Feminism & Psychology http://fap.sagepub.com/ Intersectional disgust? Animals and (eco)feminism Richard Twine Feminism & Psychology 2010 20: 397 DOI: 10.1177/0959353510368284 The online version of this article can be found at: http://fap.sagepub.com/content/20/3/397 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Feminism & Psychology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://fap.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://fap.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://fap.sagepub.com/content/20/3/397.refs.html Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 F eminism & Psychology Observations and commentaries Intersectional disgust? Animals and (eco)feminism Feminism & Psychology 20(3) 397–406 ! The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0959353510368284 fap.sagepub.com Richard Twine Lancaster University, UK Abstract This paper explores tensions between feminisms on the issue of nonhuman animals. The possibility of a posthuman or more-than-human account of intersectionality is explored through the retelling of an encounter with a feminist academic colleague and her experience of disgust toward a book I was carrying (Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations, Adams and Donovan, 1995). I argue that such disgust responses can be read as the affective embodiment of unacknowledged human/animal hierarchy and act to impede intersectional theory and politics. Moreover this disgust response is paradigmatic of a certain feminist disavowal of ecofeminism misread as a stereotypical representation of essentialist thinking. Reversing this I argue that it is humanist disgust rather than ecofeminism that may be seen as ‘out of date’ especially when one appreciates how the more-than-human have come to occupy a significant place in both feminist work and the broader humanities and social sciences. In conclusion the paper claims that feminist engagement with nonhuman animals is entirely consistent with its multi-faceted interrogation of dualist ontology, and, whilst the ethics of this engagement may be complex, it is no longer tenable for feminist work to exclude nonhuman animals from its understanding of sociality, politics or ethics. Keywords animals, disgust, ecofeminism, feminism, intersectionality, veganism In this short paper I touch upon three interrelated issues. These are: the place of nonhuman animals in theories of intersectionality, the question of the animal in feminist theory, and the relationship between feminism and ecofeminism. I also Corresponding author: Richard Twine, ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen), IAS Building, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YD, UK Email: r.twine@lancaster.ac.uk Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 398 Feminism & Psychology 20(3) hope to underline why psychological dimensions may be pertinent to the questioning of these issues. It was the sort of moment that sticks in your mind. About 10 years ago, I was mid-PhD, walking through my faculty carrying a copy of Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Adams and Donovan, 1995). In an elevator a feminist colleague spotted the book and reacted with shock and indeed one could say disgust. I was in turn shocked by her response and before there was time to engage she was gone. Regrettably I did not really know this person and did not have the opportunity to talk more about the moment. Emotions are embodied and relational and here was a specific response to an object and also implicitly to me (I assumed that she had not noticed the second half of the book title).1 Ecofeminists necessarily tread dangerous ground. It is possible that the book title was meant to be provocative. We can start from a position of kindness and understand the reaction to the book as unsurprising. If the complex histories of essentializing ‘women’ are in part bound up in parallel processes of dehumanization and animalization2 one might expect surprise at a book that may, if only on the face of it, seem to be reproducing a negative, or at least negatively perceived, association.3 If ‘Animals and Women’ sets up an uncomfortable relationality it is apt then that the emotion of disgust, concerned as it is to alleviate contamination and to shore up boundaries, was embodied there and then.4 But conjoined with this historical weight of misogyny there is a special salience here for disgust and ‘animals’. Researchers on disgust have given a prominent place to human-animal relationality in trying to understand the emotion.5 Rozin et al. (2000: 642) specifically cast ‘the avoidance of reminders of our animal nature’ in their theory of disgust where animals and animality stand as consistent elicitors of disgust in humans. Although questions of the historical and cultural variability of this are left open it is certainly feasible that disgust has been important to the emotional repertoire of the historical emergence of specific exclusionary and hierarchical deployments of the ‘human’. Relatedly, Davidson and Smith (2003; Smith and Davidson, 2006) posit disgust and phobias of ‘nature’ as evidence of societally specific constructions of nature/culture dualism. Such emotions are highly relevant to thinking