URL originale : https://books.openedition.org/irdeditions/47393

Chapter 13. Time and the elephant
Temporality as attunement with more-than-human others
p. 263-278
Texte intégral
If nature is common, why should memory differ?
Diane Owen Hughes, Time: Histories and Ethnologies
Introduction
1Time is a politically malleable device, and multi-temporality can be introduced to uncover new ways of reanimating epistemologically confined subjects (Fabian, 1983; Fitz-Henry, 2017). However, applications of critical multi-temporality in the environmental humanities remain focused on long-term environmental hazards such as climate change (Adam, 1998; Nixon, 2011) and landscape ecology (Manning et al, 2009). In canonical texts focusing on human and (typically domesticated) other-than-human relationships (Haraway, 2008), temporality is considered only partially, with very little animal ontology explored outside “the embrace of the human” (Tsing, 2019: 223). The interest in time and animals has sustained the attention of researchers in recent decades, but the subject remains diffracted across many disciplines with different priorities and epistemic predicates. A dedicated study of multi-temporality and nonhuman animals remains unexplored, though its potential has been acknowledged (Rose et al, 2017).
2Consequently, how may we think of reanimating animal ontology with multi-temporality? The question is presently being explored in my doctoral research, focusing on Asian elephants, with hopes of offering generative implications for other species, or at least large mammals of similar cognitive capacity and equally long histories of coexistence with human populations. My research aims to unpack the ways in which meanings of the elephant are delineated across different knowledge practices (such as history, comparative research, and other intersections in the environmental humanities) and how these evolving meanings, consciously or unconsciously, impact and inform notions of difference, comparison and of agency in animal studies in general. A full elucidation is impossible here; the objective of this chapter is to share some of the possible theoretical advantages of pursuing this line of analysis for elephants and animal agency more broadly.
3Thinking of animal ontologies multi-temporally takes inspiration from sociologist Dana Luciano’s concept of “chronobiopolitics”, which examines the temporal within Foucauldian biopolitics—exploring where meanings ascribed to “life” or “the body” are manufactured through a number of temporalities, diffused across cultural narratives but ultimately suppressed by “overly linear historical frameworks” (Luciano, 2007: 12). This research follows after animal geographies’ “third wave”, which departs from academic turns in the discipline that historically ordered humans as superior and different from other animals. Instead, it accepts that animals also possess subjectivity, histories, and networks (Gillespie & Collard, 2015). Tracing elephants’ chronobiopolitics can thus begin through three identified, though by no means exhaustive, components: i) The elephant’s eco-cultural identity, the ecological equivalent of sociocultural identity (Milstein & Castro-Sotomayor, 2020) ii) elephants’ individual experiences (individual here referring to specific single elephants, or the unique situational circumstances of a specific elephant community) and iii) human-imposed time and how this impacts upon elephant agency. This triad views animal subjectivity, temporality, and materiality as inextricable. Delineating meaning through these chief flows of knowledge offers a mediation between the material and the theoretical—theory must contend with the data of the real world, allowing for archival and observable research found in the traces and changes affected or impacted by the animal subject.
4Gathering multiple temporal dynamics together, “elephant time” thus collects temporal forces that occupy, govern and are governed by elephant individuals, elephant communities, their collective lifeways and the fluid histories that course through their relationships with other-than-elephants. Gathering existing knowledge from diverse fields studying the elephant, a multi-temporal rubric of thinking about elephants, or thinking through “elephant time”, ultimately offers a new language in which to expand the interpretive possibilities of elephant agency. Recognising elephants as multi-chronometric beings and tracing their multi-temporal relationships with their personal history and landscape are, in themselves, practices of attunement as they compel us to think of elephant action and encounter as richly relational, released from a time-locked approach and the vacuum of a single discipline’s perspective (Carter & Charles, 2013).
