Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
References
All Topics
History
Cultural History

More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes

Profile image of José Ramón VallejoJosé Ramón Vallejo

2025, Biodiversity Management and Domestication in the Neotropics. In: Casas, A., et al. Biodiversity Management and Domestication in the Neotropics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
visibility

…

description

31 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Article Google Scholar 59. Thornton TF, Bhagwat S, editors. The Routledge handbook of indigenous environmental knowledge. London: Routledge; 2021.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. The text explores the concept of more-than-human agency in domestication regimes.
  2. It references the early Holocene domestication of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the eastern Fertile Crescent.
  3. Political ecology and ethnobiology are critical frameworks for understanding interspecies relations.
  4. The work discusses the historical and cultural contexts of domesticated landscapes and their ecological significance.
  5. The overarching goal is to integrate indigenous environmental knowledge into contemporary conservation practices.

Related papers

Self Determination and Indigenous People: The Fight For ‘Commons’
Swati Mohapatra

Medico-Legal Update, 2020

History has always seen the less-privileged as the one suffering the alienation of their rights, entitlements. It is equally true that these communities have fought back to claim what is rightfully theirs. The principle of Self determination or the right to decide how to be governed can be traced back to World War-1 and the principles laid down by Woodrow Wilson. This right to Self determination exists for each one of us. This becomes even more imminent when it belongs to a community which has its own preserved culture to protect, it has its own resources of which it is the foremost protector. Here the paper emphasizes how the tribals in India have now been reduced to a mere dependant and beggary.The paper traces the various changes of the Indian legal system governing the relationship between the 'Commons' and the Tribal Communities. But 'the history of Forests is the history of conflicts'. The researcher has taken two case studies-the struggles of the Dongria-Kondhs of Odisha and the Sentinelese from Andaman , to show how these communities have in their own unparalleled ways protect their Commons from the never-ending appetite of the industrialization and human greed. Lastly, the researcher has analysed various provisions from the Corpus of Indian laws, to find out where is the State missing out. Along with it, the researcher has also suggested potential reforms to those lags , so as to guarantee the Tribals their "Right of Self Determination" in wholesome.

View PDFchevron_right
Self-Determination or Environmental Determinism for Indigenous Peoples in Tropical Forest Conservation
marcus colchester

Conservation Biology, 2000

View PDFchevron_right
The Practice of Autonomy by Indigenous Peoples
Guillermo Delgado-P.

Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 2015

The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

View PDFchevron_right
Owning Research and Building Force at the Margins: Indigenous Peoples as Agents of Self-Determined Development
Leah Abayao

People's Self-Determined Development

View PDFchevron_right
Indigenous and Traditional Resource Management
Lucas Johnston
View PDFchevron_right
Indigenous Peoples and the Environment – an Introduction
Nathalie JAËCK

Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe - HAL - Institut | Nicod, 2012

View PDFchevron_right
Domesticated Landscapes: The Subsistence Ecology of Plant and Animal Domestication
Helen R Haines, Rahul Oka

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2003

Harvesting different species as foods or raw materials calls for differing skills depending on the species being harvested and the circumstances under which they are being taken. In some situations and for some species, the tactics used are mainly behavioral—that is, people adjust, or adapt, their own actions to fit the behavior and circumstances of the species they are taking. Under other circumstances and for other species, the skills and tactics used may call for greater environmental preparation or manipulation. Therefore, instead of trying to distinguish people today and in the past as either “foragers” or “farmers,” it makes sense to define human subsistence behavior as an interactive matrix of species and harvesting tactics, that is, as a provisions spreadsheet.

View PDFchevron_right
Drawing Lessons from Indigenous Self-Governance.pdf
Vincent Ekka

Legal News & Views, 2018

‘Parha’ system is a traditional way of self-governance among the Kurux (Oraon) adivasis of central India. Similar institutions of traditional self-governance are in operation among other major tribal communities in the tribal regions of Central India and across the globe. Highlighting the aspects of ‘effective local self-governance’ in traditional institutions such as the “Parha” this paper will strive to underline various regressive forces that hinder the growth and practice of tribal self-governance in free and fair manner. This paper will also attempt to communicate with the non-indigenous society on the lessons that can be learnt from these traditional ‘tribal/ indigenous institutions of self-governance’; and why autonomy of tribal self-governance could be better option for our forests and rivers.