through interlocking constructions of difference. Where disgust and abjection sustain boundaries, denial and projection not only act to protect the self but negatively tarnish and frame otherness. Animalization discourses are a case in point. The origin of the concept of intersectionality is usually associated with the work of Kimberle Crenshaw (1991), as an approach that attempts to outline interdependencies between social categories of power. During the last 20 years this has been approached in several ways including, for example, analyses that focus theoretically on how such categories intersect as well as case study approaches that focus upon how intersectionality is lived and experienced. Although feminist and critical race theorists of intersectionality have typically employed a triad of gender, race and class, these are dimensions that have also operated and been inflected with discourses of animality, and ‘nature’ generally. In line with the feminist argument that intersectionality is not an additive but a Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 399 Twine mutually constitutive phenomenon (for example, see Walby, 2007: 451), categories of ‘nature’ and animality have contributed a power of disgust to intra-human constructions of hierarchy and separation. Images of dirt, pollution and animality are a mainstay of racial and ethnic conflict, and disgust further acts within contemporary social class relations (see Tyler, 2008). Projects of dehumanization have found great use for the ‘animal’. At this point we may note a degree of kinship between the disgust in question here and that sometimes directed against Holocaust analogies with animal agriculture. This analogy has been employed by animal advocates and is also found in contemporary animal studies (see, for example, Davis, 2005; Derrida, 2008; Paterson, 2002). If one reacts to this analogy with a certain degree of humanist disgust (‘how dare you compare animal and human suffering’ etc.), one risks complicity with the very disgust mechanism practiced against Jewish people and partly facilitated by their animalization during Nazism.6 Disgust in both cases is parasitic on the assumption of human/animal hierarchy. The converse of animalization processes is to be found when constructions of human social difference are projected onto the nonhuman as in the general feminization of nature, or in more specific constructions of animals in racial, gendered or sexualized ways (Haraway, 1989). The acknowledgement of this and what one does with it can differ between feminist and ecofeminist theory, as we shall see. Additionally ecofeminism has been from its outset about theorizing an intersection between the co-positioning of ‘women’ and ‘nature’, but then also developed into a more multi-dimensional account of intersectionality. Thus a wide range of ecofeminist writers have worked on dualism and intersectionality (Cudworth, 2008; Filemyr, 1997; Gaard, 1997, 2001; Lee and Dow, 2001; Plumwood, 1993; Sandilands, 2001; Sturgeon, 1997; Twine, 2001).7 In the specific case of theoretical and empirical research into intersections between animals and gender, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist Vegetarian Critical Theory by Carol J. Adams (1990) remains a groundbreaking text.8 Other writers in this area include the late Val Plumwood (1997, 2000), Marti Kheel (2003) and Josephine Donovan, her sole author work (e.g. 1990, 2006) and her co-authored work with Adams (Adams and Donovan, 1995; Donovan and Adams, 1996, 2007), which is inclusive of the book in question. This brings us back to the reaction of my former colleague. I have argued initially in her defence that the reaction was understandable. However, I would now like to underline that I think it was unjustified. It is now feminist orthodoxy that static constructions of ‘women’ have historically drawn upon an interrelated nexus of dualistic association. Thus for example gender stereotypes associate ‘women’ with emotionality, corporeality and nature. In the context of this discussion we must note that ‘nature’ here includes a desocialized notion of animals/animality which has also been brought into gender stereotypes, even if this happens in a far from simple way. This is one reason why ecofeminist attempts to re-socialize nonhuman animals by arguing against the assumption of their biological determinism have been so important (Birke, 1991, 1994). Feminist research into animal-gender Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 400 Feminism & Psychology 20(3) intersections is as valid then as feminist enquiry into corporeality and emotionality, and further useful as it informs our understanding of other intersections. It is similarly dangerous ground to tread as feminist enquiry into emotionality and corporeality because there may be a feeling that such work could be conceived as a self-fulfilling prophecy of gendered stereotypes. I mean this in the sense of a perception of feminist academics confirming such stereotypes in their choice of research. But in response, firstly, this is obviously not the entirety of feminist research, secondly, such ‘dangerous’ work is also necessary work as it leads to a greater understanding of power and thirdly, feminist