Conceptual foundations for animal temporality
5Before addressing elephant time specifically, it is worth establishing a few theoretical foundations to how temporality—the experience of time—may be afforded to nonhumans in general. There is significant literature dedicated to how linear time reduces the dynamism of nature’s ontologies (Boschman & Trono, 2019). This linearity is rooted in two thinkers and impacts animal agency in two different ways. The first is the Cartesian legacy that maintains a false divide between mechanistic nature and a (human) mind that possesses free will (Plumwood, 2001). The second is the Newtonian belief in absolute time, that is, time that operates separately from human experience. Both have limited our reading of animal agency by instilling the following biases. Firstly, the mechanisation of nature led to the subsequent mechanisation of all beings linked to nature (Bastian, 2009), including animals (Lestel, 2014). Secondly, Newton’s disembodied time eliminates the possibility of imagining an animal participating in the world with its own performative expression of temporality (Rose, 2012). Once regarded as machines, animals were dismissed for having none of the interiority required to participate in temporal experiences; temporality was a transcendent experience reserved for man alone (Buchanan, 2007). Both notions solidified the process where “anthropological time progressively takes the place of ethological time” (Despret, 2015: 45).
6Today, however, temporality as an exclusively interior concern is proving unfruitful. Even studies of human subjective time have begun to do away with the idea that embedded and extrinsic times are mutually exclusive. There is the dawning realisation that temporality cannot be understood without the “exterior scaffold” of the material world. New innovations in the field see the “future of time” as moving toward an understanding of “ecologically situated timing” (Valtteri & Lloyd, 2014: 661). For nonhuman animals, as it will be elaborated, this “ecological situatedness” functions beyond metaphor. There is a growing trend within the multidisciplinary fields studying animal minds to regard animal subjectivity manifesting as “minded bodies, inseparable from mental properties and social encounters” (Smith & Mitchell, 2012: 4).
7Factoring temporality as “embedded” opens up many conceptual opportunities unthinkable under mechanistic time. It served as the rubric for Deborah Bird Rose to extend the notion of multispecies relationships as “knots of ethical time” (Rose, 2012: 127). Embracing temporal complexity, Rose appeals to the idea of an ontology founded on ethics rather than metaphysics by pointing out the temporalities embedded in the co-evolved relationships between foxes and myrtaceous flora. Rose points out the rich sediments and webs of genealogical time that orchestrated these resulting relationships and brings to light the interpretive possibilities of noticing embedded time, “where every creature has a multi-species history” and “each (nonhuman) individual is both itself in the present, and the history of its forebears and mutualists” (Rose, 2012: 136). We can see “histories and futures” (Rose, 2012: 136) only by seeing animals as embedded in time. The animal reveals its webs of time in how it performs life.
8This illustrates how perceptions of temporality and agency are intertwined. Animals, when reanimated with a more generous idea of their agency, refute anthropocentric temporal claims and demand a more complex sense of temporality. Conversely, Rose’s adoption of complex temporality illuminates how we are better able to read animals and their dynamics. It is useful here to think of Carol Greenhouse’s argument that conceptions of time ultimately represent how we conceive of agency (Bastian, 2009). Greenhouse defines agency as “the broad and highly varied meanings people attach to questions of possibility, causation, and relevance around the world” (Greenhouse, 1996: 83). Many cultures have their own notion of temporality and agency for actors, but tempor-ality can oppress when a Cartesian and Newtonian idea minimises the epistemic space of its “other” actors. It is the dominant conceptions of agency that provide the conceptual means to see agency (Bastian, 2009; Plumwood, 2001).
An elephant temporality
9In Vicki Hearne’s book Adam’s Task (Hearne, 2007), the philosopher and animal trainer reflects on the metaphysical dimensions of animal training. She dedicates a chapter to “horse time” and examines how trainers prepare horses for major competitions when the significance of these events is lost on the horse. After all, she muses:
“…There are differences between the horse’s concept of time and ours... They have their own grammar of time. They can’t say anything that requires past, present or future tense, but that doesn’t mean without us they live in eternity, in the present tense only. Their concept of time might be expressed by saying that the names of their tenses are ‘not yet, here and gone’. You can’t make appointments with such tenses, but you can remember, and you can anticipate the future with no little anxiety” (Hearne, 2007: 163-165).
10Hearne argues that each species carries its own sense of temporality. It is not that animals have no sense of time but that we, as human observers, blind ourselves from recognising it when we “impose our own stories and our deathly arithmetic on their coherent landscapes” (Hearne, 2007: 165). Animals fashion their own “grammar of time” from their specific world-making and meaning-making structures in the landscape. Animals’ temporalities are revealed when we see animals not only crafted in their landscape but also in how we ourselves conceal or oppress their dynamics.
