Animals in Person

Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Intimacies

John Knight, John Knight

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000324020
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sciences sociales
• Subtopic: Anthropologie

Our relationship with animals is complex and contradictory; we hunt, kill and eat them, yet we also love, respect and protect them. This ambivalent relationship is further complicated by the fact that we attribute human emotions and intelligence to animals. We even go as far as likening them to children and treating them as family members. Drawing on a diverse range of case studies, Animals in Person attempts to unravel our close and fascinating link with the animal kingdom. This book highlights the theme of cross-species intimacy in contexts such as livestock care, pet keeping, and the use of animals in tourism. The studies draw on data from different parts of the world, including New Guinea, Nepal, India, Japan, Greece, Britain, The Netherlands and Australia. Animals in Person documents the existence of relations between humans and animals that, in many respects, recall relations among humans themselves.

1
Care, Order and Usefulness: The Context of the Human–Animal Relationship in a Greek Island Community

Dimitrios Theodossopoulos

The farmers of a Greek island community discuss their animals and their investment in animal care in terms that emphasize the usefulness of the animals to the rural household. Despite this stress on usefulness, their engagement with small-scale and relatively unprofitable forms of animal husbandry has an intrinsic, non-material value, one however, which is hardly ever offered as a justification for the farmers’ involvement with animal care. This chapter traces this non-articulated aspect of the human–animal relationship as it becomes apparent in Vassilikos, a community on the island of Zakynthos in south-west Greece,¹ and places the interaction of the farmers with their animals in its meaningful context: one that involves care, reciprocity and a fundamental conceptualization of the place and purpose of each living organism on the farm.

In the relatively brief anthropological literature that directly focuses on human attitudes to animals, farmers – along with pastoralists and other ‘Western’ or ‘modern’ people – are often treated as representative of one over-generalizing category of cultures that share common utilitarian, anthropocentric and hierarchical principles towards the natural world. This generalizing cluster of cultures is contrasted to another, equally generalized but highly idealized, category of pre-modern, non-Western, small-scale societies, associated with an egalitarian, reciprocal, interdependent cultural approach towards the non-human living organisms (Morris 1995; 1998: 2–4). The dualistic and rigid character of such generalizations has been identified by some anthropologists (Willis 1990: 20; Morris 1995: 301–3; 1998: 1–6; Ellen 1996: 103), while others such as Tim Ingold (1980, 1986, 1988, 1994, 1996), although critical of Western dualisms per se, present the hunter-gatherer attitudes to animals as the most evident cultural alternative to Western European anthropocentrism and ethnocentrism.²

More directly than other authors, Morris has denounced the arbitrary grouping of diverse cultural attitudes towards animals into dualistic categories, such as the pre-literate cluster of societies with the ‘egalitarian, sacramental’ view of nature, and the Western cultural traditions that are allegedly defined by a mechanistic, dualistic and controlling approach towards the natural environment (1995: 302–3; 1998: 2). ‘Many scholars’, he argues, ‘write as if historically there are only two possible “world-views”, the mechanistic (anthropocentric) and the organismic (ecocentric)’ (1995: 303; 1998: 2). This kind of theorization based on all-inclusive antinomies obviously underestimates the diversity and changing character of Western traditions – which include a multiplicity of different ontologies and historically specific understandings of nature – and fails to account for particular cultures where those two kinds of contrasting attitudes, the antagonistic and the egalitarian, coexist in complementary opposition (Morris 1995: 301–12; 1998: 2–4).

Following Morris (1995, 1998), I will argue in this chapter that questions regarding the human–animal interaction do not neatly resolve themselves in simplistic utilitarian versus non-utilitarian dichotomies. The meaning of animal usefulness in Vassilikos is directly dependent upon considerations relating to the independence, self-sufficiency and well-being of each farm. Consequently the attitudes of the indigenous actors towards their animals are permeated by strong anthropocentric priorities (see Papagaroufali 1996: 244; Theodossopoulos 1997: 263; 2003: 168–74). Those priorities, however, are not strictly utilitarian: decisions concerning animals on the farm indicate an appreciation of the animals’ membership to the domestic economy. The inclusion of animals in the rural household was recognized, for the first time, by du Boulay (1974). This recognition sets the initial parameters for deciphering the expectations individual farmers have of their animals and the meaning they attribute to animal usefulness. Domestic animals, through their inclusion in the household economy, are seen as forming close relationships with their owners. They exist within a clearly defined and reciprocal system of order and care, one which consists of rules, duties and rights.