research is involved in a complex re-evaluation of corporeality and emotionality as signposts for feminist politics. Ecofeminists complement this project by thinking through and re-evaluating the place of ‘nature’ and ‘animals’ in (feminist) politics. The agenda of ecofeminists such as Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan in juxtaposing ‘animals’ and ‘women’ is not the debasement of women but the explication of relations of power that intersect gender and species. Yet I think the disgust response to the book may capture well more general feminist assumptions over ecofeminism as an antiquated essentialist romantic movement perhaps best left in the 1970s. Examples of the mainstream of academic feminism engaging with ecofeminist work are rare. But as Donna Haraway has noted, ‘Ecofeminism must not be stereotyped as essentialist dogma, frozen at one caricatured historical moment’ (Sturgeon, 1997).9 One might argue that the stakes of multi-species flourishing are too high to allow such stereotyping to act against vital coalition building.10 Whilst ecofeminist viewpoints on animal politics are varied, and ecofeminist work should not be reduced to the ‘question of the animal’, there remain tension points over the politicization of the nonhuman between ecofeminism and feminism. This can be traced partly through the debate on feminism and vegetarianism: the question of whether feminists should advocate for animals. Food and clothing choices after all are a further politicization of the personal. The issue of feminist vegetarianism or veganism was put on the agenda initially by Carol J. Adams (1990, 1994), critiqued by George (1994, 1995, 2000) and defended by Adams (1995), Gaard and Gruen (1995), Donovan (1995), Lucas (2005) and Bailey (2007). These pro- positions are an overt challenge to a perceived anthropocentrism in mainstream feminist discourse. It is one thing to include the nonhuman in one’s understanding of intersectionality, another also to accept the nonhuman into the political and act accordingly. Haraway is a good case in point here.11 Her work on more-than-human intersectionality is immeasurably important. On the question of undermining our most prevalent human-animal relationality – the commodification of other animals into meat and meat related products – she is ambivalent.12 In When Species Meet, Haraway (2008) acknowledges ecofeminist writing on human/animal relations. She professes deep respect for such work and for veganism as a feminist position, whilst also calling for feminists to honour ‘animal husbandry’ (Haraway, 2008: 80). Of course, any coalitionary move will resist simplification and must be multidirectional,13 but these seem like impossible positions to reconcile. It is difficult Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 401 Twine to sustain a feminist commitment to both non-violence14 and to a questioning of ‘nature’ as normative to social relations (be they between humans, or humans and other animals) with any sort of support for animal husbandry, beyond corrective genetics to previous ‘husbandry’ that has resulted in animal disease. In spite of this ambivalence over what is a difficult question for feminism, Haraway has gone further than most in questioning an essentialism of the ‘human’. This is a common feature of ecofeminist theory and ought to be brought to bear upon contemporary feminist work around intersectionality. For ecofeminists, liberal humanist feminisms have misunderstood the goals of feminism. Here dehumanization is not unproblematically to be met with calls for ‘human citizenship’ but with a more systematic questioning of the historically, culturally, economically and politically situatedness of the ‘human’ (Plumwood, 1992: 9; Adams, 2006: 120). Moreover, if the partiality of the ‘human’, if this situatedness, is intersected by particular understandings of gender, sexuality, race and class, then an unreconstituted humanism will be of limited use to feminism. One imaginative move to methodologically and theoretically understand ‘posthuman intersectionality’ has been to bring feminist conceptions of performativity into the study of human/animal relations (Birke et. al., 2004). Here the focus shifts to ‘human’ and ‘animal’ as relationally performed, re- and co-produced; an approach in sympathy with Haraway’s work on ‘companion’ species (2003, 2008). Interestingly this ecofeminist move to performativity in terms of theorizing intersectionality is preceded by earlier feminist approaches to the subject, similarly motivated by a suspicion of essential identity categories and a focus on the doing and becoming of identity (West and Fenstermaker, 1995; see also Valentine, 2007: 13). Such points of overlap urge more dialogue and there have been other shifts during the last 10 years that similarly ought to be encouraging feministecofeminist synergies. For example two overlapping strands of feminist thought are relevant here. These are feminist engagement with theories of posthumanism (see, for example, Barad, 2003) and the emergence of ‘new materialist’ feminists (such as Hird, 2006).15 Feminist new materialists, via feminist science studies, constitute a particular engagement with scientific knowledge with an