View PDFchevron_right
Indigenous institutions as adaptive measures to environmental dynamics: an ethnographic study of Loba Community of Upper Mustang, Nepal
Man Bahadur Khattri

Springer Nature , 2023

This paper investigates how different institutions of Loba communities of the Upper Mustang work together and facilitate the community to cope with the environmental dynamics in the region. The indigenous institutions are place-based, and their evolution is concerned with reducing vulnerability and enhancing the resilience capacity of place-based communities to cope with and adapt to local natural and sociocultural environmental dynamics. The paper is based on anthropological fieldwork. Qualitative data were collected by applying observation and interviews. The paper presents the role of the galbo, (Lo King), ghenba (Village Chief), Lama (Monk), and dhongba (Household) as local institutions that act in close relation and make community-level decisions. The findings reveal that the King is seen as the leader whose governance best suited to the local natural environment, cultural practices, and economy. The Lama plays a major role in reinforcing local rules, while the Ghenba is an agent who mediates the Lo King and people in materializing rules and operationalizing institutional mechanisms. The Dhongbas are units of production of the local social-ecosystem that are entitled to use local resources within the context of the institution's agreed rules, norms, and values. These local institutions are cooperating well, successfully regulating, managing, and protecting agricultural, forest, and pasture lands, and maintaining the monuments in Lo-manthang for centuries. However, recent social-environmental dynamics such as climate change,

View PDFchevron_right
<i>Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and Institutional Conflicts</i> (review)
Joe Watkins

Anthropological Quarterly, 2011

View PDFchevron_right

References (115)

