198 CULTURENATURESmanagement sciences, the lives of individual
animals per sewere not a consideration, nor was
their subjectivity problematized.
The deep ecology movement also sprang
up within environmental ethics (Devall and
Sessions, 1985; Fox, 1990). Less concerned with
practicalities of legal arguments, and emphasizing
human unity with nature and ethical duties to
earth, as well as rejecting anthropocentrism,
deep ecology was attacked especially on the
basis of its weak political critique (Salleh, 1993).
Moreover, its tendency to dissolve human–
animal differences obscured the uniqueness of
specific animals (and their ecological require-
ments) and thus glossed over the nature of their
subjectivity, leaving little to say about how indi-
vidual animals should be treated (Plumwood,
1993).
Stimulated by a very different arm of the
environmental movement – animal rights – and
with different philosophical origins were philoso-
phers such as Peter Singer (1975) and Tom Regan
(1983), who attempted to utilize standard ethical
frameworks to argue that animals fell within the
purview of human moral consideration. An enor-
mous literature on the moral status of animals
ensued, concerned with the inherent value of
and/or consideration due to individual animals
(not aggregates such as populations or species).
This work drew on findings from ethology
and cognitive psychology to argue that
human–animal differences were in degree, not in
kind, and thus to reject the anthropocentric ethics
of western philosophy.
These streams within environmental ethics ran
in parallel course but ultimately converged, spark-
ing intense clashes. Over time, however, environ-
mental ethics incorporated insights from social
theory, especially feminism and postmodernism,
generating a critique both of traditional rights
approaches to animals and of utilitarian ethics,
ultimately leading to a postmodern environ-
mental ethics (Oelschlaeger, 1995) and a
feminist ethics of care (Plumwood, 1993). The
latter was especially influential in thinking about
nature and its subjectivity, since it takes a con-
textual approach to ethical choice, stresses the
situatedness and partialness of knowledge, and
emphasizes the interconnectedness of living
creatures and environments. In particular, the
subjectivity of animals was increasingly empha-
sized (Adams and Donovan, 1995).
Evolving in conjunction with these debates,
justice for both people and animals became para-
mount for many animal geographers. Issues of
justice and ethics in human–animal relations have
been approached in distinctive manners, how-
ever. Some animal geographers have consideredspecific issues of animal rights to sustenance.
Wescoat (1995), for instance, maintained that
little attention had been given to animals’ access
to water in different cultural and legal contexts,
with the ‘right of thirst’ in Islamic law consti-
tuting an important exception. He outlined the
doctrinal bases for the right of thirst and
clarified the sense in which it is a ‘right’ and is
‘Islamic’, before proceeding to assess the rele-
vance of this water law in two geographic con-
texts, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the
American West. The comparison indicated that
direct relevance for Pakistan is more complex
than expected, since the right of thirst is not
legally required; yet this religious imperative
stimulated the emergence of animal welfare and
rights activities. In the US the right of thirst is
indirectly relevant, its moral imperative reveal-
ing western water law as morally inadequate,
and provides a cross-cultural example of how
duties to provide water for animals might be
expanded.
Religious perspectives have also influenced
ideas about the ethics of meat eating in India.
Robbins (1998), for example, argued that India’s
internationalizing livestock sector intensified
long-standing political struggles between ethno-
religious groups for whom animals have
historically served as goddesses, high-interest
capital and/or food. He showed how, in
Rajasthan, transformations in international meat
demand catalysed shifts in agricultural produc-
tion and changes in caste identity and notions of
property, altering bargains between people and
domesticated animal species. Moreover, conser-
vative Hindu politicians blamed meat eating for
declining morality, calling for economic isola-
tionism and a return to the (mythical) past of
pure vegetarianism, and fuelling anti-Muslim
sentiment; Muslim livestock farmers and butch-
ers are caught in this Hindu–Muslim power
struggle.
Animal geographers have also focused on
animal protection movements, and how an
animal’s position within the movement’s hierar-
chy of effort influences its fate. Whatmore and
Thorne (1998), for instance, considered how
broadnosed crocodiles were initially listed and
then downlisted under the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES), a global conservation policy privileg-
ing existence rights for species versus individual
animals. Downlisting and ‘sustainable use’ for
these crocodiles may relegate them to factory
farm lives: birth in a concrete basin, permanent
enclosure for rapid fattening, slaughter, and rein-
carnation as purses, boots and belts for global
consumers. Thorne (1998) also considered how a3029-ch09.qxd 03-10-02 10:48 AM Page 198