11What, then, serves as the grammar of elephant time? As mentioned, early theoretical sketches can identify three chief areas that may offer a starting point. As research progresses, rubrics may change according to elephant geopolitical contexts and histories. There are likely many dynamics to temporality that can be unpacked, with each principle containing its own knots of time that also overlap one another—but the mentioned three areas usefully provide an initial sketch of what can fundamentally shape and govern the elephant’s experience of time. The purpose of determining the areas of an “elephant grammar of time” is to map ways in which to identify elephant agency moving through its temporalities, perhaps especially useful for the situational analysis of researchers in ethnographic study. It serves as a method to cohere the elephant’s complex temporal landscape.
Elephant eco-cultural identity
12This analytic regards elephants as aforementioned “minded bodies”, performing in “embedded time”, incorporating Hearne’s sense of a “coherent landscape” literally and metaphorically. The landscape is where we are able to delineate the elephant’s subjectivity through time, examining the numerous components that shape its “eco-cultural identity”: the ecological translation of sociocultural identity, in this case, for animals (Milstein & Castro-Sotomayor, 2020). Borrowing from Felix Guattari’s idea that the mind or the psyche is an ecological system, so are landscapes (Guattari, 2005). As Oriel and Frohoff argue, “landscape designs correspond to, and reflect subjective positions and perceptions (for elephants)” (Oriel & Frohoff, 2020: 131). This is not a major conceptual leap when we recall that the larger majority of studies on elephant personhood and social complexity are grounded on longitudinal field observations (Moss, 1988; Poole, 1996; and Poole & Moss, 2008, among key texts) compared to the relatively smaller number of controlled studies (Plotnik, 2010).
13Beyond the study of elephant cognition, there remains no formal historical study of elephant “domestication” or artificial selection despite their long history with humans (Lair, 1997). Elephants are instead known through local oral traditions, based on time and experience with elephants. Even in these circumstances, however, elephant care can be influenced by both human and elephant knowledge in equal measure (Greene et al., 2020, Lainé, this volume). Formal and informal experts have always known elephants through their intimate dialogue with the landscape, a dialogue that shares the common language of time.
14Eco-cultural identity examines many dynamics that come to shape the political sphere of the elephant; historical, geographical and social, all of which rely on the elephant’s tradition of knowledge inheritance over generations (McComb et al., 2001). As individuals, elephants are raised and taught ecological knowledge by their allomothers, learning from them for all their lives (Eisenberg, 1981). Even males, upon emigrating from their natal families, remain tolerant of younger males’ presences, allowing for the proximity necessary for learning (Poole, 1996; Slotow et al., 2000). Elephant families are sensitive to the historical deaths of influential family members, and their survival is reliant on the stored knowledge of their matriarchs (Lee & Moss, 2012).
15At the same time, their remarkable memories author landscapes. Elephants move through a web of different temporalities, as they are sensitive to seasonal changes, migrating according to the food sources that change with the seasons. The strategies of a matriarch will determine where elephants will build pathways, break forest canopy and dig wells for the flourishing of plant life and other animals, including human communities (Fishlock et al., 2015; Haynes, 2012; Western, 1989). In this way, elephants serve as clocks themselves, their absences and presences marking the beginnings and endings for many other lives.
Human-impacted time
16Having a sense of how landscapes cohere for elephants allows us to trace how elephant agency is suppressed under human temporal appar-atuses. Anthropogenic deforestation destroying elephant cultures serves as one example (Oriel & Frohoff, 2020). However, there is also the hidden, trans-species dynamic to elephant history. Innovative studies in trans-species history are beginning to show how multi-species collaborations and “agreements” can occur between humans and other intelligent mammals such as whales (Demuth, 2019) and dolphins (Oriel & Frohoff, 2017) but also how these may be “forgotten” following modernisation, accounting for the anger and violence demonstrated by elephants (with their intergenerational memories) in present-day human-elephant conflict (Münster, 2016; Naveh & Bird-David, 2014).