interest in novel ontology and a critique of the way in which much of feminism has either excluded biology or engaged with it in limited ways. As Hird puts it: new materialism attends to a number of significant shifts in the natural sciences within the past few decades to suggest agency and contingency within the living and nonliving world. New materialist developments within the natural sciences have made a significant impression on feminist scholars who increasingly find themselves grappling with issues involving life and matter (for instance in debates about the body, the sex/ gender binary and sexual difference). . . . The reluctance on the part of feminist theory to engage with material processes of development has meant that, while feminism has cast light on social and cultural meanings of concepts such as sex, gender and sexual Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 402 Feminism & Psychology 20(3) difference, there seems to be a hesitation to delve into the actual physical processes through which stasis, differentiation, and change take place. (Hird, 2006: 37) Interestingly this development has stimulated debate over whether feminism may be seen as ‘biophobic’ in its past treatment or exclusion of the biological, or whether the new materialists have over-emphasized this point (Ahmed, 2008; Davis, 2009). Although not mentioned in this debate, this clearly also speaks to my interest here in the relationship between feminism and ecofeminism. The new materialists labour to theorize materiality in novel ways and are confident that this does not have to run the risk of reinscribing previous feminist fears over essentialism. This is in fact the same point that certain strands of ecofeminist thought have been trying to make. Whilst Ahmed (2008) criticizes the new materialists for inadequately acknowledging feminist work on the biological, neither she nor most of the new materialists acknowledge ecofeminist scholarship.16 Nevertheless the emergence of feminist new materialism ought to usher in a renewed conversation between feminism and ecofeminism due to shared interests. Notwithstanding such potential commonalities, much recent feminist work specifically on the concept of intersectionality (McCall, 2005; Nash, 2008; Valentine, 2007; Walby, 2007) makes no references to ecofeminist theory, or ‘nature’, or the question of the animal. This is not to say that these works lack sophistication, but that they do seem to both exclude the nonhuman from the political, and operate an understanding of the ‘social’ as equated with the human. This is a further surprise given the relative ‘greening’ of social theory during the past 20 years, associated with an undermining of culture/nature dualism in everything from environmental sociology to human and feminist geography, political ecology and actor-network theory. In thinking through these issues here in brief, there is hopefully some vigour to the argument that feminist work on intersectionality and feminism generally should broaden out to research and theorize our political relations to the more-thanhuman. It would be a shame if disgust were to get in the way of conversation. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments. The support of the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. The work was part of the programme of the ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics (Cesagen). Notes 1. Also, of course, to think situatedly, my ‘male appearance’ may have worsened the reaction. 2. Clearly discourses of animalization are also bound up in the construction of masculinities and are far from always negative or elicitors of disgust. 3. I do not want to suggest that ecofeminist work has never strayed into the territory of espousing simplistic generalizations about ‘woman’ and relations with the more-thanhuman. Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 403 Twine 4. One of my anonymous reviewers wanted to be sure that this emotion had been ‘disgust’, asking whether it might not in fact be disdain or indignation (i.e. ‘this idea is beneath feminism’), or fear (i.e. ‘what’s going to happen to feminism with this kind of theory?’). I think it was disgust because of the bodily and facial reaction of the colleague. However I do accept it is hard if not impossible to empirically ‘prove’ and ‘categorize’ emotional relationality, and I am very alert to the simplicity of regarding the body as readable (see Twine, 2002). 5. Others have questioned whether disgust can really be thought of as an emotion (see Royzman and Sabini, 2001). 6. Importantly, this is not to suggest that the analogy cannot be critiqued on other grounds. There is always going to be historical specificity and other objections (e.g. see the work of Jewish feminist animal rights advocate, Kalechofsky, 2003). Moreover it would be a gross simplification to state that animalization was the only means by which 1930s Nazi anti-semitism was achieved. For a cogent discussion on the analogy in relation to Derrida’s work, see Calarco (2008: 111–114). 