La escritura de sí mismo. Hypomnémata

Chapter Three explains the theoretical influences that have guided my research. First I discuss spatial theory and then second, animal geography. Here, I provide details on the significance of these theoretical frameworks as theories and on their relevance to my project. I also outline different concepts and ideas I have borrowed from the theories for my thesis. Lastly, I highlight the strengths and limitations of each theory in order to explain why two different theories were required in order to examine the violent love phenomenon.

Discussion

Research was guided by two theoretical perspectives that aimed to demonstrate the complexity and contradictory relationships that are assigned to non-human animals, Indigenous people and nature according to the spatial context. My project incorporated a geographical and White settler lens that both address concerns of space and the importance this has on identity attachment to landscapes, attitudes towards wildlife and Indigenous people, as well as the justified oppression of marginalized groups (species and humans alike) in order for the dominant group to exercise their privileges. An intersectional analysis that analyzed different spaces and groups required an interdisciplinary approach that theorized multiple dimensions of a macro sociological phenomenon exploring contradictions of the Canadian wilderness identity.

The transformation of relationships with wolves and with Indigenous people requires investigation. They have historically been and continue to be treated with immense hatred in some spaces, in addition to similarly experiencing state sanctioned programs that aim to regulate and control these populations through direct extermination for wolves’ and assimilation polices for Indigenous people (Coleman 2004, Emel 1998, Jones 2002, Spence 1999). Moreover, the intentions were for both Indigenous and wolf populations to be eliminated (Emel 1998, Lopez

whereby many people express negative perceptions of them that justifies their containment and in some cases direct violence for the case of wolves, or intense state surveillance resulting in the over-incarceration of Indigenous people despite their low population rate within Canada in comparison to the White population (Loo 2006, Lopez 1978, Smandycn, Lincoln and Wilson 1993). Moreover, analyzing the ambivalence and conflation of wildlife and Indigenous people requires a dialectical approach that rejects dualisms.

Spatial Theory

Spatial theory is a theoretical framework I utilized in order to understand the sociology of

space, the meanings embodied in places and spaces, as well as the identities that are created and affirmed across space. Razack (2002) argues that a spatial analysis can aid in revealing the

“operation of all the systems” of domination “as they mutually constitute each other” (6).

Theories on space view oppression as interlocking, whereby all spaces are situated within a context that is highly racialized, classed, and gendered. Moreover, no space is natural and this analytical view of the social world allows sociologists to understand how humans and spaces interact, as well as what meanings are attached to spaces.

Razack argues space is organized to sustain and manufacture unequal social relations and my research reveals that these inequalities are continually reinforced through the normalization of who belongs in specific spaces. Moreover, the study of space is a sociological and geographical inquiry that was useful for my investigation of spatial attitudes and representations of ‘love’ or

‘hatred’. Razack’s (2002) conception of space involves ‘unmapping’ the spatial significance of racialized violence in Canada in the context of a White settler society. Furthermore, her intersectional approach is highly sensitive to the dispossession of Indigenous people in Canada and she is also acutely aware of the significance of Canada’s national mythology as a spatial

vision of ‘pristine wilderness’ and a place of empty land prior to Europeans arrival that naturalizes positions of dominance and marginalization (Razack 2002).

The rationale for employing Razack’s (2002) theoretical insight on space is that her explanations are relevant to how I understand the significance of domination and the White settler society as something that is reproduced. Further, her analysis provides a useful vocabulary to articulate my concerns of the conflation of Indigeneity and animality, as well as enhances my theoretical approach that views space as racialized similarly to Razack’s (2002) arguments and I also show that space is speciesist. Space influences social attitudes that shape social practices, which transform and travel across spaces from ‘civilization,’ a place of respectability associated with Whiteness to a place of ‘primitiveness,’ the untamed wilderness occupied by what has been socially constructed as the savage ‘other’ including predator animals and Indigenous people.

Moreover, nature parks become a fantasy space for tourists, since these spaces are a radically different landscape than their everyday life. In nature park spaces tourists can evaluate their personal or national ‘progress’ and reaffirm their dominant position either unconsciously through purchasing commodities or outside parks can participate in the mastery over what is deemed

‘other’ including Indigenous people, wildlife and nature. Razack’s (2002) spatial analysis also includes critiques of the symbolic relationships of space. Finally, spatial conflict is a dominant theme in my thesis and Razack describes the Canadian national identity of wilderness as a White space that allows ‘White national governors’ the role to manage Indigenous bodies and wildlife constituted as a threat to the White colonial project, requiring spatial containment and intense regulation (Emel 1998, Hage 2000, Razack 2002, Wakeham 2008).

Animal Geography

An Animal Geography theoretical framework is a critical approach to understanding human-animal relationships that views space as a tool to exclude, segregate and “manage social difference,” whereby animals are critical to the making of landscapes and agents to the

“constitution of space and place” (Wolch and Emel 1998: xiv, xiii). This approach transcends singular specific social injustices and instead utilizes a multi-dimensional framework in order to understand the complex relationships and interactions between non-human animals and humans.

Further, there is a consideration of the shifts in attitudes across spaces between nature and society that shape one another and are viewed as inseparable (Wolch and Emel 1998). An animal geography lens maintains a focus on animals across spaces through a geographical and cultural lens; however, it is also sensitive to and reflexive of race, gender, and power, in addition to critiquing notions of progress, modernity, and identities attached to humans in different spaces (Wolch and Emel 1998).

