Logo image
Back
Beyond the Divide: University and Community Engagement, Wildlife and Relational Ethics
Conference paper   Open access   Peer reviewed

Beyond the Divide: University and Community Engagement, Wildlife and Relational Ethics

Steven Garlick, Julie M Matthews, Jennifer Carter and Gayle J Mayes
Proceedings of the 2008 Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance National Conference, pp.180-189
Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance (AUCEA) National Conference: Engaging for a sustainable future, 2008 (Sunshine Coast, Australia, 09-Jul-2008–11-Jul-2008)
Australian Universities Community Engagement Alliance Inc. (AUCEA)
2008
pdf
PDF - Published Version133.14 kBDownloadView
Published VersionPDF - Published Version Open Access

Abstract

Zoology Other Studies in Human Society human/animal divide ethics learning space wildlife university engagement
Post-colonial attitudes to nature in many parts of Australia and elsewhere have ensured the human/ native animal divide has remained strong among institutions charged with managing the way society interacts with the natural environment. Rules have taken over principles, and conservation (decisions about too many and too few), not welfare, has become the dominant discourse. Anthropocentric institutionalism has replaced moral geography and ethical understanding when it comes to the connection between native animals and communities. While some of the blame for this situation results from power wielding institutional regulators, a failure to define and articulate a coherent ethical underpinning to animal welfare that is not anthropocentric has contributed to this situation more broadly. This has ensured that in an increasingly urbanised society, the psycho-emotional distance between humans and native animals, if anything, is increased locking-in a range of societal fears, encouraging vested interests, and enabling animal cruelty. There is a discussion to be had about the way geographic space is configured that includes animals and humans that has serious implications for issues of community fragmentation and its associated problems in a globalising world. This relational view about humans and native animals also has implications for animal welfare, where the discourse has been to maintain the separation, focus on 'rights', and differing anthropocentric views about distress. We argue such approaches miss the 'intrinsic' characteristics and mutual benefits that a co-habitation model built on respect can bring. In this paper we discuss three interrelated engagement aspects with respect to the way we view the human/ native animal divide from an ethical perspective. First, we are concerned to address limitations in animal welfare discourse to ensure it is not suppressed by anthropocentric arguments and the conservation agenda. We articulate a relational ethic predicated on mutual understanding and respect as a framework for achieving this. Second, there are implications for the design and occupation of community space to ensure fragmentation pressures are minimised. There is evidence around the world where human/ nature connections in urban living are being 're-invented'. Third, because they are places of learning, are autonomous with a hoped for concern for the public good and the well-being of humans and non-humans, and may have access to large areas of land, we can identify an engagement role for universities in meaningfully contributing to strengthening nonhuman engagement in communities. While some universities see their ethical contribution to the public good in relation to native animals in 'funding-conditional' terms, or in tinkering with animals for human benefit, at least one, which we report on in this paper, sees it has a responsibility to the ethical treatment of the native animals that are a characteristic feature of its campus.

Details

Metrics

Logo image