7. For a more extensive bibliography on ecofeminist work, see my http://www.ecofem.org/ biblio/ 8. Adams has pointed out that both she and Donovan see the issue of the status of animals as arising from the radical feminist agenda of the 1970s. Adams intended The Sexual Politics of Meat to be a contribution to feminist theory, but that following its publication it was labeled ecofeminist (Adams: personal communication). This could be one (albeit disappointing) explanation for the lack of feminist engagement with this text during the last 20 years. 9. This quote can be found on the reverse cover of (as recommending blurb to the book) Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory and Political Action (Sturgeon, 1997). 10. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the two people – Donna Haraway and Lynda Birke – whose work probably most provides a bridge between ecofeminist work on animals and feminist theory were originally trained as biologists. 11. It should be noted that Haraway has certainly identified herself at times as ecofeminist, both in print and in lectures I have attended. However to my knowledge When Species Meet (2008) is the first time she has cited, albeit in a very limited sense, the work of ecofeminist writers such as Val Plumwood or Carol J. Adams. At the end of her book Haraway mounts a partial defence of hunting practices and fails to engage with relevant oppositional ecofeminist arguments (e.g. Kheel, 2003; Gaard, 2001; Luke, 2007). 12. For a brief vegan feminist critique of Haraway, see Adams (2006). 13. Ecofeminists have long been critically attuned to the presence of sexism in the environmental and animal rights movement. For example, see McGuire and McGuire (1994). 14. Perhaps this is even more the case in the context of connections between gender, animals and violence. Eating meat, violence against animals and recoiling from empathy toward other animals have all been called upon as props for hegemonic masculinities in Western cultures. Moreover sociological and psychological research has uncovered the now well known link between domestic violence by men against women, animals and children (Ascione et al., 2007). 15. For a useful discussion on the intersection of posthumanism and the new feminist materialism, see Rossini (2006). Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 404 Feminism & Psychology 20(3) 16. I say ‘most’ because Rosi Braidotti (e.g. 2006) is a major exception here. Moreover Hird (2006) does acknowledge some ecofeminist work on animals. References Adams CJ (1990) The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum. Adams CJ (1994) Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New York: Continuum. Adams CJ (1995) Comment on George’s ‘Should feminists be vegetarians?’ Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(1): 221–225. Adams CJ (2006) An animal manifesto: Gender, identity, and vegan-feminism in the twenty first century. Parallax 12(1): 120–128. Adams CJ, Donovan J (eds) (1995) Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ahmed S (2008) Open forum imaginary prohibitions: Some preliminary remarks on the founding gestures of the ‘new materialism’. European Journal of Women’s Studies 15(1): 23–39. Ascione FR, Weber CV, Thompson TM, Heath J, Maruyama M and Hayashi K (2007) Battered pets and domestic violence animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women 13(4): 354–373. Bailey C (2007) We are what we eat: Feminist vegetarianism and the reproduction of racial identity. Hypatia 22(1): 39–59. Barad K (2003) ‘Posthumanist performativity’: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28(3): 801–831. Birke L (1991) Science, feminism and animal natures 1: Extending the boundaries. Women’s Studies International Forum 14(5): 443–449. Birke L (1994) Feminism, Animals and Science: The Naming of the Shrew. Buckingham: Open University Press. Birke L, Bryl M and Lykke N (2004) Animal performances: An exploration of intersections between feminist science studies and studies of human/animal relationships. Feminist Theory 5(2): 167–183. Braidotti R (2006) Transpositions: On Nomadic Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Calarco M (2008) Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York: University of Columbia Press. Crenshaw K (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299. Cudworth E (2008) ‘Most farmers prefer blondes’: The dynamics of anthroparchy in animals’ becoming meat. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 6(1): 32–45. Davidson J and Smith M (2003) Bio-phobias/techno-philias: Virtual reality exposure as treatment for phobias of ‘nature’. Sociology of Health and Illness 25(6): 644–661. Davis K (2005) The Holocaust and the Henmaid’s Tale: A Case for Comparing Atrocities. New York: Lantern Books. Davis N (2009) New materialism and feminism’s anti-biologism: A response to Sara Ahmed. European Journal of Women’s Studies 16(1): 67–80. Derrida J (2008) The Animal That Therefore I Am. New York: Fordham University Press. Donovan J (1990) Animal rights and feminist theory. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 15(2): 350–375. Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 405 Twine Donovan J (1995) Comment on George’s ‘Should feminists be vegetarians?’ Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(1): 226–229. Donovan J (2006) Feminism and the treatment of animals: From care to dialogue. