Cyborgs to Companion Species Cap9 Haraway Reader

8/11/2019 Cyborgs to Companion Species Cap9 Haraway Reader

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cyborgs-to-companion-species-cap9-haraway-reader 1/26

CYBORGS TO COMPANION SPECIES:

RECONFIGURING KINSHIPIN TECHNOSCIENCE

for my father, 50 years a sportswriter at the Denver Post

EXCE RPTS FR OM " NOTES O F A S PORTSWRI TE R'SDAUGHER, SPRING-ALL, 2000

( 1 ) Cayenne, our year-old Australian Shepherd bitch, is in full teenagemode' popping like drops of Leyden frost on a hot stove. Things she didon cue yesterday without question, today fail to engage her roving mind.Back to basics! I have written shut up and train" across my forehead.

Peace reigns in her lusty soul if she gets at least ve miles a day of runningand a few other bouts of vigorous activity. Cheap to a good home

(2) Ms. Cayenne Pepper continues to colonize all my cellsa sure caseof what the biologist Lynn Margulis calls symbiogenesis. I bet if youcecked our DNA, you'd nd some odd transfections between us. Hersaliva must ave the viral vectors; her darter- tongue kisses are irresistible.

Coevolution in the naturecultures of companion species land has asmany punctuated equilibria as Stephen J . Gould could ever have wished.Margulis and Gould, opponents in evolutionary theory in their lives, arefused in Cayenne and me.

( 3 ) Roland o or ie-Chow six-yearold, was beautiful at theaility tria t d eed, dive, heart, nd he wa ayinttntio W o v tt to l ot o o th rn if hd't



26 • Cyborgs to Compan ion Species

lterally gotten a mental white-out at a jump choice in mid-course eachtime He was great; I was middle-aged and unused to even novice highfunctioning aer getting up at 4 A.M. to drive a hundred miles to spendtime with my dogs!

( 4) Dear Vicki, 1Watching Roland with you lurking inside my head over the last wee

made me remember that such things are multidimensional and situational, and describing a dog's temperament takes more precision than Iachieved. We go to an off-leash, arge, cliff-enclosed beach in Santa Cruzalmost every day. There are two main classes of dogs there: retrievers

and meta-retrievers. Roland is a meta-retriever. (My partner points outthere is really a third cass of dogs toothe nons" not in the gameat issue here.) Roland'll pay ball with us once in a while (or anytiewe couple the sport with a liver cookie or two) , but his heart's not in it.The activity is not really self-rewarding to him, and his lack of stye thereshows it. But meta-retrieving is another matter entirely. The retrieverswatch whoever is about to throw a ball or stick as if their lives depended

on the next few seconds. The meta-retrievers watch the retrievers withan exquisite sensitivity to directional cues and microsecond of spring.These meta-dogs do not watch the ball or the human; they watch theruminant -surrogates indog'sclothing. Roland in meta- mode looks likean Aussie-Border Collie mockup for a lesson in Platonism. His forequarters are lowered, forelegs slightly apart with one in front of the other inhairtrigger balance, his hackes in mid-rise, his eyes focused, his wholebody ready to spring into hard, directed action. When the retrievers sail

out aer the projectile, the meta-retrievers move out of their intenseeye and stalk into heading, heeling, bunching, and cutting their chargeswith joy and skill. The good meta-retrievers can even handle more thanone retriever at a time. The good retrievers can dodge the metas andstill make their catch in eye-amazing leapsor surges into the waves, ifthings have gone to sea. Since we have no ducks or other surrogate sheepor catte on the beach, the retrievers have to do duty for the metas. Soe

retriever people take exception to this multitasking of their dogs (I cahardly blame them) , so those of us with etas try to distract our dogsonce in a while with soe game they inevitably nd much less satising. I drew a mental Larson cartoon on Thursday watching Roland, aancient and arthritic Old English Sheepdog, a lovely red tricolor Aussie,and a Border Collie mix of soe kind form an intense ring around ashepherd-lab mix, a plethora of motley Goldens, and a game pointer

who hovered around a uma wholiberal individualist in Amerika to



Reconfigur ing K ins hip in T echnoscience • 27

the endwas trying to throw his stick to his dog only. Meanwhile, in thedistance, a rescue whippet was eating up sand in roadrunner fashion,pursued by a ponderous, slope-hipped German Shepherd Dog.