17At a psychological, individual level, we may also begin to consider elephant generational knowledge as information temporally deferred or interrupted for animals under captivity while their trauma operates as presences of the past. Conforming very similarly to the diagnosis of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in humans, elephant rehabilitation already involves consciously thinking about elephant histories (Bradshaw, 2009). Traumas, especially in abused elephants, can be traced back to “the little exposure to normative elephant society”, and stereotypic behaviour can be triggered by the hauntings of old memories in the present (Buckley & Bradshaw, 2010: 48).
18Human-impacted time also exposes how work elephants negotiate and resist human time. Lehnhardt and Galloway trace a pattern by observing how elephants in Sri Lanka, given no free time for foraging, frequently killed their managers (Lehnardt & Galloway, 2008). This is “almost unknown” (Lehnardt & Galloway, 2008: 174) in Myanmar, where elephants are free to roam and mate in the forest at night. The same study further noted how no similar attacks could be recollected in Karnataka (India), where elephants work only three days a week.
19Human-imposed time upon animals further challenges the lines of difference we presume lie outside capitalism. The elephants’ resistance to human-imposed time is a form of temporal oppression that has parallels to human history with labour. The sociologist Evitar Zerubavel has explored at length the retemporalization inflicted upon human bodies when the introduction of waged labour dulled attunements to the seasonal rhythms of agricultural labour (Zerubavel, 1985). These are the “hidden rhythms, forms of temporal oppression, that only appear natural to those it privileges” (Freeman, 2010: 3).
Individual elephant histories
20To trace animals’ temporalities, we must think of the animal body as “a site of historiographical and temporal interventions” (Luciano, 2007: 18). It is within the elephant individual that these temporalities intersect and go on to generate further bifurcations in encounters. In the case of elephants, analysis must do justice to the temporal complexity their remarkable personhood wields, one so sophisticated that it is able to provoke scientists to consider the possibility that elephants are “capable of imaging their own deaths” (Moss & Poole, 2008: 92). This plausibility is not only evident in field study but in the encouraging results from controlled studies on autonoetic consciousness (self-knowledge). Elephants have demonstrated an ability to recall the past, experience the present and imagine their futures (Varner, 2008), if existing studies of their complex intergenerational culture were not sufficient evidence.
21Given the staggering diversity of how elephants respond to human influence (Plotnik & de Waal, 2014), we must assume a level of individuation to each temporal dynamic, even the individuation of elephant families, based on their past experiences. This approach helps create further distinction between an individual animal, its heterogeneous responses and the behaviours of the rest of its species, which is a key concern within cognitive ethology (Bekoff, 1995) as well as multispecies studies (Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010).
22Most importantly, analysis needs to consider the dynamics of where eco-cultural identity, human imposition and lived memory intersect. What lies outside and within the influence of the human apparatus is made clearer. Although each individual’s history and personality are never alike, each holds a microcosm of the complicated dynamics of the multi-temporal elephant world and presents a window to the journey it took into the present. With every individual body encountered, it is useful to think of philosopher Michel Serres’ idea of the self as an “intelligent invariant” (Herzogenrath, 2011: 158), where all temporal dynamics run like eddies in a stable riverbed. The elephant individual must be read as a steady, ancient river and any analysis a brief plunge.
Reading agency through elephant time
23Finally, tracing elephant time requires a method of attentiveness (Despret, 2013) that is able to recognise temporal dynamics, especially temporal dynamics linked to power structures, that may not be immediately observable or tangible in the field, and more pronounced in time-rich studies such as in the histories of science. The practice of unpacking elephant chronobiopolitics is the work of piecing together the “elephant time” studied, analysing hidden spaces or demonstrations of agency as the guiding method.
24It has been discussed earlier that it is the conception of agency that allows us to see agency. The theory of agency developed follows the work of the sociologist Margaret Archer. Archer (2000) offers a relational conception of agency in contrast to performative ideas of agency where the animal is its actions (Barad, 2003; Geiger & Hovorka, 2015). In Archer’s view, agency is “employed in the plural” and largely social (Archer, 2000; Carter & Charles, 2013). Archer differentiates between the actor and agency. The actor is not reducible to agency because what determines agency is often based on many relationships surrounding the actor, involving, typically, historically contingent, often involuntary relationships. The common example given is that a woman from the Global North may have greater structural advantages towards autonomy than a woman from the Global South. For an example within the context of animal agency, we may see the contrast between an elephant in a zoo versus an elephant that knows its life in the wild.