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 31(2): 305–329. Donovan J, Adams CJ (eds) (1996) Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the Treatment of Animals. New York: Continuum. Donovan J, Adams CJ (eds) (2007) The Feminist Care Tradition in Animal Ethics: A Reader. New York: Colombia University Press. Filemyr N (1997) Unmasking the population bomber: Analyzing domination at the intersection of gender, race, class, and ecology. NWSA Journal 9(3): 138–155. Gaard G (1997) Toward a queer ecofeminism. Hypatia 12(1): 114–137. Gaard G (2001) Tools for a cross-cultural feminist ethics: Ethical contexts and contents in the makah whale hunt. Hypatia 16(1): 1–26. Gaard G and Gruen L (1995) Comment on George’s ‘Should feminists be vegetarians?’ Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(1): 230–241. George KP (1994) Should feminists be vegetarians? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 19(2): 405–434. George KP (1995) Reply to Adams, Donovan, and Gaard and Gruen. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 21(1): 242–260. George KP (2000) Animal, Vegetable, or Woman? A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Haraway D (1989) Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science. London: Routledge. Haraway D (2003) The Companion Species Manifesto: Dogs, People, and Significant Otherness. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press. Haraway D (2008) When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hird M (2006) Animal transex. Australian Feminist Studies 21(49): 35–50. Kalechofsky R (2003) Animal Suffering and the Holocaust: The Problem with Comparisons. New York: Micah Publications. Kheel M (2003) The killing game: An ecofeminist critique of hunting. In: Armstrong SJ, Botzler RG (eds) The Animal Ethics Reader. London: Routledge, 390–400. Lee WL and Dow LM (2001) Queering ecological feminism: Erotophobia, commodification, art, and lesbian identity. Ethics & the Environment 6(2): 1–21. Lucas S (2005) A defense of the feminist-vegetarian connection. Hypatia 20(1): 150–177. Luke B (2007) Brutal: Manhood and the Exploitation of Animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McCall L (2005) The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30(3): 1771–1800. McGuire C and McGuire C (1994) PETA and a pornographic culture I: A feminist analysis of ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’. Feminists for Animal Rights Newsletter 8: 3–4. Nash JC (2008) Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review 89(1): 1–15. Patterson C (2002) Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. New York: Lantern Books. Plumwood V (1992) Feminism and ecofeminism: Beyond the dualistic assumptions of women, men and nature. The Ecologist 22(1): 8–13. Plumwood V (1993) Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge. Plumwood V (1997) Babe: The tale of the speaking meat. Animal Issues 1(1–2): 21–36. Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011 406 Feminism & Psychology 20(3) Plumwood V (2000) Integrating ethical frameworks for animals, humans, and nature: A critical feminist eco-socialist analysis. Ethics and the Environment 5(2): 285–322. Rossini M (2006) To the dogs: Companion speciesism and the new feminist materialism. Kritikos 3. Available at: http://intertheory.org/rossini. Royzman BE and Sabini J (2001) Something it takes to be an emotion: The interesting case of disgust. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 31(1): 29–59. Rozin P, Haid J, McCauley CR (2000) Disgust. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM (eds) Handbook of Emotions, 2nd edn. London: The Guilford Press, 637–654. Sandlilands C (2001) Desiring nature, queering ethics: Adventures in erotogenic environments. Environmental Ethics 23(2): 169–188. Smith M and Davidson J (2006) ‘It makes my skin crawl’: The embodiment of disgust in phobias of ‘nature’. Body and Society 12(1): 43–67. Sturgeon N (1997) Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory and Political Action. London: Routledge. Twine R (2001) Ma(r)king essence: Ecofeminism and embodiment. Ethics and the Environment 6(2): 31–58. Twine R (2002) Physiognomy, phrenology and the temporality of the body. Body and Society 8(1): 67–88. Tyler I (2008) Chav mum chav scum. Feminist Media Studies 8(1): 17–34. Valentine G (2007) Theorizing and researching intersectionality: A Challenge for feminist geography. The Professional Geographer 59(1): 10–21. Walby S (2007) Complexity theory, systems theory, and multiple intersecting social inequalities. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 37(4): 449–470. West C and Fenstermaker S (1995) Doing difference. Gender and Society 9(1): 8–37. Richard Twine is Senior Research Associate at Lancaster University, UK. His research currently focuses upon critical understandings of human/animal relations in the context of the molecular turn in animal agricultural science. Richard’s research interests include animal studies, biotechnology, posthumanism and ecofeminism. His first book, Animals as Biotechnology – Ethics, Sustainability and Critical Animal Studies was published by Earthscan in 2010. Downloaded from fap.sagepub.com at Lancaster University Library on July 19, 2011