Why do I feel all of this is about the extended, cross-species fmily ofa sportswriter's daughter?

PREAMBLE

This i s a chapter of agments, of work-in-progress, o f dog-eaten propsand half-trained arguments. But I offer this set of notes toward a futurework as a training diary for reshaping some stories I care about a great

deal, as a scholar and as a person in my time and place. Telling a story ofco-habitation, co-evolution, Whiteheadian concrescence, and embodiedcross-species sociality, Kinship in Technoscience" compares two cobbed together gurescyborgs and companion speciesto ask whichmight more fruitlly inform livable poitics and ontologies in currentlife worlds. These gures are hardly polar opposites. Cyborgs and companion species each brings together the human and non-human, the

organic and technological, carbon and silicon, freedom and structure,history and myth, the rich and the poor, the state and the subject, diversity and depletion, modernity and postmodernity, and nature andculture in unexpected ways. Besides all that, neither a cyborg nor a companion animal pleases the pure of heart who ong for better protectedspecies boundaries and sterilization of category deviants. Nonetheless,the dierences between even the most politically correct cyborg and anordinary dog matter.

I begin with stories, histories, ecologies, and technologies of the spacefaring NASA machine-organism hybrids named cyborg in 1 960 . Thosecyborgs were appropriated to do feminist work in Reagan's Star Warstimes of the mid- 1 980s . By the end of the millennium, however, cyborgscould no longer do the work of a proper herding dog to gather up thethreads needed for serious critical inquiry. So I go happiy to the dogsto explore the birth of the kennel in order to help cra tools for science

studies in the present time, when secondary Bushes threaten to repace theold growth of more ivabe naturecultures in the carbon budget politicsof all water-based ife on earth. Having worn the scarlet letters, Cyborgsfor earthly surviva! " long enough, I now sport a slogan only Schutzhundwomen could have come up with, when even a rst nip can result in adeath sentence: Run fast; bite hard !"2

This is a stor ofiopower and biosociaity, as well as of technoscienceLike an ood arwa te a stor of evouton. n the mode of




ncleic acidic millennialism, I tell a tale of molecular differences, butone less rooted in Mitochondrial Eve in a neocolonial Out of Africa andmore rooted in those rst mitochondrial canine bitches who got in theway of man making himself yet again in the Greatest Story Ever Told.Instead, those bitches insisted on the history of companion species, avery mundane and ongoing sort of tale, one full of misunderstandings,achievements, crimes, and renewable hopes. And so, mine is a story toldby a student of the sciences and a feminist of a certain generation who hasgone utterly to the dogs, literally. Dogs, in all their hstorcal complexity,matter here. Dogs are not just an alibi for other themes; dogs are eshlymaterial-semiotic presences in the body of technoscience. Dogs are not

surrogates for theory here; they are not here just to think with. They arehere to live with. Partners in the crime of human evoluton, they are nthe garden om the get-go, wily as Coyote.

Whitehead ( 1 948 , 1 969 ) talks about "the concrete as "an actual entityas a concrescence of rehensionsthere are no pre-constituted subjectsand objects in his world. Stressing the processual character of reality, hecalled actual entities "actual occasons. His philosophy is one among

many resources for gurng "aliberal subjects and objects, which/whoare constituted in relational process. Subjects and objects (and kinds,genres, genders) are the products of their own relating, through manykinds of "emergent ontologies (Verran 2001), o "ontological choreographies (Cussins 1 996) ; or "scale-making in space and time (Tsing2000 ) . For Whitehead, "objectications had to do with the way "thepotentiality of one actual entity is realized in another actual entity. Thisis very promisng philosophcal bait for training science studies folk to

understand companion species n both storied deep time, which is chemically etched in the DNA of every cell, and in very recent doings, whichleave more odoriferous traces.

And like a decadent gardener who can't keep good distinctons between natures and cultures straight, the shape of my kin networks looksmore like a trellis, an esplanade, than a tree. You can't tell up from down,and everything seems to go sidewise. Such snae-lke, sidewinding trafc

is one of my themes. My garden s full of snakes, full of trellises, full of indirection. Instructed by evolutonary population biologists and bioan-

thropologists, I know that multidirectional gene fow-multidirectional

ows of bodies and values-is and has always been the name of the game

of life on earth. In that spirit , it is certainly the way into the kennel.

