Bring back the dog in the social sciences

Résumé du document

This work is rooted in the finding of a weak analytical perspective in social sciences to study the relationships between man and pet. The field of social sciences has often focused on the perceptions and symbolic meanings that the animal, example the canine mind, took when compared to the minds of men. In this document, the return of concrete practices of men and their dogs is not considered. Either the dog appears to be totally manipulated by men, or he himself is unconsciously the handler of the human mind. However, he never appears as a player with skill.

Extraits

[...] J. Shapiro "Understanding dogs through kinaesthetic empathy, social construction and history," Anthrozoös, Volume III, Number p Hastrup writes about this "knowledge is an inner process and implicit explanation of the world", while "understanding is a process outside and categorically aware of explanation" native voice and the visio anthropological”, in Social Anthropology p. 86). N. Dulberg and J. Sholnick, Other Eyes Trough. Developing Empathy and Multicultural Prospects in the Social Studies, Toronto, Pippin Publishing Corporation, 2004. [...]

[...] The world of inter-specific relationships is therefore a hybrid world involving humans and nonhumans who, by their mutual relationship, are of scientific practice in which disciplinary boundaries, previously impassable become open horizons. Yes, it is quite possible to bring the dog in sociology and for the same reason, we must change our perception of animals as entities different from us, even if this leads inevitably to the forced passage of 'deep anxiety: the risk that they change our view of ourselves. References E. Claverie, The wars of the Virgin, Paris, Gallimard D. Lestel, the animal origins of culture, Paris, Flammarion K. [...]

[...] More precisely when this item description evokes the animal, as noted by K. J. Shapiro it is important to find a way "that respects both animals through the idea of not locking them in cages and in order to describe the structures of their experiences as are experienced by them. " This approach allows emphasizing the specificity and affinity that sociology of action on the issue of relations between men and animals-has with other disciplines that usually seem distant from her. [...]

[...] That means specifically "to help equipment ethological social science? The first is to provide a scientific understanding of the animal to interpret his gestures and his canine behavior, to capture the ways to "collective" with men. But this formal understanding is not sufficient unto itself and knowledge of the dog that we must also rotate. Our familiarity with the dog be effectively enabled us to gain some personal experience that has increased as and our coexistence with them. What should we make this experience? [...]

[...] Equipment ethological social science ii. Empathy in Sociology •References What the dog does sociology This work is rooted in the finding of a weak analytical perspective in social sciences to study the relationships between man and pet. Indeed, the field of social sciences has often focused on the perceptions and symbolic meanings that the animal took the canine mind and the minds of men. In this work, the return of concrete practices of men and their dogs is not considered. [...]