The Tipping Point? The Covid-19 Crisis, Critical Animal Studies and Academic Responsibility
The Institute for Critical Animal Studies, founded in 2001 by American scholars Steve Best and Anthony J. Nocella II aims to “provide a space for the development of a critical approach to animal studies, one which perceives that relations between human and nonhuman animals are now at a point of cris...
שמור ב:
| הוצא לאור ב: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/erea, |
|---|---|
| מחבר ראשי: | |
| פורמט: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| שפה: | Anglais |
| יצא לאור: |
E-rea
2021
|
| נושאים: | |
| גישה מקוונת: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| סיכום: | The Institute for Critical Animal Studies, founded in 2001 by American scholars Steve Best and Anthony J. Nocella II aims to “provide a space for the development of a critical approach to animal studies, one which perceives that relations between human and nonhuman animals are now at a point of crisis which implicates the planet as a whole” (Best, Nocella, Kahn, Gigliotti, Kemmerer). Focusing on the critical animal studies approach which explicitly aims to link theory and practice, this paper will explore and discuss the normative values and responsibility of scholars in this field at a point in time when the human world is shaken by a global zoonotic pandemic, when the exploitation of billions of nonhuman animals goes on unchecked, and human activity is the main driver of a global climate crisis. Does the threat posed by the inappropriate interaction between human and nonhuman animals to human health, animal welfare and global warming make any difference to role of academics? What about the sometimes inflammatory criticism they are subjected to if they embrace a normative viewpoint? In times of emergency, do scholars have increased responsibility? Or should the line that separates academia from advocacy never be crossed? Here are some of the questions that this paper will broach. It will focus on the interplay between academic work and normativity rather than on the relationship between academia and political power. |
|---|