Summary
This paper provides an argument against prioritizing a multispecies entanglement approach when considering how to combat climate change. The aim of the paper is to highlight and challenge a common ideology of multispecies entanglement research, which views nature and wild animals as worthy of saving. In contrast, animals which are usually unseen in urban environments (farmed animals, animals used for research) and animals used for human interests (animals used for entertainment, working animals) are not acknowledged in this research. The authors highlight the hypocrisy of a society which cares about conserving and protecting nature when many animals are exploited, abused and killed under the capitalist structure.
According to the authors, when research considers nature, often what it is referring to is wildlife. However, farmed animals and other exploited animals are not considered despite being intertwined with urban ecology and the fabric of society. The cultural fantasy of being surrounded by nature while other animals are abused and killed by people is normalized through discourse. Literature on climate change generally focuses on rewilding, reforesting and conservation, but doesn’t consider “captive commodities”. The” fetishisation” of saving biodiversity, rewilding and greening in urban spaces means that the focus is only certain ecosystems.
The authors go on to explore how multispecies care is encouraged for some animals, while it excludes those that are commodified. Some wild animals are celebrated as being part of a multispecies entanglement, such as elephants, but it is rarely considered how they came to be part of the entanglement and whether it benefits their wellbeing. Similarly, research on pet ownership rarely acknowledges the abuse and exploitation which occurs in the industry of pet breeding. Multispecies entanglement approaches treat the entanglement as a good thing: people and nature are united.Yet, it often avoids the violence and exploitation which occurs within entanglements. The authors also suggest that nature itself is a construction by humans, for capitalist gains.
The authors argue that the critical animal studies literature does not promote the conservation or protection of farmed animals – it wants to eradicate them as a consequence of eliminating factory farming. It does not consider human-nature entanglement as a good thing.
The authors recommend that to continue this discourse in the literature, questions can be examined in areas such as the types of entanglements among species, who benefits from these entanglements, and alternative options.
A growing body of literature is concerned with ‘healing’ our cities, fostering an ethic of care for urban nature and creating more socially and environmentally just cities. At the same time, urban biodiversity is the focus of an increasing number of projects at multiple scales. However, in contrast to the ethos of multispecies ‘entanglement’ and ‘becoming with’ that typically animates this research, large numbers of animals ‘entangled’ in the machinations of our cities constitute a ‘nature’ that remains mostly unseen. And yet, it is the local and global practices these animals are part of – associated with food, entertainment, education, companionship and research – and the persistent relations of use and exploitation that underpin them, that are most directly implicated in the ongoing environmental degradation, destruction of habitats and extinction of species that create the ‘problem’ of urban biodiversity. We therefore argue that a persistent anthropocentrism is hampering efforts to respond effectively to the findings and recommendations of the IPCC, IPBES, FAO and others. Based on a thorough literature search and review of 65 articles concerned with urban ‘nature’ and multispecies relations, we demonstrate a prevailing hierarchy in how, and more importantly which, nonhuman species are being represented. Parallels are noted from recent social movements and the work of scholars from complementary fields. We highlight the dangers posed by this selective remit of care and concern and suggest critical animal studies as a way to adjust the frame and extend the boundaries of dominant thinking about what constitutes ‘nature’. In conclusion, we call for researchers concerned with urban nature and biodiversity to adopt more critical and repoliticized understandings of ‘nature’ and multispecies relations – ones that are better poised to challenge practices involving commodified animals and slow the pace of environmental destructions and losses they are associated with.