvoor
336samenvatting de waardering van de actieve rol van dieren als politieke wezens met wie we ‘dierendeliberatie’aangaan. Erisintoenemendemateaandachtvoornietalleendemorelemaarookdepolitieke statusvandieren.Ditlevertdeuitdagingophoedierenpolitiektebegrijpen,zowelin theorie als in de praktijk. Tegenover de gangbare aanname dat dieren ‘geen stem hebben’endatopeenofanderemaniervertegenwoordigdwordendoormensenhet enige is waar ze op kunnen hopen, ontwikkelt dit hoofdstuk een begrip van deliberatievedemocratiewaarinbestaandevormenvanpolitiekecommunicatieoverde soortgrenzenheenwordenerkend.Hethoofdstukintroduceerthetideevanontwerpen alspolitiekenontwerpenmetdierenalsdeliberatiefdoormiddelvaneeneenvoudige huiselijke technologie: het kattenluikje. Dit alledaagse voorbeeld laat al zien hoe mensen en huiskatten onderhandelen en hun onderlinge verhouding uittesten. Wanneerontwerpenvantechnologiewordtbegrepenalseenprocesvanknutselenmet onze ideeën van het goede leven en passende mensͲdier relaties, dan kan het ontwerpen voor en met dieren worden gewaardeerd als een leerproces tussen de soortendatpolitiekestatuszoukunnenwordenverleend. Hethoofdstukvolgteengroepboerenentechneutendiesamenmeteenkleinekudde melkkoeiengedurendeeenpaarjaarexperimenteerdenmeteenmobielemelkrobotom de koeien buiten in de wei te melken. Weer leidde een schijnbaar eenvoudige aanpassing van een technologie tot een complexe dynamiek. Technische uitdagingen om het apparaat aan de praat te krijgen en de koeien productief te laten zijn waren verweven met wat in ethische theorievorming zou worden gezien als conceptuele vragenoverhetbelangendebetekenisvannatuurlijkheid,vrijheid,vrijwillgheid,ende verantwoordelijkheidvanboeren.Dezevragenwerdennietpuurenalleenopgevatop eendiscursief,taligniveau.Erwerdmetverschillendepraktischebetekenissenvandeze centralenotiesgeëxperimenteerddoornieuwemateriëlearrangemententecreërenen de daaropvolgende interacties te bekijken. Voortdurend was het karakter van de koe onderwerpvaninterpretatiedoordeboer:omtebepalenofzegenetisch‘lui’zijnof niethetjuistevoerkrijgen,ofzeteeigenwijsofnietintelligentgenoegzijnomderobot tebezoeken,ofdatzehetnietprettigvindenomnaarderobotgedirigeerdteworden enlieverzelfbeslissenwanneerzeeringaan.Hetprocesvanknutselenofbricolageliet zienhoeinstituatiesvantechnologischeinnovatieeenresponsieveverhoudingontstaat van wederzijds leren, waarin de subjectiviteiten van zowel boeren als dieren voortdurendopnieuwwordengedefinieerdenafgebakend.
samenvatting337 De theorie van deliberatieve democratie benadrukt dat politiek niet moet worden beschouwdalseensamenkomenvanindividuenmetgegevenvoorkeuren,maaralseen proces waarin zij ontstaan. Hedendaagse denkers over deliberatie geven aan dat het een politieke stijl is die vertrekt vanuit alledaagse ervaringen en dat deliberatieve vormen van interactie op onverwachte plekken kunnen worden aangetroffen. De erkenning van de actieve en betekenisvolle rol van dieren en de waardering van het deliberatieve karakter van deze alledaagse, deels materiële en nietͲdiscursieve processenkanbijdragenaanhetserieusnemenvandiereninpubliekedebattenover hoe tenminste een aantal van tot nu toe genegeerde leden van onze politieke gemeenschapmoetenwordengehouden,gemanaged,behouden,ofbevrijd.Dooroog te hebben voor de onderlinge afhankelijkheid, wederkerigheid en inherente meerduidigheidvanonzeomgangmetdieren,endievanhenmetons,kunnenweons aangespoord voelen tot een onderzoekende, experimentele en voortdurende politiek vanalledaagseontmoetingenmetdieren. Ineenintermezzobevindtdeauteurvanhetproefschriftzichweeraantafelmeteen groep boeren. Een vergelijkbare situatie zoals die werd geschetst in het voorwoord, maarditkeeropeenmelkveeboerderijineendiscussieoverdemobielemelkrobot.In plaatsvanbijtedragendoordegebruikteconceptentedefiniërenenteproberende boerenzichspecifieketermeneigentelatenmakenomhetethischekaraktervanwatze aan het doen zijn te begrijpen, begon hij te experimenteren met een andere, meer evocatieve,visuelebenadering. Inhoofdstuk6kerenweterugnaardevarkenshouderijennaardeEuropeseregelrond hokverrijkingdiebeoogtdevervelingvanvarkensteverminderenentevoorkomendat zijinelkaarsstaartenbijten.Wanneerspectaculairetechnologischevoorstellennieuwe morelewereldenkunnenopenen,enwanneerhetimplementerenvantechnologiekan leiden tot deliberatie met dieren op de boerderij, dan is het ontwerpen van een aansprekende veehouderijtechnologie een veelbelovende manier om deze situatie zoweltebestuderenalserinteinterveniëren.Doordeeisomvarkensietstespelente geven radicaal door te trekken wordt een project geschetst om computerspellen te makenwaarmeezekunnenwordenvermaakt.Ditopzichzelfzoueenmanierkunnen zijn om aandacht te vragen voor zowel het welzijn als de geestelijke vermogens van varkens.Maarhetisnoginteressanteromteproberenintegrijpenindeverhouding tussenmensendierdooreenspeltemakenwaarmeedevarkensmetmensenzouden kunnenspelen.