  1. Ferrara V, Sala G, La Mantia T. Change and persistence in an olive landscape of sicily. Geospatial insights into biocultural heritage. Hum Ecol. 2024;52:1-14. Google Scholar
  2. Barrera-Bassols N, Toledo VM. Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya: symbolism, knowledge and management of natural resources. J Lat Am Geogr. 2005:9-41. Google Scholar
  3. Lira R, Casas A, Blancas J. Ethnobotany of Mexico. Interactions of people and plants in Mesoamerica. Springer; 2016. Book Google Scholar
  4. Hildebrand EA. The utility of ethnobiology in agricultural origins research: examples from Southwest Ethiopia. Curr Anthropol. 2009;50(5):693-7. Article Google Scholar
  5. Ibarra JT, Barreau A, Marchant C, González JA, Oliva M, Donoso-Correa ME, Antaki B, Monterrubio-Solis C, Sarmiento FO. Montology: an integrative understanding of mountain foodscapes for strengthening food sovereignty in the Andes. In: The Elgar companion to geography, transdisciplinarity and sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020. p. 91-405.
  6. Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  7. Comi M. Seeds, chemicals, and stuff: the agency of things in (un) just agriculture regimes. In: Environmental justice in the anthropocene. Routledge; 2021. p. 230-40.
  8. Purugganan MD. Evolutionary insights into the nature of plant domestication. Curr Biol. 2019;29(14):705-14. Article Google Scholar
  9. Pearsall DM. Plant domestication and the shift to agriculture in the Andes. In: The handbook of South American archaeology. New York: Springer New York; 2008. p. 105-20.
  10. Chapter Google Scholar
  11. Stahl PW. Animal domestication in South America. In: The handbook of South American archaeology. New York: Springer New York; 2008. p. 121-30. Chapter Google Scholar
  12. Spengler RN, Mueller NG. Grazing animals drove domestication of grain crops. Nat Plants. 2019;5(7):656-62. Article PubMed Google Scholar
  13. Langlie BS, Capriles JM. Paleoethnobotanical evidence points to agricultural mutualism among early camelid pastoralists of the Andean central Altiplano. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2021;13(7):107. Article Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 Google Scholar
  14. Blaser M. Doing and undoing Caribou/Atiku: diffractive and divergent multiplicities and their cosmopolitical orientations. Tapuya: Latin Am Sci Technol Soc. 2018;1(1):47-64.
  15. Otero G, Lapegna P. Transgenic crops in Latin America: expropriation, negative value and the state. J Agrar Chang. 2016;16(4):665-74. Article Google Scholar
  16. Büscher B, Fletcher R. Under pressure: conceptualising political ecologies of green wars. Conserv Soc. 2018;16(2):105-13. Article Google Scholar
  17. McMichael P. Critical agrarian studies and crises of the world-historical present. J Peasant Stud. 2023;50(2):725-57. Article Google Scholar
  18. Ravenscroft A. Strange weather: indigenous materialisms, new materialism, and colonialism. Cambridge J Postcol Liter Inquiry. 2018;5(3):353-70. Article Google Scholar
  19. Rosiek JL, Snyder J, Pratt SL. The new materialisms and indigenous theories of non-human agency: making the case for respectful anti- colonial engagement. Qual Inq. 2020;26(3-4)
  20. 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  21. Ranklin A, editor. The Routledge international handbook of more-than-human studies. Taylor & Francis; 2023.
  22. Wilson RA, Neco LC. Ethnobiology, the ontological turn, and human sociality. J Ethnobiol. 2023;43(3):198-207. Article Google Scholar
  23. Rose DB. Val Plumwood's philosophical animism: attentive interactions in the sentient world. Environ Human. 2013;3(1):93-109. Article Google Scholar
  24. Grasseni C. Ecologies of belonging and the mugshot aesthetics. Anthrovision Vaneasa Online J; 2017 (5.2). Google Scholar
  25. Sheridan M. Boundary plants, the social production of space, and vegetative agency in agrarian societies. Environ Soc. 2016;7(1):29-49. Article Google Scholar
  26. Cantor A, Stoddard EA, Rocheleau D, Brewer JF, Roth R, Birkenholtz T, Foo K, Nirmal P. Putting rooted networks into practice. ACME: Int J Crit Geogr. 2018;17(4):958-87.
  27. Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 13/31
  28. Grauer KC. Active environments: relational ontologies of landscape at the ancient Maya city of Aventura. Belize J Soc Archaeol. 2020;20(1):74-94. Article Google Scholar
  29. Kanngieser A, Todd Z. From environmental case study to environmental kin study. History Theory. 2020;59(3):385-93. Article Google Scholar
  30. Gudynas E, Holloway A. Development and nature: modes of appropriation and Latin American extractivisms. In: The Routledge handbook of Latin American development. Routledge; 2018. p. 389-99.
  31. Kohn E. Anthropology of ontologies. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2015;44(1):311-27. Article Google Scholar