Wolch and Emel (1998) argue space is a contributor to shaping human relationships with animals, social practices and cultural attitudes that continually reconstitute one another. The framework considers the complex entanglement of place, space, and landscape between humans and animals that evaluates these concerns through investigation of animal subjects and human identities, coexistence in borderland communities, political economy of animal bodies, in addition to animal and moral landscapes (Wolch and Emel 1998). This approach is progressive in terms of envisioning social change through education and behavioural modification, in order for humans to learn how to coexist peacefully with non-human animals (Wolch and Emel 1998).

Moreover, animal geography is a political project that challenges the social forces that create landscapes and examines the continuous struggles humans and animals experience over space (Wolch and Emel 1998). This approach challenges speciesist theories that often exclude the

consideration of non-human animals and also is inclusive of geography, as well as a spatial analysis. Further, animal geography recognizes that cultural attitudes are a significant driving force that deems animals as being ‘out of place’ in an urban city, justifying their segregation and containment to a depleted nature landscape. Animal geography rejects the claims that animals are indispensable to human interests and instead views each species alike caught in the “splendor and travail of the earth” (Beston 1928:19-20, Wolch and Emel 1998).

The rationale for employing an animal geography theoretical framework is the multi-dimensional approach to understanding human-animal relationships across space. Further, there is an emphasis on identity and meaning attached to landscapes, as well as places that was useful for my project in order to analyze different attitudes and representations established from nature park settings to an urban city. Wolch and Emel (1998) provide a language to communicate struggles over space between animals and humans in ‘borderland communities’ that are defined as places where animals and humans are expected to share space and as a result conflict arises.

This concept is relevant to my examination of space sharing struggles in an urban setting in comparison to valued relationships with animals in ‘wilderness’ spaces.

Colonialism is also included in the theoretical approach, more specifically what Wolch and Emel call the ‘colonial rule’ over animal bodies and Indigenous people who have been racialized as ‘other’ taking on ‘savage’ qualities similar to wild animals of the Canadian wilderness. Understanding colonial relations is one of my main goals of this project (both within the Parks and outside Parks in urban areas across GTA). Urban identities are relational ones that demonize the rural and wild areas, constructing them as places that are ‘primitive,’ requiring management and White control. Lastly, animal geography understands animals are constructed (my research shows Indigenous people too) as ‘out of place’ in an urban landscape that requires

their containment and segregation as their visibility threatens ideals of White human progress (Brownlow 2000, Coleman 2004, Wolch and Emel 1998).

Strengths and Limitations

Spatial theory and animal geography both were employed since they together eliminate weaknesses of one another that focus too much on race in spatial theory and animals in animal geography. However, similarly they investigate the importance of space and identity that humans, more specifically White individuals attach to landscapes and spaces that influence their relationships and attitudes towards wildlife and Indigenous people who have historically and continue to be controlled by ‘colonial rule’ (Razack 2002, Wolch and Emel 1998). The theoretical frameworks I employed are similar in the sense that they understand power as complex and entangled that aim to explore space through investigating meanings attached to places and explain how cultural attitudes, as well as social practices are shaped by these meanings. Finally, both theoretical approaches understand control of bodies in spaces as a consequence of being labelled ‘out of place’ in certain landscapes. My research reveals the perception of not belonging, justifies an individual’s removal (wildlife) or containment (Indigenous people) to a nature park or reserve that contains their association of the untamed wilderness. Moreover, in a nature park setting, wildlife and Indigenous culture is romanticized in order to produce the wilderness fantasy. This fantasy permits animals and people/cultures that would be feared or viewed negatively to be eroticized, transformed into commodities and gazed upon, while visitors leave unmarked to journey home to spaces of ‘civilization’.

Violent Love

Brain Luke’s concept of violent love is borrowed for my research project to discuss the contradictory relationship of loving and hating someone simultaneously. As mentioned in the

hunters experience a matrix of emotions during the experience of killing (hunting) wild animals.

Many hunters express a high degree of love for the animals they kill in the wild (Luke 1998).

However, this expression of ‘love’ is tinged with violence and death that is contradictory to their emotions of ‘love’. Hence, an appropriate term, ‘violent love’ was coined by Luke (1998) in order to describe this phenomenon.

Luke’s concept is central to my analysis and his language of ‘violent love’ is employed within my research in order to explain complex contradictions Canadians experience. My adoption of violent love is unique in many ways. Rather than only focusing on hunters and animals, I apply this framework to understand the love-hate relationships Canadians experience with the wilderness identity (including animals, Indigenous people and nature). Luke’s (1998) concept is a significant idea that guided my research in terms of understanding the complex contradictions people experience when thinking about their relationships with colonial wild bodies. I apply violent love to understanding contradictory relationships within Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula, as well as to understanding the violent love that operates outside park spaces in the GTA when I analyze media stories on urban wildlife and the Idle No More movement.

Chapter Summary

Chapter Three provided justification for my theoretical framework. I highlighted the importance of theories that analyze space in order to reveal power and contradictions that operate across space (violent love). I discussed how these theories contribute important insights and concepts that provide guiding principles for my research. I also discuss a key concept ‘violent love’ that I examine within the thesis, borrowed from Brian Luke (1998). Finally, there is a dialogue about why both theories are required, which highlights the importance of a need for more research that understands colonialism and oppression through a non-speciesist lens.

Chapter Four is Part One of the beginning of my data analysis, where I discuss my research findings on the Invisibility of Exploitation at Algonquin and Bruce Peninsula through my analysis of contradictions within these spaces.