Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis - Volume 125, Issue 4, 2012

History is by definition a history of mankind, or at least it seems so. Animals are assumed to play a subordinate part in human life: they are present, but merely as objects in the margin and without a story of their own. In recent years there has been a loud plea for change: animals move from a remote corner to become visible in historical writing. Or, as the American historian of science Harriet Ritvo stated a few years ago, the historical profession is witnessing an ‘animal turn’. But the integration of animals into the history of mankind is not a neutral act, since it undermines the paradigm on which traditional historiography is based. The focus of this thematic issue is on the historic relationship between people and animals, from prehistoric times until today, and the evolving attitudes of historians vis-à-vis the colourful animal world.

It is clear that Human-Animal Studies have to take into account changes over time. Our attitude towards e.g. domestic animals cannot be studied without understanding how this aspect of human behaviour evolved through time, or how domestication started in prehistoric times. As a consequence, historical sources alone are insufficient to accomplish this task. Archaeology, and more precisely the study of animal remains from archaeological sites, is extremely important, especially since the data it supplies has not been recorded by humans (as is always the case with historical sources). This information is thus unbiased and allows us to approach the former humananimal relationship from the point of view of the latter. Traces on animal skeletons showing trauma or pathology, characteristics allowing reconstruction of growth rates and ages at death, chemical signals revealing dietary patterns and pollution: all such data document the individual animal’s life. These observations can (with some caution) be translated into statements about former animals’ well-being. In this way, animals finally get an independent voice in the Human-Animal debate.

The relationship between man and cat in the Low Countries between 600 and 1800 could be described as kaleidoscopic, but also contradictory, problematic, and ambiguous. Even in the early Middle Ages people came to appreciate the usefulness of cats, but from the twelfth century they began demonizing the animal. At the same time, in both literature and the visual arts, the cat came to be associated with negative qualities such as laziness, vanity, pride, and especially lust. Only from the middle of the seventeenth century did the cat take a modest place in the new home decoration that contributed to identity formation and cultural distinction. Yet even at the end of the period many cats were the subject of brutal public entertainment and structural violence. The real revolution in our relationship with the cat is more recent. However, anthropomorphization, in which all kinds of human qualities are uncritically attributed to the cat, continues unabated.

François Valentyn (1666-1727) was a Dutch Calvinist clergyman and author of Oud en Nieuw Oost-Indiën (Old and New East Indies, 1724-1726), which was one of the most comprehensive books about Asia published in the eighteenth century. In the section on Amboina, Valentyn devotes a large part of his text to natural history. From the selection of his material it is clear that his text is aimed at a public of amateurs, while he at the same time presents himself as an amateur natural historian. This attitude resulted in special attention to topics with a problematic epistemological status, such as sea people and birds of paradise. This article examines in particular the way Valentyn justifies his stance on these topics, and analyses his position within eighteenth-century discourse on natural history.

In the late nineteenth century European scientists increasingly campaigned for the protection of nature. Many of them did so by associating the natural world with explicitly national and local values. The focus of these protectors was on plants, which were literally rooted in local ground. Protection of nature, so these scientists argued, was protection of the Heimat. Alongside national initiatives, the years 1890-1940 also witnessed the rise of an internationally-oriented nature protection movement. Through international conferences this movement started to campaign for the protection of border-crossing animals such as migratory birds, whales, and Africa’s big game. The movement and the understanding of nature it constructed were strongly influenced by its social, cultural, and institutional context. The small network of people involved consisted largely of experts associated with natural history museums, zoos, and (later) nature reserves, and was strongly linked to aristocratic and diplomatic circles. Their approach to conservation was shaped by scientific ambition, a masculine hunting ethos, colonialism, and by an openly antisentimental and anti-commercial vision of the world. Today the context of conservation is very different, yet many of the old images of nature persist.

In the mid twentieth century Dutch dairy cattle were a dual purpose breed that produced not only milk but also good quality meat. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, the breed was changed into a specialized milk producer. Meanwhile, whereas cattle breeding had until then been considered an art, to be practiced only by practical breeders, scientists took on an increasingly important role. This paper analyses the dynamic interactions between breeders, scientists, economic developments, and policy making that shaped this change. In historical overviews the creation of the specialised dairy type after 1970 is seen as part of what is called the postwar modernization project in Dutch agriculture. Economic developments are assumed to have necessitated this project, and specialization of production is seen as a natural outcome. This paper challenges this view. It argues that cattle breeding was guided by a variety of considerations pertaining to practical experience, methods, scientific and technical insights, ideas about responsible farming, aesthetic preferences, commercial interests, economic circumstances, and government policies. On closer inspection the change in breeding practices illustrates, once again, that innovation cannot be planned.

Eric Hobsbawm’s description of the twentieth century as an age of extremes is perhaps even more appropriate to animal societies than to human. Demographic changes were dramatic: rapidly declining populations in the wild and a corresponding increase in industrial livestock production. Excessive exploitation of farm animals fuelled social resistance and gave rise to profound questions about the moral status of animals. The subsequent development of theories of animal rights from the 1970s onwards can be divided into two broad categories. The first, situated in the Enlightenment tradition of political liberalism, comprises utilitarian, neo-Kantian, contractarian, and capabilities approaches as well as citizenship theory. The second is defined by its critique of Enlightenment thinking. Notably in post-humanism, the question of the animal is central to deconstructing humanist essentialism, opening up inquiries into ethical responses to the non-human other. However, to effect changes in practice, appeals to anthropocentric concerns remained the most successful in view of the enormous environmental and social impacts of animal production.