  32. Ellen R. Is there a role for ontologies in understanding plant knowledge systems? J Ethnobiol. 2016;36(1):10-28. Article Google Scholar
  33. Sepie AJ. More than stories, more than myths: animal/human/nature (s) in traditional ecological worldviews. Humanities. 2017;6(4):78. Article Google Scholar
  34. Toledo VM. Agroecology and spirituality: reflections about an unrecognized link. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2022;46(4):626-41.
  35. 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  36. De la Cadena M. Cosmopolítica indígena en los Andes: reflexiones conceptuales más allá de la «política». Tabula Rasa. 2020;33:273-311.
  37. Jacques PJ, Jacques JR. Monocropping cultures into ruin: the loss of food varieties and cultural diversity. Sustainability. 2012;4(11):2970-97. Article Google Scholar
  38. Rozzi R. Biocultural homogenization: a wicked problem in the Anthropocene. In: From biocultural homogenization to biocultural conservation. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 21-48.
  39. Chapter Google Scholar
  40. Twine R. Revealing the 'animal-industrial complex-a concept and method for critical animal studies. J Crit Animal Stud. 2012;10(1):12-39. Google Scholar
  41. Weis T. The ecological hoofprint: the global burden of industrial livestock. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2013. Book Google Scholar
  42. Moore JW. Capitalism in the web of life: ecology and the accumulation of capital. Verso; 2015. Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 16/31
  43. Neo H, Emel J. Geographies of meat: politics, economy and culture. Routledge; 2017. Book Google Scholar
  44. Tilzey M. Political ecology, food regimes, and food sovereignty: crisis, resistance, and resilience. Springer; 2017. Google Scholar
  45. Blanchette A. Industrial meat production. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2018;47(1):185-99. Article Google Scholar
  46. Escobar A. After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Curr Anthropol. 1999;40(1):1-30. Article Google Scholar
  47. Wyndham FS. Spheres of relations, lines of interaction: subtle ecologies of the Rarámuri landscape in northern Mexico. J Ethnobiol. 2009;29(2):271-95. Article Google Scholar
  48. Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 1993;25:739-75. Article Google Scholar
  49. Rose DC. Avoiding a post-truth world: embracing post-normal conservation. Conserv Soc. 2018;16(4):518-24. Article Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  50. Mueller NG, Flachs A. Domestication, crop breeding, and genetic modification are fundamentally different processes: implications for seed sovereignty and agrobiodiversity. Agric Hum Values. 2022;39(1):455-72.
  51. Article Google Scholar
  52. Galusky W. Protein machines, technology, and the nature of the future. Springer Nature; 2022. Book Google Scholar
  53. Blaser M. Ontological conflicts and the stories of peoples in spite of Europe: toward a conversation on political ontology. Curr Anthropol. 2013;54(5):547-68. Article Google Scholar
  54. Tsing A. More-than-human sociality: a call for critical description. In: Anthropology and nature. Routledge; 2013. p. 27-42. Google Scholar
  55. Friedmann H, McMichael P. Agriculture and the state system. Sociol Rural. 1989;29(2) Google Scholar
  56. Bernstein H. Agrarian political economy and modern world capitalism: the contributions of food regime analysis. J Peasant Stud. 2016;43(3):611-47. Article Google Scholar
  57. Wolverton S, Nolan JM, Fry M. Political ecology and ethnobiology. In: Introduction to ethnobiology. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 75-82.
  58. 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 Chapter Google Scholar
  59. Köhler-Rollefson I. Community-based management of animal genetic resources-with special reference to pastoralists. In: Community- based management of animal genetic resources. 2003. p. 13-26.
  60. de Boef WS, Subedi A, Peroni N, Thijssen M, O'Keeffe E, editors. Community biodiversity management: promoting resilience and the conservation of plant genetic resources. Routledge; 2013.
  61. Ogden LA, Hall B, Tanita K. Animals, plants, people, and things: a review of multispecies ethnography. Environ Soc. 2013;4(1):5-24. Article Google Scholar 107.
  62. van Dooren T, Kirksey E, Münster U. Multispecies studies: cultivating arts of attentiveness, vol. 8; 2016. p. 1. Google Scholar
  63. Zeder MA. Why evolutionary biology needs anthropology: evaluating core assumptions of the extended evolutionary synthesis. Evolution Anthropol: Issues, News, Rev. 2018;27(6):267-84.
  64. Toledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N, Boege E. ¿Qué es la diversidad biocultural? Documento de trabajo, PAPIME-UNAM; 2019.
  65. 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 Google Scholar