25Archer’s idea of agency is useful as it has formative parallels with both “elephant time” and eco-cultural identity. It is a theory of agency that is sensitive to context and, because of this, is therefore richly temporal, allowing that history does sediment into the present—and that agency is not fixed but is a kind of potential—always pregnant with possibilities in the future. A relational theory of agency accommodates analysis in chronobiopolitics.
26Studying elephants often requires multi-disciplinary perspectives (Vortkamp, 2006). Archer offers a method by compelling the researcher to seek elephant agency framed with its relations, including historical relations, to other agents (be it another elephant or a large-scale anthropogenic effect). For captive animals, the difference between ability and constraint can be discerned. For wild animals, their landscape of fear can be analysed from a shared and evolving history with humans shaping this landscape. An intricate study of the temporal linkages that shape elephant chronobiopolitics or elephant time refines and makes visible the elephant’s agency relational to its time-rich context.
Conclusion
27The epistemic benefits and consequences of these ideas to different disciplines, along with the expected tensions between different knowledge practices and how they may be synthesised, are not fully elaborated here. There is room to underline, however, that the chief opportunity of animal temporalities as a concept lies in its potential to flesh out a detailed map of the epistemic confinements enacted by linear time. It becomes a way of framing the animal’s relationship with the world that is emergent and multi-faceted, one understood with its own “others”. Complex animal time becomes an unexplored “contact zone” (Haraway, 2008); a dimension of how animals constitute themselves in their relationships that is not reliant on human relationships as the chief narrative device. The human paradigm is unavoidable, but temporality, as the universal currency of all agents, becomes the mediator instead, allowing for other-than-human perspectives.
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Cette bibliographie a été enrichie de toutes les références bibliographiques automatiquement générées par Bilbo en utilisant Crossref.
Adam B., 1998 – Timescapes of Modernity: Environment and Invisible Hazards. London, New York, Routledge, 256 p.
10.4324/9780203981382 :Archer M. S., 2000 - Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 261 p.
10.1017/CBO9780511488733 :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. https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
10.1086/345321 :Bastian M., 2009 – Inventing Nature: Re-writing Time and Agency in a More-Than-Human World. Australian Humanities Review: Ecological Humanities Corner, (47): 99-116. https://doi.org/10.22459/AHR.47.2009.10
10.22459/AHR.47.2009.10 :Bekoff M., 1995 – « Cognitive Ethology: The Comparative Study of Animal Minds ». In Bechtel W., Graham G. (eds.): Blackwell Companion to Cognitive Science, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers: 371-379.
Boschman R., Trono M. (eds.), 2019 – On Active Grounds: Agency and Time in The Environmental Humanities. Waterloo (Canada), Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 454 p.
Bradshaw G. A., 2009 – Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us about Humanity. New Haven, Yale University Press, 320 p.
10.12987/9780300154917 :Bradshaw G. A., Schore A. N., Brown J. L., Poole J. H., Moss C. J., 2005 – Elephant Breakdown. Nature, 433 (7028): 807. https://doi.org/10.1038/433807a
10.1038/433807a :Buchanan B., 2007 – The Time of the animal. PhaenEx, 2 (2): 61-80. https://doi.org/10.22329/p.v2i2.238
10.22329/p.v2i2.238 :Buckley C., Bradshaw G. A., 2010 – The Art of Cultural Brokerage: Recreating the Elephant-Human Relationship and Community. Spring Journal, 83: 35-59. http://www.kerulos.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Buckley_Bradshaw.pdf
Carter B., Charles N., 2013 – Animals, Agency and Resistance. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 43 (3): 322-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12019
10.1111/jtsb.12019 :Demuth B., 2019 – Floating Coast: An Environmental History of the Bering Strait. New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 416 p.
Despret V., 2013 – Responding Bodies and Partial Affinities in Human-Animal Worlds. Theory, Culture and Society, 30 (7/8): 51-76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413496852
10.1177/0263276413496852 :Despret V., 2015 – Models and Methods: A Sketch of a Field Study. Angelaki, 20 (2): 37-52.https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2015.1039841
10.1080/0969725X.2015.1039841 :Eisenberg J. F., 1981 – The Mammalian Radiations: An Analysis of Trends in Evolution, Adaptation and Behaviour. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 610 p.