Unfairly, I will risk alienating my old doppleganger, the cyborg, in order

to try to convince my colleagues and comrades that dogs might be better

gides throgh the thickets oftechnobiopolitics in the Third Mllennium

of the ent a.·



Reconfiguri ng Kinship in T echnoscience •2

I . CYBORGS

An Evolutionary Cartoon of Enhanced Man in Space

Most Western narratives ofhumanism and technology require each other

constitutively: how else could man make himsel Man births himselfthrough the realization of his intentions in his objects; that is the queststory of masculinist, single-parent, self-birthing. Those objectsthoserealized intentionsreturn in the form of the threat of the instrument'ssurpassing the maker; thus emerges the dialectic of technophilic, technophobic apocalypse. The myth system is simple and old; cyborg practicesare much less simple and much more recent.3

The term "cyborg was coined by Manfred Clynes and Nathan Klinein 1960 to refer to the enhanced man who could survive in extraterrestrial environments. They imagied the cyborgian man-machinehybrid would be needed in the next great technohumanist challengespace light. The travel tale is a birth narrative. A designer of physiological instrumentation and electronic data-processing systems, TheAustralian-Austrian Clynes was the chief research scientist in the Dynamic Simulation Laboratory at Rockand State Hospital in New York.Director of research at Rocand State, Klie was a clinical psychiatrist.Their article was based on a paper the authors gave at the Psychophysiological Aspects of Space Flight Symposium sponsored by the U.S. AirForce School of Aviation Medicine in San Antonio, Texas. Enrapturedwith cybernetics, Clynes and Kline ( 1 960, 27) thought of cyborgs as "selfregulating man-machine systems. That paper featured a white lab ratimplanted with an osmotic pump under its skin to permit the contin

uous injection of chemicals to regulate basic physiological parametes.The join of pump/machine and organism, effected through the engineering of feedback-controlled communication circuits, produced anontologically new, historically specic entity: the cyborg, the enhancedcommand-control-communication-intelligence system (C3 ) . Here, themachine is not other to the organism, nor is it a simple instrumentfor effecting the purposes of the organism. Rather the machine and the

organism are each communication systems joined in a symbiosis thattransforms both.This cyborg is a techno humanist gure ofthe Cold War and the heyday

of the space race. Escape from the earth, from the body, from the limits ofmerely biological evolution is the message and the plot. Man is his own invention; biological evolution fullls itself in the evolution of technology.Any emergent etics o care for the ybrid macineorganism resolvesinto blissedou, ced error o te communicatosmachnc sel.

A pleora o cos mole o ageces reduce o Oe, a leas



300 • Cyborgs to Compani on Species

i e yt. Coevolution and mutual coconstituion i is story re-solve io the gure of transcendent selfsurpassing, not into a tale ofudae ad mortal co inhabiting, where the struggle for a practice ofco lourishing across categories might be soug. And, naturally, rats gorst where no man has gone before.

Plainly, not al cyborgs have agreed to abide by this birth contract. Inmy own Cyborg Manifesto" in the mid1980s, I tried to write anothersurrogacy agreement, another trope, another gure for living within andhonoring the skils and practices of contemporary technocuture withoutlosing touch with the permanent war apparatus of a nonoptional post-nuclear world and its transcendent, very material lies. Cyborgs can e

gures for living within contradictions, attentive to the natureculturesof mundane practices, in opposition to the dire myths of sefbirthing,embracing mortaity as the condition for life, and alert to the emergenthistorical hybridities actualy populating the world at all its contingentscales.4

However, cyborg regurations hardly exaust the tropic work requiredfor ontological choreography in technoscience. Indeed, I have come to see

cyborgs as junior siblings in the much bigger, queer family of companionspecies, in which reproductive biotechnopoitics are generally a surprise,sometimes even a nice surprise . I know perfecty wel that a U.S . midde-aged white woman with a dog playing the sport of agility is no matchfor Man in Space or Bladerunner and their transgenic kin in the annalsof phiosophica inquiry or the ethnography of naturecultures. Besides,( 1 ) selfguration is not my task; (2 ) transgenics are not the enemy; and( 3) contrary to ots of dangerous and unethica projection in the Western

world that makes domestic canines into rry children, dogs are not aboutoneself. Indeed, that is the beauty of dogs. They are not a projection, northe reaization of an intention, nor the teos of anything. They are dogs;i .e. . . . , a species in obigatory, constitutive, protean relationship withhuman beings.