  66. Losey RJ, Nomokonova T, Arzyutoz DV, Gusev AV, Plekhanov AV, Fedorova NV, Anderson DG. Domestication as enskilment: harnessing reindeer in Arctic Siberia. J Archaeol Method Theory. 2021;28:197-231. Article Google Scholar
  67. Lezama-Núñez PR. Etnoecología política de la avicultura indígena mexicana. In: Perezgrovas R, Camacho M., Juárez A, editors. El guajolote nativo de México: estudios recientes y perspectivas. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla/Red Mexicana sobre Conservación y Utilización de los Recursos Zoogenéticos, A.C.; 2020, p. 30. Google Scholar
  68. Blaser M, De La Cadena M. The uncommons: An introduction. Anthropologica. 2017:185-93.
  69. Anderson DG. Cultures of reciprocity and cultures of control in the Circumpolar North. J Northern Stud. 2014;8(2):11-27. Article Google Scholar
  70. Anderson DG, Loovers JPL, Schroer SA, Wishart RP. Architectures of domestication: on emplacing human-animal relations in the North. J R Anthropol Inst. 2017;23(2):398-416.
  71. Article Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 20/31
  72. Stépanoff C, Marchina C, Fossier C, Bureau N. Animal autonomy and intermittent coexistences: North Asian modes of herding. Curr Anthropol. 2017;58(1):57-81.
  73. Kondo S. On serving salmon: an ethnography of hyperkeystone interactions in interior Alaska. In: The Routledge handbook of indigenous environmental knowledge. Routledge; 2020. p. 58-66.
  74. Brush SB, Perales HR. A maize landscape: ethnicity and agro-biodiversity in Chiapas Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2007;121(3):211-21. Article Google Scholar
  75. Toledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N. Saberes tradicionales y adaptaciones ecológicas en siete regiones indígenas de México. Saberes ambientales campesinos. Cultura y naturaleza en comunidades indígenas y mestizas de México. 2011, pp. 15-60.
  76. Hill CG. Seeds as ancestors, seeds as archives: seed sovereignty and the politics of repatriation to native peoples. Am Indian Cult Res J. 2017;41(3):93-112. Article Google Scholar
  77. Rival L. Animism and the meanings of life: reflections from Amazonia. In: Animism in rainforest and tundra: Personhood, animals, plants and things in contemporary Amazonia and Siberia. New York: Berghahn Books; 2012. p. 69-81.
  78. Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  79. Daly L. Cassava spirit and the seed of history: on garden cosmology in Northern Amazonia. Anthropol Forum. 2021;31(4):377-95. Article Google Scholar
  80. Lundström M. The political economy of meat. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2019;32(1):95-104. Article Google Scholar
  81. Garlock T, Asche F, Anderson J, Bjørndal T, Kumar G, Lorenzen K, Ropicki A, Smith MD, Tveterås R. A global blue revolution: aquaculture growth across regions, species, and countries. Rev Fish Sci Aquac. 2020;28(1):107-16.
  82. Eddens A. White science and indigenous maize: the racial logics of the Green Revolution. J Peasant Stud. 2019;46(3):653-73. Article Google Scholar
  83. Siegel PB. Evolution of the modern broiler and feed efficiency. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2014;2(1):375-85. Article PubMed Google Scholar
  84. Lien ME. Becoming salmon: aquaculture and the domestication of a fish, vol. 55. University of California Press; 2015. Google Scholar
  85. Bennett CE, Thomas R, Williams M, Zalasiewicz J, Edgeworth M, Miller H, Coles B, Foster A, Burton EJ, Marume U. The broiler chicken as a signal of a human reconfigured biosphere. R Soc Open Sci. 2018;5(12):180325.
  86. 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  87. Coles B. The broiler chicken and the Anthropocene: using critical nexus thinking to unpack the geographies of Gallus gallus domesticus. Geogr J. 2022;188(3):328-41.
  88. Fischer K, Jakobsen J, Westengen OT. The political ecology of crops: from seed to state and capital. Geoforum. 2022;130:92-5. Article Google Scholar
  89. Wang CM. Securing participation in global pork production networks: biosecurity, multispecies entanglements, and the politics of domestication practices. J Cult Econ. 2022;15(2):200-15.
  90. Neeteson AM, Avendaño S, Koerhuis A, Duggan B, Souza E, Mason J, Ralph J, Rohlf P, Burnside T, Kranis A, Bailey R. Evolutions in commercial meat poultry breeding. Animals. 2023;13(19):3150. Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
  91. Giraldo OF. The government of affections. In: Political ecology of agriculture: agroecology and post-development. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 61-74. Chapter Google Scholar
  92. Weis T. The meatification of diets. In: Routledge handbook of food and nutrition security. Routledge; 2016. p. 124-36.
  93. 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  94. Otero G, Gürcan EC, Pechlaner G, Liberman G. Food security, obesity, and inequality: measuring the risk of exposure to the neoliberal diet. J Agrar Chang. 2018;18(3):536-54.