Fabian J., 1983 – Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. New York, Columbia University Press.
10.7312/fabi16926 :Fishlock V., Caldwell C., Lee P. C., 2015 – Elephant Resource-Use Traditions. Animal Cognition, 19 (2): 429-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0921-x
10.1007/s10071-015-0921-x :Fitz-Henry E., 2017 – Multiple Temporalities and the Nonhuman Other. Environmental Humanities, 9 (1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3829109
10.1215/22011919-3829109 :Freeman E., 2010 – Time Binds: Queer Temporalities, Queer Histories. Durham and London, Duke University Press, 256 p. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822393184
10.1215/9780822393184 :Geiger M., Hovorka A. J., 2015 – Animal performativity: Exploring the Lives of Donkeys in Botswana. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33 (6): 1098-1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775815604922
10.1177/0263775815604922 :Gillespie K., Collard R. C. (eds.), 2015 – Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, Intersections, and Hierarchies in a Multispecies World. Abingdon and New York, Routledge, 234 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315762760
10.4324/9781315762760 :Greene A., Panyadee P., Inta A., Huffman M., 2020 – Asian elephant self-medication as a source of ethnoveterinary knowledge among Karen mahouts in northern Thailand. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 259: e112823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2020.112823
10.1016/j.jep.2020.112823 :Greenhouse C., 1996 – A Moment’s Notice: Time Politics Across Cultures. Ithaca/New York, Cornell University Press, 334 p.
Guattari F., 2005 – The Three Ecologies. London, Bloomsbury, 96 p.
10.5040/9781350354531 :Haraway D. J., 2008 – When Species Meet. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 440 p.
10.4324/9781003262619 :Haynes G., 2012 – Elephants (and Extinct Relatives) as Earth-Movers and Ecosystem Engineers. Geomorphology, 157-158: 99-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.045
10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.04.045 :Hearne V., 2007– Adam’s Task: Calling Animals by Name. New York, Skyhorse Publications, 268 p.
Herzogenrath B., 2011 – Time and History in Deleuze and Serres. New York, Continuum, 256 p.
Kirksey S. E., Helmreich S., 2010 – The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25 (4): 545-576. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x
10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x :Lair R. C., 1997 – Gone Astray: The Care and Management of the Asian Elephant in Domesticity. Bangkok, Thailand, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 300 p.
Lee P. C., Moss C. J., 2012 – Wild Female African Elephants (Loxodonta africana) Exhibit Personality Traits of Leadership and Social Integration. Journal of Comparative Psychology, Aug 126 (3): 224-232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026566
10.1037/a0026566 :Lehnardt J., Galloway M., 2008 – « Carrots and Sticks, People and Elephants: Rank, Domination and Training ». In Wemmer C. M., Christen C. A. (eds.): Elephants and Ethics. Towards a Mortality of Coexistence, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press: 167-185.
Lestel D., 2014 – Towards An Ethnography of Animal Worlds. Angelaki, 19 (3): 75-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2014.976051
10.1080/0969725X.2014.976051 :Luciano D., 2007 – Arranging Grief: Sacred Time and the Body in Nineteenth-Century America. New York, New York University Press, 345 p. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814753408.001.0001
10.18574/nyu/9780814753408.001.0001 :Manning A. D., Fischer J., Felton A., Newell B., Steffen W., Lindenmayer D. B., 2009 – Landscape Fluidity – a unifying perspective for understanding and adapting to global change. Journal of Biogeography, 36 (2): 193-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02026.x
10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02026.x :McComb K., Moss C., Durant S. M., Baker L., Sayialel S., 2001 – Matriarchs as Repositories of Social Knowledge in African Elephants. Science, 292 (5516): 491-494. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1057895
10.1126/science.1057895 :Milstein T., Castro-Sotomayor J. (eds.), 2020 – Routledge Handbook of Ecocultural Identity. New York, Routledge, 522 p.
Moss C., 1988 – Elephant Memories: Thirteen Years in The Life of an Elephant Family. London, Elm Tree Books.