338samenvatting Dit project verbindt debatten over het gebruik van dieren en dierenwelzijn met de gedachte van John Berger over ‘het verdwijnen van het dier’ in de moderne cultuur, waarin “nog slechts huisdieren en karkassen overblijven.” Spelen met varkens biedt daarbij een manier om actief in de weer te gaan met recente discussies over alternatievevormenvanwetenschappelijkonderzoeknaardierlijkecognitieengedrag, zoalsonderdenoemer‘meersoortigeetnografie’. Dit hoofdstuk beschrijft een eerste spelidee, waarvoor de ontwerpers een (deels trucage) video hebben gemaakt: Pig Chase verbindt mensen en varkens door hen in staat te stellen samen een lichtgevende stip te bewegen over een scherm in de varkensstalenopeeniPad.Hetevocatievekaraktervandezeinterventieinhetpublieke debathieldindatwedemogelijkebetekenissenervanendepotentieommensͲvarken verhoudingente doordenken niet volledig beheersten of zelfs maar konden voorzien. Daarom wordt de verscheidenheid aan reacties die het project al heeft weten te genererengebruiktomdemogelijkeimplicatiesteschetsenvan‘metjeetenspelen’, zoalshetprojectindepopulairemediawerdgenoemd. Hoofdstuk 7 verkent de mate waarin het ontwerpen aan spelen met varkens kan werkenalseensubversieveingreeptenopzichtevanbestaandedierpraktijkenzoalsde veehouderijenhethoudenvanhuisdieren.Vragendieinhetontwerpprocesopkomen betreffenhetideaalvannatuurlijkheid,dehiërarchischeordeningvansoortenopbasis vancognitievevermogens,mogelijkesymmetrieinmensͲdierverhoudingen,enhetal dannietopenkaraktervanspelen.Ideeëntenaanzienvandezethema’swarendeels aanhetbeginvanhetontwerpprocesontwikkeldalsontwerpcriteria,omtezorgendat dieren daarin en in het uiteindelijke spelontwerp een betekenisvolle en actieve rol hadden. Hier worden deze thema’s verder uitgewerkt, op basis van literatuur op het gebied van mensͲdier relaties en discussies over nieuwe vormen van onderzoek naar diergedragdieeenmeeractievemenselijkeaanwezigheiddaarintoestaanofdaarzelfs toe oproepen. Maar deze thema’s zijn ook de belangrijkste kwesties waar we in het ontwerpprocesmeeworstelden.Uiteindelijkkomthethierbijneeropdevraagwathet betekent om te spelen en het eigenaardige karakter van spel tussen verschillende (dier)soorten. Door specifieke ontwerpkeuzes voor het eerste prototype van het spel, dat we momenteelaanhettestenzijn,uitgebreidtebespreken,toonthethoofdstukdewijze waarop het ontwerpproces kan werken als een vorm van ‘meersoortige filosofie’: als
samenvatting339 een zowel materiële als discursieve vorm van onderzoek naar onderling verweven ethische, filosofische en wetenschappelijke vragen over hoe we ons kunnen (en misschienmoeten)verhoudentotvarkens. Het volgende hoofdstuk, 8, speculeert verder over de morele aard van dit type gemedieerde interventie, in het licht van historische processen van coͲevoluerende moraliteiten en genres. Bij het doordenken van het ontwerpproces en de mogelijke effectendiedeervaringvanonderlingspelenopmenselijkeennietͲmenselijkespelers zou kunnen hebben, bleken vragen over de (morele) subjectiviteit van mensen diepgaandverweventezijnmetdevraaghoe(dierlijk)denkvermogentebegrijpen.Dit hoofdstukverkentvervolgenshoedecoͲevolutievanmoraliteitmetbepaaldeculturele genres, zoals romans, film of computerspellen, invloed zou kunnen hebben op alternatievevormenvanomgaanmetdieren.EenreeksvandebattenovermensͲdier relatieswordeninverbandgebrachtmettegenstellingenzoalsdietussenempathieen sympathie,entussenliberaleidealenvanindividualiseringversusdepostͲhumanistische nadruk op het primair relationele karakter van (al dan niet menselijke) individuen. Uiteindelijk wordt beargumenteerd dat de spanning gegenereerd door deze tegenstellingen, die centraal bleken in het voorstellen van de verhouding tussen (premoderne)boerenenhundieren,neertekomenoponsvermogenomonderscheid temakentussenaanrakenenaangeraaktworden.Hethoofdstukeindigtmethetserieus nemen van de beschuldiging van een aantal (online) commentatoren dat het project uiterstproblematisch,ofzelfswalgelijkenperversis.Daarmeerichtenweons(weer)op devraagnaardemogelijkheidvaneengemeenschapvanmeerdanalleenmensenin onzetechnologische(veehouderij)cultuur. Deconclusievandieproefschriftisdatdebestemanieromaanlandbouwethiektedoen isomnaarboerderijentegaan,metboerentepraten,samenmetdierentelevenen nieuwetechnologieënteontwikkelen.Maarwanneerpraktischknutselenhetideaalis, ishetdannietvreemdomhierzoveelmoeilijkewoordenaanvuiltemaken?Hoofdstuk 9spruitvoortuiteengevoelvanverwonderingoverhetzelfondermijnendekaraktervan hetschrijvenvaneenellenlangacademischtraktaatdatbeoogttebeargumenterendat ethiekeigenlijkplaatsvindtinmateriëlepraktijkenopdeboerderij.Ditisdeparadoxvan hetschrijvenoverpragmatischeethiek:pragmatischgezienverandertaldatgeschrijfen gelees over gesitueerde ervaringen, belichaamde praktijken en het belang van met beidevoetenindemodderstaanonsslechtsinbreinenopstokjes.Deonvermijdelijke
340samenvatting eigenlijke boodschap van een proefschrift lijkt te zijn dat ware kennis en ethische argumentenzijngeschreveninacademischproza. Na het overdenken van diverse impliciete effecten van schrijven en taal als de veelal aangenomenmaniervanomgaanmetethischekwesties,steltditproefschriftdathet volledigafzienvanwoordenteverzougaan.Taalenschrijfselskunneninspirerentot creatieve materiële praktijken en deze ook weer bekritiseren, in een heenͲenͲweer tussenlezenenknutselen.NetzoalstheoretischediscussieshetmakenvanPigChase informeerdenen andersom;zoang maarduidelijk isdathetbenuttenvan het alfabet geenneutralekeuzeisbijhetdoenaanethiek,endatmateriëlepraktijkenookserieus wordengenomenalseenvormvanethischereflectie. Dithoofdstukeindigtmetdegedachtedathetdoelvanhetproefschrifthetbestkan wordenopgevatalslatenzien,nietvertellen.Deminstzelfondermijnendemanierom hetaftesluitenisdandoortelatenzienhoehet‘spelenmetvarkens’ontwerpproject zelf, als een gesitueerde en materiële onderneming, kan worden beschouwd als de eigenlijkeconclusievandittheoretischeenpraktischeonderzoek. Hoofdtuk10poogtinderdaadverreteblijvenvanhetmakenvanalgemeneclaims.Ook biedt het geen set instrumenten voor beleidsmakers. In plaats daarvan kijkt dit hoofdstuk terug op hoe de verschillende voorgaande hoofdstukken het varkensspel ontwerpproject informeerden, en hoe dat op een handige manier ons zou kunnen helpenomprocessenvancoͲevolutietussentechnologieenethiekopdeboerderijte begrijpen. De hoofdstukken van het proefschrift kunnen worden beschouwd als pogingen om enthousiasme op te wekken om deel te nemen aan deliberatie, die op steedsruimeremanierwordtbegrepen:onderboerenenhunbelichaamdepraktijken, in radicale technologische ontwerpen, door te knutselen aan agroͲtechnologie, met dieren als actieve deelnemers hieraan, en creatief ontwerpen als eenmanier om ons actief tot dit proces te verhouden. Naast de besproken suggestieve genres, die oproepentotactierondmilieuͲendierenkwesties,ismensͲdiercomputerspelontwerp verkendalseennieuwemanierominteressantesituatiesvoormoreleervaring,reflectie endebattecreëren.Inhetspelprojectwordteenandermoreelsubjectuitgenodigden vormgegeven, voorbij burger en consument. Een nieuw genre ontstaat om ons met ethiekbezigtehouden,dooronstebetrekkeninaffectieverelaties.