There cannot be just one companion species ; there have to be at leasttwo to make one. It is in the syntax; it is in the esh. Dogs are about

the inescapable, contradictory story of relationshipscoconstitutivereationships in which none of the partners preexist the relating, andthe relating is never done once and for all. Historical specicity andcontingent mutability rule all the way down, into nature and culture,into naturecutures. There is no foundation; tere are only elepantssupportig elephants suppor�ing elephants all te way down. Dogs mightbe beter guides to wat Karen Barad ( 995) calls intraaction tan NielsBor's troubn utu ·enoena at the scale of wave fors andee es . neato es a alreay exising ators ge



Reconfiguring K inship in T echnoscience • 301

together nd ct. Intrction impies something much messier, muchess determinte, ontoogicy speking. Whitehed knew tht; he musthve hd dog. Fmousy, Freud certiny did. No wonder he knewsomething bout subject mking.

I m certin tht, in ddition to composing "Notes of Sportswriter'sDughter' I wil soon write "Compnion Species Mnifesto (Hrwy2003c). For now my tsk is more modest. It hs three prts; to wit,( 1 ) estblishing tht compnion nims re ony one kind of compnion species nd tht neither ctegory is very od in Americn Engish,(2) ppropriting moecur bioogists to frm n origin story goodenough for dogs nd humns to get on together, nd ( 3 ) turning to cts,

in the guise of tigers, to suggest how the technocutur pprtus ofbiodiversity prctices nd discourses in dognd torques the origin storytowrd more subrious compexity. I ' nish wth tnged t's crdegure for doing technoscience studies mong compnion species .

I I . COMPANION SPECIES

Dramat is Personae

In United Sttes Engish, "compnion nm is recent ctegory, inkedto the medic nd psycho-socioogic work done in veterinry schoosnd reted sites from the midde 1 970s (Beck nd Ktcher 1 996) . Thisis the reserch tht tod us tht, except for non-dog oving New Yorkerswho worry to exces bout unscooped dog shit in the streets, hving dog (or, in extremis, ct or even hmster) owers one's bood pressure nd ups one's chnces of survivng chidhood, surgery, nd divorce.

Certiny, written references in Europen nguges to nims servings compnions, rther thn s working or sporting dogs, for exmpe,predtes this biomedic, technoscientic iterture by centuries. However, "compnion nim enters technocuture through the nd-grntcdemic institutions housing the vet schoos . Tht is, "compnion nim hs the pedigree of the mting between technoscientic expertisend te industri pet-keeping prctices, with their democrtic msses

n ove with their domestic prtners, or t est with the non-humnones. Compnion nims cn be horses, dogs, cts, or rnge of otherbeings wiing to mke the ep from pet or b best to the biosociity of service dogs, fmiy members, or tem members in cross-speciessports. Genery spekng, one does not et one's compnion nims(nor get eten by them); nd one hs hrd time shking cooniist,ethnocentrc , hstorcal ttitudes to those who do.

"Comnon ss s muh bgger nd more heterogeneous ct

egor thn omao amal, n not ust becuse one must strt





Reconfigur ing K ins hip in T echnoscience • 303

and little-lamented "ethnographic present, the technopresent namesthe kind of time I experience inside the New York Times Science Tuesdaysection and on the front pages and business pages so attuned to the animation and cessation of NASDAQ History in the technopresent is Whigtime enterprised up (Strathern 1992); ie, this history is reduced to thevehicle for getting to the technopresent In the technopresent, beginningsand endings implode, such that the eternal here and now energeticalyemerges as a gravity well to warp all subjects and objects in its domain Iwrite this paper suspended in this odd, millennia!, American chronicity;but in this dimensionally challenged medium, I sense some code fusionspromising another and better story about animals, machines, and peo

ple I sense the emergence of companion species aer the departure ofpossessive individuas and hermeticaly seaed objects, who will have naly succumbed to their own alien invasion of the earth In this paper,I want to tell the story of companion species in the context of diversitydiscourses in US dog worlds

Evoutionary origin stories are always a good pace in US technoscientic worlds to check for the moves of nature and culture on the board

game of widely disseminated Western metaphysics and for the payersin the current versions of the game In recent years, the long- runningdog-wof romance has a stirring new series The origin of dogs might bea humbling chapter in the story of Homo sapiens, one that alows for adeeper sense of co-evolution and co-habitation and a reduced exerciseof hominid hubris in shaping canine naturecuture