  95. Pesantes MA, Bazán Macera M, Mercier S, Katic PG. Healthy food, unhealthy food: indigenous perspectives on the nutrition transition. Glob Public Health. 2024;19(1):2329210. Article PubMed Google Scholar
  96. Holloway L, Bear C, Morris C, Wilkinson K. Animals, technologies and people in rural spaces: introduction to a special issue on emerging geographies of animal-technology co-productions. J Rural Stud. 2014;33:95-8.
  97. Coles B. The shocking materialities and temporalities of agri-capitalism. Gastronomica. 2016;16(3):5-12. Article Google Scholar
  98. McMichael P. A food regime genealogy. J Peasant Stud. 2009;36(1):139-69.
  99. 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 Article PubMed Google Scholar
  100. González JA, Amich F, Postigo-Mota S, Vallejo JR. The use of wild vertebrates in contemporary Spanish ethnoveterinary medicine. J Ethnopharmacol. 2016;191:135-51. Article PubMed Google Scholar
  101. González JA, Vallejo JR. The use of domestic animals and their derivative products in contemporary Spanish ethnoveterinary medicine. J Ethnopharmacol. 2021;271:113900. Article PubMed Google Scholar
  102. Klepek J. Against the grain: knowledge alliances and resistance to agricultural biotechnology in Guatemala. Can J Develop Stud/Revue canadienne d'études du développement. 2012;33(3):310-25.
  103. Mullaney EG. Geopolitical maize: peasant seeds, everyday practices, and food security in Mexico. Geopolitics. 2014;19(2):406-30. Article Google Scholar
  104. Suryanarayanan S, Milpa-Melipona-Maya BK. Mayan interspecies alliances facing agribiotechnology in Yucatan. ACME: Int J Crit Geograp. 2020;19(2):469-500.
  105. Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  106. Celermajer D, Schlosberg D, Rickards L, Stewart-Harawira M, Thaler M, Tschakert P, Verlie B, Winter C. Multispecies justice: theories, challenges, and a research agenda for environmental politics. In: Trajectories in environmental politics. Routledge; 2022. p. 116-37. Chapter Google Scholar
  107. Adamson J. Seeking the corn mother: transnational indigenous organizing and food sovereignty in Native North American literature. In: Indigenous rights in the age of the UN declaration. Cambridge University Press; 2012. p. 228-49.
  108. Brondízio ES, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bates P, Carino J, et al. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2021;46(1):481-509.
  109. Schulz KA. Decolonizing political ecology: ontology, technology and 'critical' enchantment. J Polit Ecol. 2017;24(1):125-43.
  110. Lorimer J, Driessen C. From "Nazi cows" to cosmopolitan "ecological engineers": specifying rewilding through a history of Heck cattle. Ann Am Assoc Geogr. 2016;106(3):631-52.
  111. Kasprzycka E, Wrigley CA, Searle A, Twine R. Rhetorics of species revivalism and biotechnology -a roundtable dialogue. Animal Stud J. 2023;12(2):190-219.
  112. Article Google Scholar 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1
  113. Merçon J, Vetter S, Tengö M, Cocks M, Balvanera P, Rosell JA, Ayala-Orozco B. From local landscapes to international policy: contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability. Global Sustain. 2019;2:e7. Article Google Scholar
  114. Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Tengö M, Thaman R, Yao CYA, Berkes F, Carino J. Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2020;43:8-20. Article Google Scholar Red Conbiand Mexico, Ciudad de México, Mexico Paulina R. Lezama-Núñez Departament d'Antropologia Social i Cultural, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Dídac Santos-Fita Departamento de Anatomía Patológica, Histología, Historia de la Ciencia, Medicina Legal y Forense y Toxicología, Área de Historia de la Ciencia, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain José Ramón Vallejo 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 Corresponding author Correspondence to Dídac Santos-Fita .
  115. Editor information Editors and Affiliations Investig. en Ecosist. y Sustentabilidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico Alejandro Casas Human Ecology and Ethnobotany Laboratory, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil Nivaldo Peroni Departamento de Biología, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima, Peru Fabiola Parra-Rondinel IDACOR -Museo de Antropologías, CONICET, Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina Veronica Lema Ciencias y Tecnologías, Jardín Etnobotánico de Oaxaca, Oaxaca De Juárez, Oaxaca, Mexico Xitlali Aguirre-Dugua Morelia, Mexico Edna Arévalo-Marín Departamento de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad De México, Mexico Hernán Alvarado-Sizzo Invest. en Biodivers. y Conservación, Univ. Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico José Blancas Rights and permissions 21/7/25, 20:04 More-Than-Human Agency and Domestication Regimes | SpringerLink https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-64203-6_5-1 29/31