samenvatting341 Hetvoorgesteldeontwerpvertrektnietvanuitdegedachtedathetmoreelneutraalzou zijn. In plaats daarvan beoogt het de ervaring van ambivalentie ten opzichte van dierhouderij te intensiveren, door industriële voedselproductie te combineren met idealenvanbetekenisvollemensͲdierinteractiezoalsbijhethedendaagsehuisdier.In het ontwerpproject wordt het proces van maatschappelijkͲtechnische coͲevolutie ingezet als interventie. Daarbij is het ook een vorm van onderzoek naar de manier waaroptechnologischeveranderingaanleidingvormtvoordebat,nieuwemanierenvan kijkennaareenkwestielevert,eninvloedheeftopwathetbetekenteenmoreelsubject tezijntenaanzienvanvoedselproductiemetenvandieren.Inplaatsvanhetaanbieden vaneenpuurtechnischeoplossing,ofhetgeloofdatwevolledigbepaaldwordendoor de technologie, houdt dit type ontwerpen in dat we ons actief verhouden tot coͲ evoluerendenormen,inclusiefhetverschuivenvandebetekenissenvancentralenoties. Wathetbetekentomtespelenenwatdemorelebetekenisvangemedieerdspelenmet anderesoortenzoukunnenzijnkanwordenbediscussieerdinhetlichtvanditproject. Wehebbenonzedesigninterventieexplicietopgezetalseenexperimentmetnieuwe mensͲdier verhoudingen, inclusief het ontwikkelen van nieuwe gevoeligheden en het vergroten van onze responsiviteit ten opzichte van diergedrag. Dit maakte het vanzelfsprekendomdiereneenserieuzerolalsmedeontwerperstegeven.Gedurende het proces leerden we steeds meer te reageren op hun gedrag en ontwikkelden we verschillende manieren om de betekenis ervan te interpreteren. Aangezien we interactiefbezigwarenonshetlevenopdeboerderijopnieuwteverbeeldenendatte verbindenmeteenbrederpubliek,steldenweonshetspelprojectvooralseenplatform omtedelibererenmetdieren. Hetisnietaltijdeenvoudigomonslokaalbezigtehoudenmetkwestiesdienietvolledig zijn te begrijpen vanuit gesitueerde ervaring. Er lijkt geen standaardoplossing te zijn voor dit typeprobleem. Om ethiek te bedrijven op coͲevolutionaire wijze kunnen we onsonderdompelenininspirerendevoorbeeldenvankunstenaarsenontwerpers.Om zo onze zinnen te openen voor vormen van lijden en ons inbeeldingsvermogen te vergroten voor manieren waarop lokale omstandigheden altijd zijn verbonden aan wereldwijde kwesties – kwesties die zelf altijd ook lokaal zijn en niet alleen van op afstandzijnoptelossen. In het nawoord keren we terug bij de varkenshouder uit het voorwoord, die in de tussentijdhaarboerderijradicaalheeftveranderd.
Acknowledgments FarfrombeingthesolitaryaffairthatwritingaPhDthesisisoftensaidtobe,thisone hasledmetomeetanamazingarrayofpeoplewhoinvariouswaysandstageshave beenkindenoughtohelpmeandspurmeon.Listingeveryonewhohasbeenimportant in realizing this thesis is a hopeless task. Nevertheless I think it is not only a friendly gesturetotryandgiveduecredits.AlsothisattemptmayoffersomeinsightintohowI wentaboutstudyingethics,onthefarmandbydesign.Thusbesidesacknowledgments, this is also a kind of methods section, revealing the social nature of ‘empirical philosophyinaction’.Moreorless‘inorderofappearance’,thesepeopleIwouldliketo thank: BeforecomingtoWageningen,IbovandePoelattheTUDelfthadhelpedmeonmy first steps of researching ethics in the field. Whereas at the UvA the late Wouter Achterberg had raised an interest in environmental philosophy and Gerard de Vries introducedmetoSTSandtheworkofLatour.HimIalsoneedtothankforforwarding me the vacancy that led to this thesis, at a moment when I had no idea I would be suitableforattemptinganacademiccareer. My main indebtedness in making this thesis is of course to my promotor Michiel Korthals and coͲpromotor Volkert Beekman. First of all for not only setting up the ‘EthicalRoomforManoeuvreinLivestockFarming’project,butalsoforbelievingthatI wastheappropriatecandidatetoexecuteit.Thisappearedtobeanunwaveringtrust evenwhenIkeptonmovinginevermorestrangedirectionswithoutchurningoutthe promised chapters. I don’t remember a hint of panic with them when I drifted into extensivelystudyingthephilosophyofbiofuels,ortheabolitionofslaveryasasystem innovationprocess.Michiel,thankyouforprovidingalotofroomformanoeuvreand for showing me how things may become truly interesting when pushed just a little further. Volkert, even though you weren’t panicking, you were probably right when threemonthsintotheprojectyoutoldmeIhadstartedtorunbehindschedule.When 344acknowledgments writingisdeleting,whichIbelieveinmycaseisextremelyso,thenVolkerthaswritten largepartsofthisthesis.Icannotthankyouenoughformassmurderingmydarlingsand withMichielweedingoutnumerous(thoughnotquiteall)pointlessdigressions. The project was kindly funded by NWO as part of the ‘Ethics, Research and Policy’ programme,whichtomyluckmeantthatalsothreeveryfriendlyandinterestinganimal welfarespecialistsofWageningenUR‘LivestockResearch’wereactivelyinvolved.Hans Spoolder,thankyouforyourideasondevelopmentsinanimalwelfareresearch.Leonie Heutinck,thankyouforputtingmeontothemilkingrobot,fordoingsomeinterviews togetherandforinsightsintodairyfarming.AndMarcBracke,forinvolvingmeinyour workonpigpenenrichmentandtakingmealongtothefarmmeetingdescribedinthe prologue,whicheventuallyprovedtobethestartofacentralpartofthethesis.Istill rememberfondlyyourenthusiasmwhenIfirsttoldyouImetupwithdesignerswho maybeabletomakesomethingforpigstoplaywithus. Besidesthesecolleagueswhowereformallyinvolved,Ienjoyedtheaddedbonusofa vibrantAppliedPhilosophy(bynowrebrandedasjustPhilosophy)chairgroup.Mysuper kind roommates Liesbeth Schipper and Silvia Blok always