Cultural Geography

perceived abundance of kangaroos eliminated

them from ethical consideration by conservation-

ists who place value only on the rare or endan-

gered. Considered ‘pests’ by farmers, abundant

by wildlife managers, and roaming a vast, empty

territory, tens of thousands of kangaroos are shot

annually despite increasing loss and fragmenta-

tion of kangaroo habitat, and the animal’s status

as a powerful tourist attraction and symbol of

Australian nationhood.

Others have developed more general ethic

frameworks for thinking about human–animal

interactions. Lynn’s (1998) comparison of

geographical ethics – or geoethics – with other

ethical traditions revealed the value in embracing

the concept of ‘geographical community’ to

encompass ethical questions involving people,

animals and nature. Lynn made a case for includ-

ing animals in the moral community, and pro-

posed four normative principles to guide

human–animal relations and resolve moral

dilemmas inherent in sharing space with animals.

Jones (2000) also called for an ethics that

accounts for differing spatial contexts and prac-

tices. Seeking to adapt Levinas’ ethics of the

encounter to human–animal interactions, Jones

argued that all encounters between humans and

animals are ethically charged. Treatment of

animals in one form or situation or space may be

deemed unethical in another, and the individuality

of non-human others is often erased, except in

the cases of pets or charismatic creatures. Even

most conservation initiatives are driven by

notions of scarcity, which favours ethical consid-

eration. Scarcity may transform animals in

places like zoos into gene banks representing an

animal population, or they may be individualized

only as ‘attractions’ or commodities. Instead

Jones calls for ethical consideration of individual

non-humans, and for bringing the geoethical

gaze to bear on often forgotten spaces – the seas

or fish farms. Jones suggests that the face-to-face

ethics of encounter require us to see the individ-

uality of non-humans. However, there are many

problems with such a challenging ethical view;

feminists argue that it may result in the denial of

ethical responsibility to women, as well as what

Irigaray (1991) terms ‘the face of the natural uni-

verse’ – which in some ways is what Jones seeks

to redress.

Several animal geographers have considered

how animals have shaped the ‘moral landscapes’

of particular places and regions. As mentioned

earlier, Matless considered the role of animals in

creating the ‘moral geographies’ of particular

places and regions. Specifically, he analysed

Broadland’s ‘moral geography’ or the constella-

tions of ideas about how human life should be

lived in relation to given environments, some

predicated on a violent, hunting-based approach

to wildlife, others on a preservationist approach

‘warranting quiet observation rather than loud

killing’ (1994: 141; 2000). Such conflicting

cultures of nature decisively shaped local

society–animal relations and ideas of how to

interact with nature within this place. Proctor

(1998), too, argued that the spotted owl conflict

was part of a long-standing debate over the

Pacific Northwest’s moral landscape, as revealed

in relations between people and forests. Environ-

mentalists argued that old growth forests and

wildlife predated and existed apart from people,

and thus people had a moral obligation not to

destroy them, while pro-timber advocates saw

logging as a way to better manage and sustain the

forest, with human welfare dependent upon it.

Caught between these two visions of the region’s

moral landscape was the spotted owl.

If animals are ‘granted’ subjectivity, agency

and maybe culture (see Clutton-Brock, 1994;

Whatmore and Thorne, 1998), but their survival

opportunities are ‘produced’ by humans, how do

human groups decide what those opportunities

will be? And whogets to decide? Here many

animal geographers depart from those writing

from the same theoretical positioning in the

nature/culture debates (for example, Braun and

Castree, 1998). Granting some subjectivity and

culture to animals, animal geography (in most

manifestations) requires not only an emphasis on

human ‘survivable futures’ (Katz, 1998) but also

an emphasis on animalsurvivable futures. Social

and environmental justice as currently under-

stood is broadened to include animal justice as

well. In response, Elder et al. (1998) recom-

mended a ‘pratique sauvage’ or radical demo-

cracy encompassing not only subaltern people

but animals too.

THE FUTURE OF ANIMAL

GEOGRAPHY

Geography, as a discipline, has provided signifi-

cant leadership in explicating the history and

cultural construction of human and non-human

animal relations, as well as their gendered and

racialized character and their economic embed-

dedness. This work must continue. There are wide

areas of barely touched terrain in comparative

cultural analyses, economies of animal bodies,

and the geographical history of human–animal

relations that need articulation and examination.

Animal geographies also offer a fecund oppor-

tunity for integrating social and physical streams

REANIMATING CULTURAL GEOGRAPHY 199

3029-ch09.qxd 03-10-02 10:48 AM Page 199