{"title":"作为道德认证机制的动物福利促进:来自19世纪瑞士的微观历史证据","authors":"Geoffroy Legentilhomme","doi":"10.1163/15685306-bja10022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nHow do nonhuman animal welfare campaigns influence the institutional use of nonhuman animals? This article narrates an episode of nineteenth century history of Geneva, pertaining to the use of nonhuman animals in science, to argue that welfare advocacy is a risky, and indeed sometimes counterproductive, endeavor. In the late nineteenth century, the mainstream Genevan animal welfare group (SGPA) refused to condemn vivisection, and decided to side with Moritz Schiff, a controversial physiologist, provided that he later accepted respecting certain welfare standards in his experiments. The SGPA defended Schiff against the charges of the Genevan abolitionists, and thus provided a metaphorical certificate of “humane treatment” to the vivisector. Behind this moral shield, the laboratory could expand its practices, undisturbed by the need to legitimize them. This episode illustrates the phenomenon of “capture” of the welfarist group by the institutions from which animals are supposed to be protected in the first place.","PeriodicalId":22000,"journal":{"name":"Society & Animals","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Animal Welfare Promotion as a Mechanism of Moral Certification: Microhistorical Evidence From 19th Century Switzerland\",\"authors\":\"Geoffroy Legentilhomme\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15685306-bja10022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nHow do nonhuman animal welfare campaigns influence the institutional use of nonhuman animals? This article narrates an episode of nineteenth century history of Geneva, pertaining to the use of nonhuman animals in science, to argue that welfare advocacy is a risky, and indeed sometimes counterproductive, endeavor. In the late nineteenth century, the mainstream Genevan animal welfare group (SGPA) refused to condemn vivisection, and decided to side with Moritz Schiff, a controversial physiologist, provided that he later accepted respecting certain welfare standards in his experiments. The SGPA defended Schiff against the charges of the Genevan abolitionists, and thus provided a metaphorical certificate of “humane treatment” to the vivisector. Behind this moral shield, the laboratory could expand its practices, undisturbed by the need to legitimize them. This episode illustrates the phenomenon of “capture” of the welfarist group by the institutions from which animals are supposed to be protected in the first place.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Society & Animals\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Society & Animals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10022\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Society & Animals","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-bja10022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Animal Welfare Promotion as a Mechanism of Moral Certification: Microhistorical Evidence From 19th Century Switzerland
How do nonhuman animal welfare campaigns influence the institutional use of nonhuman animals? This article narrates an episode of nineteenth century history of Geneva, pertaining to the use of nonhuman animals in science, to argue that welfare advocacy is a risky, and indeed sometimes counterproductive, endeavor. In the late nineteenth century, the mainstream Genevan animal welfare group (SGPA) refused to condemn vivisection, and decided to side with Moritz Schiff, a controversial physiologist, provided that he later accepted respecting certain welfare standards in his experiments. The SGPA defended Schiff against the charges of the Genevan abolitionists, and thus provided a metaphorical certificate of “humane treatment” to the vivisector. Behind this moral shield, the laboratory could expand its practices, undisturbed by the need to legitimize them. This episode illustrates the phenomenon of “capture” of the welfarist group by the institutions from which animals are supposed to be protected in the first place.
期刊介绍:
Society & Animals publishes studies that describe and analyze our experiences of non-human animals from the perspective of various disciplines within both the Social Sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science) and the Humanities (e.g., history, literary criticism).
The journal specifically deals with subjects such as human-animal interactions in various settings (animal cruelty, the therapeutic uses of animals), the applied uses of animals (research, education, medicine and agriculture), the use of animals in popular culture (e.g. dog-fighting, circus, animal companion, animal research), attitudes toward animals as affected by different socializing agencies and strategies, representations of animals in literature, the history of the domestication of animals, the politics of animal welfare, and the constitution of the animal rights movement.