brightened up the day and weregoodsparringpartnersathandonanimalandnatureethics.Theotherswhowere ahead on the PhD track and with whom we had a good time figuring out what pragmatistethicsmightmeaninvariouspractices:fromRixtKomduur’snutriͲgenomics, toBramdeJonge’splantknowledgebenefitsharing,fromGilbertLeistra’slegitimations ofnaturepolicies,toTassosMichalopoulos’supermarkettomatoesandbiofuelsandto Mohammad Balali’s traditional Iranian irrigation systems. With Vincent Pompe I had heated discussions on what it is like to have ethical room for manoeuvre, and with CristianTimmermannitwasfunlamentingthesorrowsofacademia. Thepermanentmembersofthegrouphavebeenverycentralindevelopingthisthesis: LeonPeijnenburgwithhelpfulscepticismregardingbuzzwordsandvaguenotionssuch as‘practices’and‘participation’andfordiscussionsonslaveryanditsabolition.Henk vandenBeltwhowasequallysceptictowardsthetheoreticalhypesIlikedtoembrace butneverthelessopentoencouragemy‘wildideas’,whiletryingtoprovidesomemore seriousbackingtomyleapfroggingacrosstheoriesandphilosophers,andalwayswilling to discuss Heidegger over lunch. Jozef Keulartz, thanks for as a true pragmatist downplayinganytheory,forpromotingRachelCarson,andfordiscussionsonzooand circusanimalwelfareandenrichmentdebateswhichhewasworkingonwhenIstarted
acknowledgments345 to think ofplaying withpigs. The ‘specialprofessors’: Henk Jochemsen with a shared interestinthepositionsoffarmers.ThewonderfulBertBlans,whosadlypassedaway just after retiring. And most of all Cor van der Weele, for convincing me of the fascinatingcharacterofinvitromeatonwhichwearestillintensivelycollaborating,for promoting Dewey, and for showing the value of writing clearly and sincerely about complicatedmatters. Eventhoughmostofthethesiswasdonebythetimetheyjoined(andIleft)thegroup, alsothankyouforsupport:MarcelVerweij,RobertͲJanGeerts,JosetteJacobs,Vincent Blok,BartGremmen,BerniceBovenkerk,andJacquelineBoswhowasthereduringone of the frantic last minute draft thesis printing sessions. Of course also the invaluable administrativeandsecretarialsupportofthegroup:BeaPrijnwhowastherefromstart tofinish,aswellasMirjamCevat,AnnetDijkstra,andVeraMentzelwhowereallvery kind.TowardstheendIfullyreliedonIngeRuischwhoduringthefinalmonthsprobably hasdoneevenmoreformethanformanyoftheAfrican,AsianandSouthͲAmerican PhDsshehasmanagedtosupportacrosscontinents. But this is running ahead of things. Various people outside of my formal institutional basehavebeencrucialfromthestart.InanearlystageIreceivedaverywarmwelcome, especiallybyKareldeGreefandBramBos,tothebothpracticalandtheoreticalfieldof livestock innovation projects as developed by the Wageningen UR Livestock Research systeminnovationgroup.Yourprojectsareinspiringinmanywaysandmademewant toinitiatealittleinnovationprojectmyself. Asacompletefarmingignoramus,thepracticaltrainingcourseatthenowdefunctPTC+ Oenkerk,onoccasionorganizedbythe‘Boerengroep’ofWageningenUniversitywasa wonderfulwaytogetimmersedindairyfarminglife.MythanksgoesouttoallfarmerͲ lecturers and the other participants, but most of all to Lars Keizerwaard and Douwe Kappers.Notonlyforyourenthusiasmtoorganizethis,butyourplansofstartingyour owndairyfarmlentaserioustouchtoaweekthatwasasfascinatingasitwasfun.Lars, theideathatIgotmyfirst(andlast)cheesemakinglessonwithsomeonewhonowon hisfarmmakesthebestgoatcheeseoftheNetherlandsishumbling. Perhapslackofspace,butalsoresearchethicsandthenormofanonymitypreventme fromthankingallthefarmers(around50ofthem)whowerekindandopenenoughto talk to or even welcome in their home this strange character of an ‘agricultural
346acknowledgments philosopher’.Butobviouslythesevisitswerecentralforrealizingthisthesis.Ihope(but inmostcasesdoubt)thatitactuallysomehowmayhavebeenworthyourtrouble.Afew farmers I can thank because they have been explicitly involved in our game design project:MarijkeNooijenforherunwaveringenthusiasm(atvair.nlyoucanfeedherpigs anapple);andDickvanderVegtforhiswillingnesstohaveabunchofdesignersfordays amidstyourpigsandtoplaywiththemthroughourprototype.Ingeneralwhenfarmers arewillingtotalkprofessionallythismostlymeansaverypersonalwelcomeinahome, whereby personal and professional identities and concerns are indistinguishable. This experiencewasthestartofchapter2. The weeklong field trips with vocational and academic farming students set up by WankaLelieveldwerefascinatingnotonlyforhavinginnovativefarmersexplaintheir inspiring practices on their farms, but also to discuss these afterwards with sceptical youngfarmers.Thanksalsototheothersinvolvedinthesetrips:FlorienKuyper,Barbara Tielemans, Sanne van den Dungen, Harmen Riphagen, the historian of intensive pig farmingMathijsWitte,andfellowagroͲSTSͲerHannekeMiedema,aspiringdairyfarmer Maarten Kea, and agroͲtechnologist Peter Groot Koerkamp. I learned a lot from students of HAS Den Bosch, CAH Dronten, Jan Harm Borger, students of AOC Leeuwarden, Durk Oosterhof, Gea Zandvliet, and various students of Wageningen University. Alotofpeoplesomehowcontributedtomystudyingandthinkingofthevariousthemes andchaptersofthethesis.ThegraduatesummerschooloftheRathenauInstitutewas very nice to get a sense of ideas on system innovation and transition management, thankyouMarietteOverschiefororganizingitaswellasJohnGrin,FrankGeels,Marian Stuiver and others. And the summerschool on farm animal ethics in the middle of Finland was a wonderful experience, with the teachers Helena Rocklinsberg, Peter Sandøe,AnnaValros,andothers.Inhindsightitwasspecialforgettingtoknowthelate Vonne Lund. Also did I meet fellow students with whom conversations are ongoing, especiallyDavidDíazPardodeVeraandFredrikKarlsson. Thank you Hans Harbers of Groningen University and Debatcentrum Dwarsdiep for organizingapubliceventonthefutureoffarmersandgivingmeachancetotryout somefirstideasonwhatturnedouttobeinpartanaudienceoffarmers.Duringfurther researchforchapter2IwashelpedbyCarolavanderPeetandAnitaHoofswhoIjoined onavisittoassesspigwelfare.Alsoitgreatlybenefitedfromtwoanonymousreviewers