Related papers

Contemporary domestication practices by indigenous peoples and the industry
Dídac Santos Fita

It is common to think that animal domestication is a done endeavour rather than a never ending process. As such, people imagine that only a certain number of species and breeds constitute the domestic species’ portfolio. Still, indigenous peoples around the world perform contemporary breeding management and other practices upon the different livestock species raised in their backyards and beyond, always attempting to improve the survival and characteristics of their animals. They also repeatedly try to reproduce wild species that are useful for different means, or else attractive to have around. In very different settings, guided by scholarly expertise rather than empirical knowledge, professionals of animal and veterinary sciences are also relentlessly trying to advance livestock populations in terms of different criteria established by industry and markets. Whether for rural or urban environments adaptation, neither animals are inert stocks of genes, nor are human norms for management and selection static. When thinking domestication, it would be better to imagine a perpetual conversation among the different actors, including the environmental conditions, animal species, and people’s needs and wants. Under such a picture, the past can be imagined differently, the present seen as it actually is, and the future hold diverse outcomes.

View PDFchevron_right
Domestication gone wild: politics and practices of multispecies relations
Katy Overstreet

Ethnos, 2019

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction: Resituating Domestication in Inner Asia
Thomas White

Inner Asia, 2020

View PDFchevron_right
Indigenous Life Projects and Extractivism
Piergiorgio Di Giminiani

Indigenous Life Projects and Extractivism, 2019

use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

View PDFchevron_right
Between Wildness and Domestication: Rethinking Categories and Boundaries in response to Animal Agency (2016)
Will Kymlicka, Sue Donaldson

in Bernice Bovenkerk and Jozef Keulartz (eds) Animal Ethics in the Age of Humans: Blurring boundaries of human-animal relationships (Springer, 2016), 225-39.

As the chapters is this section illustrate, we have to rethink our old categories of wild and domesticated animals. New relationships of mutual impact and hybrid management have been made necessary by relentless human expansion, anthropogenic climate change, and other ecological impacts. The animals involved in these new relations do not fit into the old dichotomy of independent wild animals untouched by humans on the one hand, or dependent domesticated animals under control of humans on the other hand. We need new ideas to help us understand the distinctive ethical challenges of these new relationships, with their mix of freedom and restriction, of independence and dependence, of self-willed agency and external control. The chapter authors of this section draw upon key concepts of animal ethics-care, flourishing, interests, intrinsic and instrumental value, capabilities, welfare, friendship-to negotiate human-animal entanglements. While broadly agreeing with their insights, we argue that their ethical approaches need to be integrated into a broader theory of interspecies justice which explicitly addresses issues of authority, responsibility and self-determination. The fact that humans inevitably affect and interact with ever more animals does not alter the fact that animals' lives are still theirs to lead, and that human management and intervention is legitimate only insofar as it respects animals as intentional agents. Our theorizing should begin by asking what kinds of lives animals want to live, what kinds of relationships, if any, they want to have with us, and whether our interactions with them bolster or inhibit their ability to lead such lives. We illustrate what such animal agency may mean using the case of the feral horses of Assateague Island.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • History
  • Cultural History
  • Zoology
  • Environmental Humanities
  • History of knowledge
  • Anthropocene studies
  • Multispecies Ethnography
  • Animal Sciences
  • Biocultural Heritage
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved