2015 Conference

Full Presentation Panel

Non-human animals occupy a vital position in societies and ecosystems; however, their role in the scholarly and popular discourses on social and environmental issues tends to be indistinct and overlooked.  In an effort to counter this tendency, this presentation panel highlights and foregrounds the relationship between animal welfare and environmental sustainability by asking two key questions.  First, how do people value animals as both individuals and species?  And second, what are the implications of these values on environmental science, policy, and education?

The Values of Animals in Education: The Hidden Curriculum of the BIG Zoo Lesson

Stephen Vria

Animals are ubiquitous in children’s lives, and children’s relationship with them is very close.  As children become adults, however, animals’ ubiquity in their lives tends to lessen, and their relationship with animals tends to lose its closeness.  One explanation for this change is that children initially see animals as intrinsically valuable, subjective beings but are socialized to view them as extrinsically valuable, objective things.  In this paper, I explore the possibility that children are socialized to devalue and objectify animals through formal and informal education by analyzing the BIG Zoo Lesson (BZL), an exemplary conservation education program for elementary and middle school students at the Potter Park Zoo in Lansing, Michigan.  Specifically, I perform a semiotic analysis of BZL’s teacher materials and student assignments to understand the extent to which its explicit and hidden curricula teach children to value or devalue animals.  Through my analysis, I find that while BZL has a progressive, explicit curriculum that teaches children that animal species are intrinsically valuable, it also has a value-laden, hidden curriculum that teaches them that individual animals are only extrinsically valuable.  I connect my findings to the “social efficiency” approach to schooling and to the concept of “education for extinction” to draw two conclusions: first, that institutions founded on the exploitation of animals, like zoos, must teach people that animals are not intrinsically valuable and therefore exploitable; and second, that one way these institutions achieve this end is through formal and informal education.  These conclusions have important implications for animal studies and environmental studies scholars and educators, as they suggest that teaching children about animals and the environment in an uncritical manner may overtly increase their knowledge of species and ecosystems but covertly socialize them to devalue and exploit animals and the environment.

Specifying the value-belief-norm framework for animal-themed education

Dr. Susan Caplow

Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory posits that pro-environmental values shape beliefs that create environmentally friendly behavioral norms, compelling us to align our behavior with those norms (Stern 2000). VBN theory as it stands considers environmental values, beliefs, and norms in general terms, but I assess how VBN is communicated during animal-themed education programs. I find that educators at different educational facilities evoked a VBN chain that was consistent with valuing the animal as an individual, species, or ecosystem. These different types of valuations set up a VBN narrative that casts the threats/solutions differently depending on the scale of the valued object. I argue that this type of specification can assist in the practical application of VBN theory to education programs. Additionally, VBN theory can be used to design educational content so that a program can appeal to the learner’s incoming values, beliefs, and norms in order to promote program-relevant behavior change. 

Climate and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs): Opportunities and Obstacles for Cooperation among the Environmentalist, Animal Welfare and Sustainable Agriculture Movements

Robert Darst

The growing realization of the large contribution of livestock to greenhouse gas emissions has generated heightened concern over the environmental and social problems associated with industrialized livestock operations. Organizations and activists opposed to “animal factories”—especially those devoted to environmental protection, animal welfare and sustainable agriculture—have increasingly and prominently incorporated the climate issue into their arguments. This raises the prospect for a grand coalition of social movements opposed to industrialized livestock agriculture.

These organizations and activists have had ample reason to unite in the past, however, but have failed to do so because of deep philosophical differences and policy preferences. Animal welfare and animal rights advocates are primarily concerned about the well-being of individual animals, and draw relatively little distinction between wild and domesticated animals. Sustainable agriculture activists are primarily interested in promoting small-scale production with an eye toward the revitalization and empowerment of rural communities. Environmental advocates generally draw a sharp distinction between wild and domesticated animals and are primarily interested in limiting the impact of agriculture on overall environmental quality. While these goals are often compatible in principle, in practice the policy changes sought by one group do not necessarily advance the interests of the others, and may run counter to them.

These underlying differences remain and have already surfaced in the new “climate discourse” in debates over questions such as “land sharing” versus “land sparing,” grassfed versus grainfed beef, the production of bioenergy from manure, collaboration with the meat industry, and the implications of the climate crisis for human diets. In this paper, we explain the underlying differences at work and examine the prospects for more successful coalition-building in the climate change era.

The Feral Cat Conundrum: Assessing the Science and Ethics of Trap-Neuter-Return

Emily Vincent

There may be more than fifty million feral cats in the United States, and as cats tend to reproduce quickly, this population will continue to grow without human intervention. Free-roaming cats are predators that may pose a risk to vulnerable species and are potential vectors of disease, so their growing populations must be taken seriously.  A fierce debate rages about whether populations of feral cats should be systematically culled or reduced slowly through Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR). My research synthesis examines literature from multiple disciplines including ecology, ethics, veterinary medicine, the popular press, regional policies, and advocacy organizations in order to assess which population control methods will work best.  Both ecologists and animal welfare advocates cite scientific literature in their arguments, but these groups disagree sharply about the viability of TNR.  My paper questions why this division exists and considers implications for those of us who care about both animal welfare and the environment.  I use an interdisciplinary approach that examines literature from science and ethics to suggest potential solutions to the feral cat conundrum.

My thesis confronts the theme of frontiers, borders, and boundaries in two ways. First, feral cats balance on the invisible boundary between domestic animals and wildlife, and we have the responsibility of figuring out exactly how they fit.  My argument examines Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s Zoopolis, which argues that feral animals can be thought of as denizens of human communities who may not warrant the rights of citizens, but should still be incorporated into our society.  Second, the feral cat debate often results in a stalemate because of the boundary between ecologists and animal welfare activists, limiting progress. My interdisciplinary synthesis strives to create a bridge across this boundary so we can find a solution to this critical environmental and ethical dilemma.