acknowledgments347 and the kind editor of the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Richard Haynes. I presented a very early version of chapter 3 at the 2008 Summerschool of the Netherlands Graduate Research School of Science, Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC), organized by Sally Wyatt and Willem Halffman, and featuring Andrew FeenbergandLucySuchman.Theytogetherwiththeotherparticipantshelpedmeto turnamereideaintoanargument.InterestingconversationsstartedtherewithAnneͲ CharlotteHoes,SarahSlaghuis,enJennyBoulboullé.Onvarkensflats,agroparksandthe like,IenjoyedasmalldebatewithPeterSmeetssetupbyDeBoerengroep.MarjanSlob andJandeWiltlaterinvitedmeforafascinatingdiscussionontheuneaseovertheissue ofscaleinagriculture.TsjallingSwierstraorganizedasessionatthe2009Societyforthe Philosophy of Technology conference which was valuable for feedback. The 2011 symposiumoninvitromeatattheCentreforSocietyandGenomics,RadboudUniversity Nijmegen with Neil Stephens provided a friendly setting to discuss ideas, as did the recent‘invitroflesh’meetingorganizedbyJanDeckersinrothbury,UK.(IthinkIfinally managetoquoteyourightlyinthisthesis,Neil.)AverybigthanksalsotoMichaelLynch astheeditorofSocialStudiesofScienceforextensivehelpfulcomments,togetherwith thoseofthreeanonymousreviewers.MarkCoeckelberghhadsomeincisivecomments on the final version. More cultured meat experiences sprung from people at V2 Rotterdamorganizingthe‘ArtMeatFlesh’InVitroMeatLiveCookingBattle:Michelvan Dartel,OronCatts,CatKramerandZackDenfeldoftheCenterforGenomicGastronomy, andBernardRoelenastheadversary.KoertvanMensvoortandHendrikJanGrievinkfor having me at your Next Nature in vitro meat design workshop. Earlier I had enjoyed discussingsomeideasonthetopicwithStevenDorresteijnandDaisyvanderSchaftat theEnschedeScienceCafe.TheBergen/Trondheimcrowdhelpedmeconnectideasof thispaperwiththerestofthethesis:RogerStrand,AlanAlvarez,LarsUrsin,AsleKiran, SophiaEfstathiou.RuneNydal,PeterDanielsson,DesireeFoerster,andothers.Theyalso listenedtoanevenmoremeanderingversionofchapter9. For the milking robot theme I am grateful to Jan Bloemert, Kees de Koning, Bert Philipsen, Carolien KetelaarͲde Lauwere, members of the OostͲOverijsselse melkrobot networkandZwiervanderVegte,HenriHolster,FrankLenssinck,StevenVrielinkand other members of the Mobiele melkrobot network, and the Melkveeacademie. Frank Hesen,thankyouforhostingmeinyourruralretreatanddroppingmeoffatremote farms.Chapter4hasgreatlyimprovedfromfouranonymousreviewersandtheeditorof
348acknowledgments AgricultureandHumanValues,HarveyJames.Alongtheway(farm)animalgeographers LewisHollowayandChrisBearturnedoursharedinterestinfarmers,cowsandrobots into an exciting scholarly conversation. Also it was interesting to be interviewed on robotsandcreativedesigninconnectiontotheDutchDesignWeekbySebastiaanAalst ofFoodcabinet. Chapter 5 has been severely cut down and sharpened after an intense week of discussions at the Antwerp joint sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research.AndfurthersoafterthefirmeditingbytheorganizersMarcelWissenburgand David Schlossberg for their forthcoming Political Animals and Animal Politics edited volume.Thechapterwasseriouslygrilledatthepracticalphilosophycolloquiumatmy temporary home the Philosophy Department / Ethics Institute of Utrecht University. ThankyouBerniceBovenkerkandFrederikeKaldewaijforofferingmethestimulating experienceofwhatit’sliketobetornapartbyapackofhounds.132Iverymuchenjoyed ongoing conversations with truly everyone at Utrecht, but to name a few who were especially relevant:Jan Vorstenbosch, Mariette van den Hoven, Ineke Bolt, Robert Heeger Franck Meijboom, Rob van Gerwen, Frans Stafleu, Marcel Verweij, Joel Anderson,KirstenPols,FransBromandCarolineHarnacke.Paragraph1.4grewfrommy wonder over ethics as a theoretical and empirical field, on which I enjoyed a conversationonatrainwithNielsNijsingh. The intermezzo/cover image I tested not only with farmers but also at the Hunnie polderartseventinthe‘GreenHeart’oftheNetherlands,setupbyartistsSophieKrier andHenrietteWaal.AndIenjoyedtheconversationatthegraduationseminarofthe WillemdeKooningRotterdamartschool,whereIwasinvitedbyKevinSträter. Movingtochapters6to8Itrulygetintotroublethankingallthoserelevant,herethe peopleactivelyinvolvedslowlyexploded.MarcBrackewasimportantintheearlystage of the project when we were thinking through what pigs might be interested in and whatgamingwiththemmaymeantofarmers.Itwasattimesexhaustingbutoverall veryexcitingtostartwhatturnedouttobeanongoingcollaborationwiththeUtrecht School of the Arts (HKU) team. Marinka Copier, wonderful that you were willing to embark on this adventure with me and to find out together in what roles we could 132Ittookfriendlyconversationswiththemafterwards,aswellaswithKerstyHobsonandEvaMeijertohelp meregainsometheoreticalconfidencetoperseverewithseeinganimalsasdeliberating.