Accounts ofthe relations of dogs and wolves proliferate, and molecularbiologists tell some of the most convincing versions Robert Wayne and

his colleagues at UCLA studied mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from162 North American, European, Asian, and Arabian wolves and from140 dogs representing 67 breeds, plus a few jackals and coyotes (Vil,et al 1 997 ) . Their analysis of mtDNA control regions concuded that dogsemerged uniquely from wolvesand did so much earlier than scenariosbased on archaeological data permit The amount of sequence divergenceand the organization of the data into clades support the emergence of

dogs more than 1 00,000 years ago, with very few separate domesticationevents Threequarters of modern dogs belong to one clade; ie, theybelong to a single maternal lineage The early dates give Canis familiariand Homo sapiens roughly the same calendar, so folks walking out ofAfrica soon met a wolf bitch who would give birth to man's best friendsAnd, building a genetic trellisnot a treeas they went, both dogsand people waed ba nto Africa Templeton 999 . These have beenspecies more ven o mrecona travein and onsorn han toonern an rean never o rern o er o an aan o




onder dogs and peope share the distinction of being the most emed and gobay geographicay distributed arge-bodied mammas.They shaped each over a ong time. Their pedigrees are a proper mess.

Furtherin a story famiiar from the postWord War I I studies ofhuman popuation gene frequencies that were so important to the eary1950s anti-racist UNESCO statements and to subsequent reforms ofphysica anthropoogy and genetics teachingdog mtDNA hapotypesdo not sort out by breed, indicating that breeds have diverse doggisancestries. Pure" breeds are an institutiona ction, if one that threatensthe heath of animas reguated by the story. Variations of many genes andmarkers within breed exceed variations between popuations of dogs and

woves. And, in another ab's study, greater mtDNA differences appearedwithin the singe breeds of Doberman pinscher or poode than betweendogs and woves ' even whie there is ess mtDNA difference betweendogs, woves and coyotes than there is between various ethnic groups ofhuman beings" (Coppinger and Schneider 1 995 , 3 3 ) . Genetic differencestudies are a high stakes game, and emphases on simiarity or divergenceshi with the theoretica bets aid.

Findings from Wayne's ab have been controversia, party becausethe mtDNA cock doesn't measure up to the accuracy demanded bySwiss watchmakers. At an Internationa Counci for Archaeozooogysymposium in 1 998 at the University ofVictoria, controversy waxed overWayne's arguments. Reevant to this paper are impications for thinkingabout agency in dog-human interactions. Wayne argued that to domesticate dogs took a ot of ski, or it woud have happened more oen. Hisstory bears the scent ofthe anatomicay wosh hunting dog, and this dog

is a manmade hunting too/weapon. In this version, morphoogicaydierentiated dogs did not show up in the fossi or archaeoogy recordunti 1 2,0001 4,000 years ago because their jobs in setted posthuntergaterer, paeoagricutura communities did not deveop unti then; sothey got physicay reshaped ate in the reationship. Peope ca the shotsin both chapters of a story that makes domestication" a one-sided human socia invention." But archaeozooogica expert Susan Crockford,

who organized the Victoria symposium, disagreed. She argued that human settements provided a species-making resource for woud-be dogsin the form of garbage middens andmy additionconcentrations ofhuman bodiy waste. If woves coud just cam their e-j ustied fear ofHomo sapiens, they coud feast in ays a too famiiar to modern dogpeope. Crockford theorizes that in a sense, id canids domesticatedthemseves" (Weidensau 1 99, 57; Crockford 2000 ) .

Crockfords argumen tuns on genes that contro rates i n eary deveomen n on onsen aedomorhoenesis . oth the anomical



Reconfiguring K inship in T echnoscience • 305

and psychological changes in domesticated animals compared to theirwild relatives can be tied to a single potent molecule with stunning effects in early development and in adult life-thyroxine. Those wolveswith lower rates of thyroxine production, and so lower titres of thefrght/ight adrenaline cocktail reguated by thyroid secretions, coudget a good meal near human habitations. f they were realy calm, theymight even den nearby. The resulting pups who were the most tolerantof their twolegged neghbors might themselves make use of the caloricbonanza and have their own puppies nearby as well. A few generations ofthis could produce a beng remarkaby ke current dogs, complete withcurled tais, a range of jaw types, considerable sze variation, doggish

coat patterns, oppy ears, and-above allthe capacity to stick aroundpeople and forgive amost anythng. People woud surey gure out howto reate to these handy sanitary engineers and encourage them to joinin use tasks, ike hering, hunting, watching kids, and comfortingpeope. In a few decades, wovesbecomedogs woud have changed, andthat interva is too short for archaeologsts to nd intermediate forms.