Starting with these observations, I will now focus on the ways men and women in Vassilikos care for their animals; the ways they punish them or complain about them; and the repetitive, simple but exhausting tasks of their everyday interaction with them. The following section introduces the community, the farmers and the animals in question; that is, the domestic animals ‘kept’ by the average household in Vassilikos. Some reference is made to the basics of their husbandry, their locally defined usefulness and their place in the order of the farm. Then, in the subsequent section, I proceed to examine the meaning of ‘order’ (taksi) and ‘care’ (frondidha), the two most central concepts pertaining to the relationship between farmers and farm animals. ‘Order’, in particular, embraces and directs the content of several other concepts examined in this chapter, such as ‘care’ and ‘usefulness’. The final ethnographic section focuses on rare examples of wild animals disrupting the order of the farm or being incorporated by it. The farmers in Vassilikos openly express their grief for the loss of domestic animals to wild predators, revealing their attachment to these animals. They are also prepared to re-examine their confrontational views towards the elements of the wild and grant to some captured wild animals, independently of their usefulness, the privilege of inclusion in the protective environment of the farm.

Vassilikiots and their Animals

Vassilikiots, the human protagonists of this chapter, enjoy the benefit of a double occupational identity. They are farmers and tourist entrepreneurs. Both farming and tourism in their community are undertaken as small-scale enterprises dependent upon the labour provided by the members of individual household enterprises (see Galani-Moutafi 1993: 250–1; Zarkia 1996: 156). Despite the fact that tourism provides the greater portion of individual incomes, a significant majority of the local men and women proudly declare that they are ‘farmers’ (agrotes). Their persistence to carry on practising farming jobs with limited (in comparison to tourism) economic rewards is part of Vassilikiots’ more general economic attitude, according to which ‘resources readily available on their farmland should never be wasted’ (Theodossopoulos 1999: 613–14). This strategic over-utilization of living and material constituents of individual farms accords to a more widespread cultural ideal focusing on household independence,, referred to in the regional literature as ‘self-sufficiency’ (see Campbell 1964: 257; du Boulay 1974: 244, 247; Loizos 1975: 44, 50; Kenna 1976: 349–50; 1990: 151–2; 1995: 135, Herzfeld 1985: 270; 1991: 132).

In the context of tourism, and in accordance with Vassilikiots’ general attitude towards self-sufficiency, the products of farming and animal husbandry constitute additional resources which are unlikely to be completely ignored or looked down upon. Hence, the introduction of tourism in Vassilikos did not lead to a complete abandonment of farming and agriculture (Theodossopoulos 1997: 253–4; 1999: 612–14; 2002: 247–8; 2003: 49–64). During the tourist season Vassilikiots devote a greater part of their time to the ‘care’ (frondidha) of their tourist enterprises: numerous restaurants or tavernas, mini-markets, room, car and motorbike rentals. They do not completely neglect, however, the minimum duties required for the maintenance of their farms and the ‘care’ (frondidha) of the animals living on them. The successful participation of individual households in the economy of tourism depends on the mobilization of all able-bodied household members and all available household resources. Meat from small animals (chickens and rabbits) raised on the local farms is frequently consumed in the Vassilikiot tavernas – often the tavernas owned by the same households that raised the animals – while locally produced animal products (eggs and cheese) are proudly displayed in Vassilikos’s several seasonal mini-markets.

Thus, farming and animal care are not perceived by the inhabitants of Vassilikos as strictly antagonistic to their new involvement in tourism. In their engagement with both tourism and farming, Vassilikiots constantly encounter novel situations and adapt to new economic challenges. Until the early 1990s, the time I completed the fieldwork upon which this analysis is based, new economic strategies were constantly accommodated to complement older cultural ideals. Technical innovations in agriculture or tourism were complemented by the willingness of household members to co-operate, while investments in tourism were often dependent upon the effective maximization of living and non-living household resources. In most cases, Vassilikiots’ labour reflected the perpetual struggle of realizing family independence and an economic logic that prioritized the benefit of the household as a whole over particular individual ambitions (Hirschon 1989: 141; Theodossopoulos 1999: 621).

Despite the existence of a clearly defined, ideal code in respect of the gender division of labour in Vassilikos and in several other Greek communities (Friedl 1967: 103–4; Couroucli 1985: 78–9; Hirschon 1989: 99, 104, 143; Greger 1988: 25–6, 34–7; Cowan 1990: 49–51; Gefou-Madianou 1992: 115, 121, 124–7; Hart 1992: 243–6; Galani-Moutafi 1993: 253–4), in practice the labour contributions of Vassilikiot men and women to small-scale, farm-based animal husbandry do not distinctively differ. Men, more often than women, punish animals and take decisions concerning major issues related to animal husbandry and temporary or permanent buildings on the farmland. But women usually are responsible for poultry and smaller animals (see Pina-Cabral 1986: 82–4), and participate in milking and various everyday tasks on the farm. In their husbands’ absence or illness, women are capable of undertaking most jobs associated with animal ‘care’, even those related to the larger animals of the farm, which are locally expected to be a male concern. Consequently, the distinction between male and female spheres of responsibility on the farm represents the ideal of ‘order’, rather than its actual application. In practice, both men and women farmers take care of animals and are concerned with animals.