acknowledgments349 collaborate.DesignersKarsAlfrink,IrenevanPeerandHeinLagerweij,thankyouvery muchforacceptingmeinyourmidst,ItrulylearnedalotfromyourenviablehandsͲon creativityandourjointpublictalks.Ilookforwardtousgivingourvisionanothergo. AlsoconsecutivegroupsofHKUstudentscameupwithinterestingideasonformsand meaningsofinterspeciesplay. Itwasnicetoalsoinfusethefishwelfareprojectwiththeaimofcreatingmeaningful interaction, together with the HKU designers including Rob Zimmermann. This led to veryenjoyableconversationsonfishminds,biologyandethicswithGertFlik,Ruudvan den Bos, Hans van de Vis, Bernice Bovenkerk, Franck Meijboom, Remy Manuel en JeroenBoerrigter.AlsoothersintheNWO‘ValueofAnimalWelfare’programcameup with interesting ideas and comments, Marianne Benard, Marjolein Kops and Irene Camerlink. InthemeantimeIhadmovedtoKing’sCollegeLondonforayear,whichturnedoutto beveryrewarding.ThankyouJamieLorimerforwhathasbecomeanongoingintensive collaboration and for helping me discover various moreͲthanͲhuman geographies. Krithika Srinivasan has also been a major inspiration for thinking through animals. OthersattheLondonanimalstudiesreadinggroupprovidedfreshperspectives,suchas Beth Greenhough, Kim Stallwood and Alasdair Cochrane. As did the friends from the postdocroom:SebastienNobert,theEmma’sJackson,HintonandStreetandtherestof thewonderfulidiosyncraticbunchthatgeographydepartmentstendtogathertogether. Besidesthosedirectlyinvolvedininterspeciesplayprojects,therehasbeenalargearray of people with whom our Pig Chase conversation piece generated interesting ideas. MostnotablyEllenvanWeeghel,AriannaFerrari,HennyvanRijoftheministryEZ,the ViennacrowdofHerwigGrimm,GyulaGajdonandJudithBenzͲSchwarzburgwithwhom weorganizedapiggamedesignworkshopatEursafeinTübingen,andthosepresent there.GiovanniAloiandTomTyler,whoheardmepresentthepiggamestoryoncetoo oftenbutneverthelessinvitedapieceforthespecialissueofAntennaeonanimalsin video games. Game designer Hanna Wirman of Hong Kong polytechnic for inspiring conversations on her project to create Orang Utan games in Indonesia. Others who connectedtheprojectinfreshwaystovariousanimaldebateswereAnatPick,Hanneke Nijland,TimothyPachirat,JonathanBalcombe,PaulThompson,IkeKamphof,Godelieve Kranendonk,HansHopster,MarijkedeJongoftheDierenbescherming,GeertWilmsat Landbouw Innovatie Brabant, Tineke Schuurmans and her ‘Meating’ pig oriented art
350acknowledgments
events,SabrinaBrandowithherethicscourseforanimaltrainers,TamarStellingofNRC Handelsblad,JanGroeneveldandJanHartholtofKasteelGroeneveld.ThanksalsoIne Geversandothercuratorsof‘Howartsavestheworld’attheGemeentemuseum/GEM DenHaagforexhibitingourconceptvideo.
ForintegratingthevariouslinesinthethesisitwashelpfultocollaboratewithJeroen KramerandhisstudentsattheRietveldDesignLABincombinationwithmyWageningen students who were trying to make sense of arts and design. Also helpful was a conversation with Taco Schmidt on design thinking, and with Michiel de Krom on his sociologicalfindingsonanimalwelfareinpigfarmingpractice.
There are others associated with this odd communal place that is Wageningen UniversityIneedtothank:allthepeopleat(whatisnow)WASSgraduateschool,and especiallyitscommittedleadership,(untilrecently)EvelineVaane.Itwasgoodtoknow thatyou were waiting for me to finish. The fellow members of the PhD council Enna Vlajic,JolandaJansen,RobertDemeter,NidhiGupta,EvelienvandeVeerandElsBilman. Gert Jan BecxͲKomduur and the rest of the board of the RUW foundation which still keepsonorganizingsurprisingandinterestingevents.
OverthepastfewmonthsIwasluckyenoughtohavesomeindepthconversationsand receiveincisivecritiquesoftheentirethesis.AtmynewlivelyWageningenhomebase ofculturalgeography,whereabunchofyouhadsometoughandexcitingcomments, Hamzah Muzaini, Lauren Wagner, Iulian Barba Lata, Martijn Duineveld, Meghann Ormond,MaartenJacobs,ArjaanPellis,andHenkdeHaan,tounjustlynamebutafew ofthosewhocameupwithcritiquesandideas.EspeciallyClaudioMincaIneedtothank forbeingwillingtotakethisendlessPhDonboardandforgivingmethefinalpushI neededtogetridofit.EstherTurnhout,BasArtsandSusanBoonmanͲBersson,thank youforalsotakingmeonboardofFNPandinvolvingmeinyourprojectsandteaching.
ThegroupofMartinDrentheninNijmegen,withGlennDeliege,AndreaGammonand MateuszTokarskiwasverykindtohavemefora3.5hourintensebutfriendlydiscussion of the thesis. I enjoyed an extensive discussion with fellow experiential philosopher Mihnea Tanasescu with an interest in animals and animal politics. And pig boredom expertFrancoiseWemelsfelderwaskindenoughtohavemeaskheraboutchapter8 whilescalingahillinNorthernEngland,respondinginawaythattookmealltheway downtoponderitover. acknowledgments351
ThenIneedtothankBevSykesforproofreadinganearlierversionofchapter4,chapter 10andtheEnglishsummary;aswellasIrenePekaarandGerbenKrukforhelpingout withimagepostͲproduction.MartijnCoppoolseandJasperJorritsma,greatthatyouare willing to stand guard on stage during the defence. And thank you very much, my committee members Annemarie Mol, Cees Leeuwis, Henry Buller, and Tsjalling Swierstra, for not only coming to Wageningen, but especially for your willingness to ploughthroughallthosepagesofmeanderingideas.