10.7208/chicago/9780226148533.001.0001 :Moss C., Poole J., 2008 – « Elephant Sociality and Complexity ». In Wemmer C. M., Christen C. A. (eds.): Elephants and Ethics. Towards a Mortality of Coexistence, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press: 69-98.
Münster U., 2016 – Working for the Forest: The Ambivalent Intimacies of Human–Elephant Collaboration in South Indian Wildlife Conservation. Ethnos, 81 (3): 425-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141844.2014.969292
10.1080/00141844.2014.969292 :Naveh D., Bird-David N., 2014 – How Persons Become Things: Economic and Epistemological Changes Among Nayaka Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 20 (1): 74-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9655.12080
10.1111/1467-9655.12080 :Nixon R., 2011 – Slow Violence and The Environmentalism of The Poor. Cambridge (Massasuchet), Harvard University Press, 326 p.
10.2307/j.ctt2jbsgw :Oriel E., Frohoff T., 2017 – « Conversing with Dolphins: The Holy Grail of Interspecies ». In: Biocommunication: Sign-Mediated Interactions between Cells and Organisms, World Scientific: 575-597. https://doi.org/10.1142/9781786340450_0017
10.1142/9781786340450_0017 :Oriel E., Frohoff T., 2020 – « Interspecies Ecocultural Identities in Human-Elephant Cohabitation ». In Milstein T., Castro-Sotomayor J. (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Ecocultural Identity, Abingdon, Routledge: 131-144.
10.4324/9781351068840 :Plotnik J., 2010 – Consolation and Cooperation: A Proximate Analysis of Social Behavior in Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus). Doctoral Thesis, Emory University.
Plotnik J., de Waal F. B., 2014 – Extraordinary Elephant Perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(14): 5071–5072. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1403064111
10.1073/pnas.1403064111 :Poole J. H., 1996 – Coming of Age with Elephants. London, Hodder and Stoughton, 304 p.
Poole J. H., Moss C. J., 2008 – « Elephant Sociality and Complexity: The Scientific Evidence ». In Wemmer C. M., Christen C. A. (eds.): Elephants and Ethics. Towards a Mortality of Coexistence. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press: 69-101.
Plumwood V., 2001 – Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. London, Taylor & Francis Ltd., 300 p.
10.4324/9780203996430 :Ritvo H., 1989 – The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in Victorian England. Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press, 368 p.
Rose D. B., 2012 – Multispecies Knots of Ethical Time. Environmental Philosophy, 9 (1): 127-140. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil2012918
10.5840/envirophil2012918 :Rose D. B., van Dooren T., Chrulew M. (eds.), 2017 – Extinction Studies: Stories of Time, Death, and Generations. New York, Columbia University Press, 256 p.
Slotow R., van Dyk G., Poole J., Page B., Klocke A., 2000 – Older bull elephants control young males. Nature, 408: 425-426.
10.1038/35044191 :Smith J. A., Mitchell R. W. (eds.), 2012 – Experiencing Animal Minds: An Anthology of Animal-Human Encounters. New York, Columbia University Press, 400 p.
Tsing A., 2019 – Things We Study Respond To Each Other: Tools for Unpacking ‘the Material’. In Harvey P., Krohn-Hansen C., Nustad K. G. (eds.): Anthropos and the Material, Durham, Duke University Press: 221-243.
10.2307/j.ctv11318js :Valtteri A., Lloyd D. (eds.), 2014 – Subjective Time: The Philosophy, Psychology, and Neuroscience of Temporality. Boston, MIT Press, 688 p.
Varner G., 2008 – « Personhood, Memory and Elephant Management ». In Wemmer C., Christen C. A. (eds.): Elephants and Ethics. Towards a Mortality of Coexistence, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press: 41-69.
Vortkamp J., 2006 – For the love of elephants: mahoutship and elephant conservation in Thailand. Master dissertation thesis, Detroit, Wayne State University, 181 p.
Western D., 1989 – The Ecological Role of Elephants in Africa. Pachyderm, 12: 43-46.
Zerubavel E., 1985 – Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life. Berkeley, University of California Press, 224 p.

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Composing Worlds with Elephants
Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks
Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org
Référence numérique du chapitre
Format
Référence numérique du livre
Format
1 / 3