In daily conversation Vassilikiots use the term ‘animals’ (ta zoa) to refer to ‘their’ animals on ‘their’ farm. ‘Wild’, undomesticated animals are also entitled to the term ‘animal’, but Vassilikiots are mainly concerned with their own animals, ‘their’ farm animals. Similarly, while all animals on the farm are called ‘animals’, the term is more usually applied to sheep and goats. For example, in the context of any particular discussion, a farmer will refer to chickens and dogs with their generic names – that is, ‘chickens’ or ‘dogs’ – and to sheep, goats and occasionally cattle with either their generic name or simply the term ‘animals’. Here, the generalizing use of the term ‘animals’ does not indicate negligence or disregard for the animals in question; on the contrary, it suggests an implicit recognition of their contribution to the well-being of the farm. In this respect, sheep and goats are ‘animals’ proper.

Sheep and goats are typical examples of what the local farmers consider to be useful farm animals. They are common, present on almost every farm, and comprise an indispensable unit of animal stock held by the average household in the village. While most Vassilikiot families do not maintain ‘flocks of animals’,³ the great majority of them ‘keep’ (kratoun) a small number of female goats or sheep, which can be easily watched, grazing on the farmland adjacent to individual households. The adult ones are tethered to an iron stake with a five-metre-long rope. The stake is driven into a different piece of land every day. The young animals, kids or lambs, are left free to gambol and graze around their mothers. This small-scale kind of animal husbandry is not energy intensive and provides Vassilikiots with access to some EU (European Union) benefits and subsidies. To qualify for these subsidies the farmers are expected to keep a minimum of seven or eight sheep or goats on their farmland.

Like other Mediterranean countrymen (see Campbell 1964: 26, 31; Blok 1981: 428–30; Brandes 1980: 77–9; 1981: 221), Vassilikiots openly declare their preference for sheep over goats. They blame goats for ‘disobedience’ and having an ‘untamed’ character, while, at the same time, they praise sheep for their submissive and benevolent constitution. ‘Sheep are more obedient’ and ‘more docile (irema) animals’, Vassilikiots explain, and argue that ‘sheep are blessed animals!’ (ine zoa evlogimena). At the same time, however, the farmers do not hide their secret admiration for the strength and stamina of goats. They perceive goats, and especially kids, as wilder than sheep and argue that ‘these animals’ are more resistant to disease and harsh environmental conditions. On the other hand, Vassilikiots recognize that goats’ milk doesn’t produce the same good quality of cheese, and those farmers who are seriously engaged with cheese production always take care to maintain more sheep than goats.

Cattle husbandry was more widespread in the past, and the old, local variety of cows were used in Vassilikos for both milking and ploughing (gia gala ala kai gia zevgari). This older variety of cow is described as having greater ‘endurance’ (andohi) or ‘strength’ (dinami), requirements adjusted perfectly well to the local prescriptions of an animal’s ‘usefulness’ and the local ideal of self-sufficiency. Nowadays, the old, local variety of cow has been replaced by a hybrid breed, a mixture of the old local cow with ‘improved (veltiomenes) cows from abroad’. Endogenous developments in European farming, as van der Ploeg and Long have argued, enhance heterogeneity and contain ‘a specific balance of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ elements’ (1994: 1–4). In fact, Vassilikiots strategically plan cross-breeding, since they believe that it adds to the ‘strength’ of their animal stock (see Marvin 1988: 88, 92).

In the absence of foxes and large mammal predators on the island, Vassilikiots allow poultry to roam freely in backyards, olive groves and the nearby fields. In the evenings, the birds return to the farm to be sheltered and fed by the farmers. They crowd around their owners, who throw them some corn, wheat or other kinds of grain as a supplement to their diet. The farmers do not worry much about adult birds, but they do devote significant time and concern to ‘caring’ for new-born chicks. Most hens, for example, lay their eggs unobserved in various hidden places on the farmland, but as soon as the farmers notice their new-born chicks they collect them and put them in cages along with their mothers or foster mothers. There, the chicks are protected and fed well for a couple of weeks until they are old enough to protect themselves from rats and other small predators. Similar protection is devoted to turkey chicks because Vassilikiots do not trust the motherly instinct of adult turkeys. ‘Turkeys are clumsy and often destroy their own eggs’, Vassilikiots explain, and invest a great deal...