Ofcoursenotallwhowereimportantforrealizingthisthesishavebeenmentionedin orderoftheirappearance.Sotheremainderisinreverse:
Renate, in each thesis acknowledgement there is someone who cannot be thanked enough. Thank you nevertheless, for revealing thatprolonged coͲevolutioncan bean enjoyableprocesswhereveritleads.Withyoucombiningtherolesofbeingmybiggest scepticandmostenduringsupport,thisthesisisverymuchtheproductofourshared life.Andyouwereprobablyrightinvetoingmyinitialresearchplanoftryingtobecome adairyorpigfarmerasaparticipatorymethod.
AlsoI’dliketothankmywisesisterEugeniewhoalwaysseemedconfidentIwasmaking sensiblechoices,whichsincesheisaprofessionalcareeradvisorattimesseemedquite puzzling to me. Finally there are two people for whom ending this thesis is a rite of passageaswell.Iguess(orherebypropose)finishingmyformaleducationabsolvesyou fromanyfurtherparentaldutiesandworries.PeterandMary,Idedicatethisthesisto you,forshowing,nottelling,mehowtoreadandhowtolisten.
Biography ClemensDriessenwasborninAmsterdamonacoldandstormywinternightin1976. Hisparentssoonaftermovedhimandhisoldersistertothecoastalsuburbantownof Castricum. There, little Clemens spent his free time reading cowboy stories, climbing trees, playing field hockey and doing some windsurfing. After graduating in the Gymnasium class of the Bonhoeffer College he went to Delft to study Systems EngineeringandPolicyAnalysisattheUniversityofTechnology.Afterayear,hestarted tocombinethiswithPhilosophyattheUniversityofAmsterdam.Sinceheadvancedin bothrathersmoothlybutunspectacularly,hewasindangeroffinishingwithinayearof fivewithoutasenseofwhattodo.Instead,helandedaweekendjobatabookstoreand spentthenextfiveyearsreadingJGBallardnovels,contemplatinglife,andwondering howtogetaninterestingnewtakeontechnology,science,politicsand(occasionally) animals.In2005heresumedhisstudieswhenBrunoLatouroccupiedtheSpinozachair attheUvA,whichopenedhiseyestodoingphilosophy‘byothermeans’.Hefinishedhis MScinDelftwithIbovandePoelbystudyingtheethicsofthe‘membranebioreactor’at engineeringfirmDHV,andhisMAinAmsterdamwithathesisonrarehamsters,organ donation,childhoodADHDandhighͲrisepigfarms,supervisedbyGerarddeVries. In2006MichielKorthalsandVolkertBeekmanhiredClemensasaPhDstudentatthe (then)AppliedPhilosophygroupofWageningenUniversity,towritea dissertationon theethicsoffarmers.Thenextfouryearshespentamidstfarmers,cows,pigs,students andbooks,whilealsopromotingWageningenstudentdebateasaboardmemberofthe RUWfoundation.InthefinalofhisfouryearsintheDutchPhDsystemheinitiateda project to design, together with designers of the Utrecht School of the Arts, a video gameforpigsandhumanstoplaytogether.Thisledhimtogiveaseriesofpublictalks andarangeofnationalandinternational(andregional)mediainterviews–butnotto finish the PhD. Instead, in 2010 he went straight on to become a ‘post doc’ at the Geography Department of King’s College London. Together with Jamie Lorimer, he studied ‘rewilding’ as a form of nature conservation, in particular focusing on the 354biography Oostvaardersplassen nature reserve and the dubious history of the backͲbred deͲ domesticatedHeckcattlelivingthere.ThelattereventuallyledhimtofeatureasanonͲ siteexpertintheNationalGeographicChanneldocumentary‘Hitler’sJurassicMonsters’. AfterreturningtotheNetherlandsin2011,hebecamea‘postdoc’atthePhilosophy department of Utrecht University, on a project researching the (lack of) public appreciationofthewelfareoffish,incollaborationwithFranckMeijboomandBernice Bovenkerk. In 2012 and 2013 he combined this with part time teaching jobs at Wageningen University and Utrecht University, teaching ethics and philosophy of science to students of pharmacy, veterinary science, disaster studies, landscape architecture,ecology,biology,andtheearthsciences. Besideshisacademicoutput,hehasgiventalksandwrittenbookchaptersforbroader audiencesonart,architecture,natureandanimals.Andhehasbeeninvolvedinvarious artisticperformancesanddesignworkshopsinrelationtonature,agricultureandfood. In2013heresearchedthepublicappreciationof‘invitromeat’fortheDutchministryof Economic Affairs with Cor van der Weele. With Jeroen Kramer he set up an elective course ‘Environmental Humanities: Wageningen Goes Arts & Design’ in which Wageningen students team up with design students of the Rietveld Academy for the Arts in Amsterdam. Currently Clemens is a lecturer and ‘post doc’ at the Cultural Geography as well as the Forest and Nature Conservation Policy chair groups of Wageningen University. He is a board member of the Dutch Society for Bioethics (NVBe),organizesthenational‘DayofEnvironmentalPhilosophy’,isaguestlecturerat severalartschools,andagainwonderingwhattostudynext.Meanwhileheandthelove of his life have been blessed with two enthusiastic toddlers with whom they live in Rotterdam.
Publications Publicationsfromthisthesis Driessen, C. (2012). Farmers Engaged in Deliberative Practices; An Ethnographic Exploration of the Mosaic of Concerns in Livestock Agriculture, Journal of AgriculturalandEnvironmentalEthics25(2):163Ͳ179(chapter2).
Driessen,C.,Korthals,M.(2012).PigtowersandInͲvitromeat:disclosingmoralworlds bydesign.SocialStudiesofScience,42(6):799Ͳ822(chapter3).
Driessen,C.,Heutinck,L.(2014).Cowsdesiringtobemilked?MilkingrobotsandthecoͲ evolutionofethicsandtechnologyonDutchdairyfarms.AgricultureandHuman Values.(onlinefirst)(chapter4).
