|
Wingfield, J. C.,, & Ramenofsky, M. (1999). Hormones and the behavioral ecology of stress. In P. H. M. Balm (Ed.), Stress physiology in animals. (pp. 1–51). Sheffield, United Kingdom: Sheffield Academic Press.
|
|
Laland, K. N., Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (1996). Developing a theory of animal social learning. In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. J. Galef (Eds.), Social learning in animals: the roots of culture. (pp. 129–154). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
|
|
Tomasello, M., & Call, J. (2006). Do chimpanzees know what others see ? or only what they are looking at? In M. Nudds, & S. Hurley (Eds.), Rational Animals? (pp. 371–384). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
|
Russell, L. A. (2003). Decoding Equine Emotions. Society and Animals, 11(3), 265–266.
|
Brandt, K. (2004). A Language of Their Own: An Interactionist Approach to Human-Horse Communication. Society and Animals, 12(4), 299–316.
Abstract: This paper explores the process of human-horse communication using ethnographic data of in-depth interviews and participant observation. Guided by symbolic interactionism, the paper argues that humans and horses co-create a language system by way of the body to facilitate the creation of shared meaning. This research challenges the privileged status of verbal language and suggests that non-verbal communication and language systems of the body have their own unique complexities. This investigation of humanhorse communication offers new possibilities to understand the subjective and intersubjective world of non-verbal language using beings-human and nonhuman alike.
|
Lloyd, N., & Mulcock, J. (2007). Human-animal studies in Australia: Current directions. Society and Animals, 15(1), 1–5.
Abstract: In 2004, Natalie Lloyd and Jane Mulcock initiated the Australian Animals & Society Study Group, a network of social science, humanities and arts scholars that quickly grew to include more than 100 participants. In July 2005, about 50 participants attended the group“s 4-day inaugural conference at the University of Western Australia, Perth. Papers in this issue emerged from the conference. They exemplify the Australian academy”s work in the fields of History, Population Health, Sociology, Geography, and English and address strong themes: human-equine relationships; management of native and introduced animals; and relationships with other domestic, nonhuman animals-from cats and dogs to cattle. Human-Animal Studies is an expanding field in Australia. However, many scholars, due to funding and teaching concerns, focus their primary research in different domains. All authors in this issue-excepting one-are new scholars in their respective fields. The papers represent the diversity and innovation of recent Australian research on human-animal interactions. The authors look at both past and present, then anticipate future challenges in building an effective network to expand this field of study in Australia.
|
Birke, L. (2007). “Learning to speak horse”: The culture of “natural horsemanship”. Society and Animals, 15(3), 217–239.
Abstract: This paper examines the rise of what is popularly called “natural horsemanship” (NH), as a definitive cultural change within the horse industry. Practitioners are often evangelical about their methods, portraying NH as a radical departure from traditional methods. In doing so, they create a clear demarcation from the practices and beliefs of the conventional horse-world. Only NH, advocates argue, properly understands the horse. Dissenters, however, contest the benefits to horses as well as the reliance in NH on disputed concepts of the natural. Advocates, furthermore, sought to rename technologies associated with riding while simultaneously condemning technologies used in conventional training (such as whips). These contested differences create boundaries and enact social inclusion and exclusion, which the paper explores. For horses, the impact of NH is ambiguous: Depending on practitioners, effects could be good or bad. However, for the people involved, NH presents a radical change-which they see as offering markedly better ways of relating to horses and a more inclusive social milieu.
|
|
Lefebvre, L., & Giraldeau, L. - A. (1996). Is social learning an adaptive specialisation? In C. M. Heyes, & B. G. Galef B. G..Jr. (Eds.), Social learning in animals: The root of culture (pp. 107–128). San Diego: Academic Press.
|
|
Dyer, F. C. (2000). Individual cognition and group movement: insights from social insects. In P. Garber, & S. Boinski (Eds.), Group Movement in Social Primates and Other Animals: Patterns, Processes, and Cognitive Implications.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
|
|
de Waal, F. B. M. (1992). Coalitions as part of reciprocal relations in the Arnhem chimpanzee colony. In A. H. Harcourt, & F. B. M. de Waal (Eds.), Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals (pp. 233–257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
|