Driessen, C. (2014). Animal Deliberation. In: M. Wissenburg and D.Schlossberg (ed.), AnimalPoliticsandPoliticalAnimals.PalgraveMacmillan(inpress)(chapter5).
Driessen,C,Alfrink,K,Copier,M,Lagerweij,H,VanPeer,I,(2014).Whatcouldplaying withpigsdotous?Gamedesignasmultispeciesphilosophy.Antennae,theJournal ofNatureinVisualCulture(forthcoming)(chapters6and8).
Otherpeerreviewedpublications
Driessen,C.,Lorimer,J.(2015).BackͲbreedingtheaurochs:theHeckbrothers,National SocialismandimaginedgeographiesfornonhumanLebensraum.In:C.Mincaand P.Giaccaria.Hitler’sGeographies.UniversityofChicagoPress(underreview).
Lorimer,J.,Driessen,C.(2014).WildexperimentsattheOostvaardersplassen:rethinking environmentalism in the Anthropocene. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,39:169–181.
Lorimer,J.,Driessen,C.(2013).Bovinebiopoliticsandthepromiseofmonstersinthe rewildingofHeckcattle.Geoforum.48(8):249–259. 356publications Van der Weele, C., Driessen C. (2013). Emerging Profiles for Cultured Meat; Ethics throughandasDesign.Animals.3(3):647Ͳ662.
Driessen,C.(2013).Inaweoffish?AnimalethicsfornonͲcuddlyspecies(NemovsJaws). In: H. Rocklinsberg & P. Sandin (ed.), The ethics of consumption. Wageningen AcademicPublishers,pp.251Ͳ6.
Nonpeerreviewedbookchapters
VanderWeele,C.,Driessen,C.(2014).Invitromeatasanimalliberation.In:TheInVitro MeatCookbook.VanMensvoort,K.,Grievink,H.J.(ed.)BISPublishers,pp.76Ͳ88.
Driessen, C. (2013) Filosoferen met de Raven. In: Abels, P. (ed.) Wild en Bijster Land: PlankenWambuis.AFdHUitgevers/Natuurmonumenten,pp.42Ͳ59.
Driessen, C. (2013). ‘Anthropocentrism’/’Menscentrisme’. In: Gevers, I. (ed.) Yes naturally; a new vision for ecological intelligence. Rotterdam: Nai 010 Uitgevers/Publishers,pp.77Ͳ91.
Driessen,C.,Lorimer,J.(2011).KneppEstate,eenverwilderendlandgoedtenzuidenvan Londen. In: H. Teerds, J. van der Zwart, Levend landschap. Nijmegen: SUN Architecture,pp.100Ͳ131.
Driessen,C.(2009).‘OneDaythesewillbeBeautifulRuinsToo’.In:KramerJ.,Vander Veer,M.(ed.),Citydust:KramervanderVeerattheVeniceBiennale.
ClemensDriessen WageningenSchoolofSocialSciences(WASS) CompletedTrainingandSupervisionPlan
Nameofthelearningactivity Department/Institute Year ECTS*
A)Projectrelatedcompetences RathenauSummerschoolTechnologyAssessment RathenauInstitute 2006 2 International Summerschool: ‘A Critical Theory of Netherlands Graduate School of Science, 2008 3 Technology’ TechnologyandModernCulture(WTMC) PhDWorkshop:RationalityinScience&Technology DutchͲFlemish Network for Philosophy of 2006 2 ScienceandTechnology(NFWT) PhD workshop: The concept of nature and its DutchͲFlemish Network for Philosophy of 2009 2 cognates in social and natural sciences and ScienceandTechnology(NFWT) humanities AnimalEthicsSummerschool Research School for Animal Welfare & Ruralia 2007 5 Institute; UniversityofHelsinki Discussion Group 20th century Ethics; Applied WUR 2006Ͳ 6 PhilosophyGroup 2010 Masterclass Ethics of nature: Environment, animals NWO programme ‘Ethics, Research and Policy 2008 1 andnaturalresources (E&OB) Mansholt Multidisciplinary Seminar (Peer review WASS 2009 1 presentation) PracticalTrainingDairyfarming PracticalTrainingCentreOenkerk,Friesland 2007
B)Generalresearchrelatedcompetences
Introductioncourse WASS 2007 1.5 Scientificwriting CENTA 2008 2 QualitativeResearchMethods WASS 2006 3 EthicalDilemmasforLifeScientists WUR 2007 1
C)Careerrelatedcompetences/personaldevelopment
GuestLecture‘FoodEthics’ WUR 2007 1 Lecturing: ‘Analyse van een Probleemveld’ (Food & WUR 2008; 1 Health;Disasters) 2009
PhDCouncil(WASS&WUR) WUR 2008Ͳ 1.5 2009 Stacking pigs: Dutch pig tower debates and the Conference of the European Society for 2007 1 changingnatureofethicallivestockproduction AgricultureandFoodEthics(Eursafe) Participation or demarcation? Animal science and Conferenceofthe SocietyofthePhilosophyof 2007 1 animalethicsinaction ScienceinPractice(SPSP) CowsDesiringtobeMilked:DairyFarmingEthicsand ConferenceoftheEuropeanAssociationforthe 2008 1 theDevelopmentofAutomatedMilkingSystems StudyofScienceandTechnology(EASST/4S) Technologiesasdisclosingmoralworlds;Shiftingthe Conferenceofthe SocietyforthePhilosophyof 2009 1 ethical focus from risks and side effects to ethical Technology(SPT) learningprocesses Ethics in transition; what system innovators could Conference of the Knowledge Network for 2009 1 learn from the abolition of slavery and the SystemInnovationsandTransitions(KSI) emergenceoffairtrade. Designing a computer game for pigs; to create a ConferenceoftheEuropeanAssociationforthe 2010 1 playful interface between animals, science and StudyofScienceandTechnology(EASST/4S) ethics’ Boardmember RUWFoundation 2009Ͳ 1 2010
Total 40 *OnecreditaccordingtoECTSisonaverageequivalentto28hoursofstudyload
Ǯ ǯǡ ȋȌ Ǯ ǡ ǯȋ ͓ʹͷ͵ǦʹͲǦͲͳ͵ȌǤ ȋ ȌʹͲͳͶ ǣ̵ ̵ǡǡʹͲͲͻǤ Natureluur ̵ ̵ ǡͳͺͲͶȋȌǤ ͳǡͳͶǡͳͷǡͳǡͳǡͳͺǡ͵ʹǡ͵ͷʹǣ ̵̵ȋ ȀȌǤ