Crockford made use of the 40year contnuing studes of Russian

fur foxes, beginnng in the 1 950s, which have been much in the recentpopuar science news (Weidensau 1999; Trut 1 999; Belyaev 1 969) . Unlike domesticated animas, wd farmed foxes vigorousy object to theircaptivity, ncluding ther saughter. In what were originaly expermentsdesgned to seect tamer foxes for the convenience of the Soviet fur ndustry, genetcists at the Siberan Institute of Cytology and Genetics foundthat by breeding the tamest kits from each fox generation-and seectingfor nothng esethey qucky got very doglike animals, complete with

nonfox attitudes ike preferentia affectional bonding wth human beings and phenotypes ike those of Border Coies? By analogy, woves ontheir way to becoming dogs might have seected themseves for tameness.Peope got n the act when they saw a good thing.

With a wink and a nod to problems with my argument, think itis possbe to hybridze Wayne's and Crockford's evolutionary accountsand so shameessy save my favorite parts ofeachan early coevoution,

humancanine accommodaton at more than one point in the story, andlots of dog agency in the drama of genetics and cohabitation. First, imagine that many domestication sequences e no progeny, or offspring blended back into wolf populations outside the range of currentscientic sensors. Marginaly fearless wolsh dogs could have accompanied huntergatherers on their rounds and gotten more than one goodmeal for their troubles. Denning near seasonally moving humans whofollow regular fo mraon routes sems no odder han denin near earru slms. ole m v ote r ow



306 • Cyborgs to Compan ion Speces

fear/aggression endocrine systems to quell murderous impulses towardthe nearby canine predators who did garbage detail and refrained frothreatening. Paleolithic people stayed in one place longer than wolflittersneed to mature, and both humans and wolves reuse their seasonal sites.People might have learned to take things further than the canines bargained for and bring wolf-dog reproduction under considerable humasway. This radical switch in the biopolitics of reproduction might havebeen in the interests of raising some lineages to accompany humans ogroup hunts or perform useful tasks for hunter-gatherers besides eatingthe shit. Paleoagricultural settlement could have been the occasion formuch more radical accommodation between the canids and hominids

on the questions of tameness, mutual trust, and trainability.And, above all, on the question of reproduction. It's on this matter that

the distinction between dogs and wolves really hinges; molecular geneticsmay never show enough species-dening DNA differences. Rather, thesubtle genetic and developmental biobehavioral changes through whichdogs got people to provision their pups might be the heart ofthe drama ofcohabitation. Human baby sitters, not Man-the-Hunter, are the heroes

from doggish points of view. Wolves can reproduce independently ofhumans; dogs cannot. Even Italian feral dogs still need at least a garbagedump (Boitani et al. 1995) As Coppinger and Schneider summarizedthe case: "In canids with a long maturation period, growth and development are limited by the provisioning capacity of the mother. Wolvesand African hunting dogs solved the pup-feeding problem with packing behavior, in coyotes the male helps, and jackal pairs are assisted bythe maiden aunt.' The tremendous success of the domestic dog is based

on its ability to get people to raise its pups ( 1 995, 36) . People are partof dogs' extended phenotype in their Darwinian, behavioral ecological,reproductive strategies. Pac Richard Dawkins.

Two points emerge from this evolutionary origin story : ( 1 ) coevolution makes humans and dogs companion species from "the beginning' but with historically changing and specic sets of interspeciesbiotechnosocial relations and with agency a mobile and distributed at

ter; and (2) the ne arts of molecular genetics and hormone biocheistrare indispensable for this account of the agency of nature in the persoof dogwannabe wolves. The latest in sequencing machinery, samplingprotocols, and DNA comparison soware are crucial to the tale of "nature making the rst moves in a "social invention. But this nature doesnot have the shape of the specters from the recent U.S. science and culture wars, where unruly science studies people were accused of arguighat scientists invented naue raher than reported on her in a mood ofhumbe truhe n. ere, h hose worred reast warriors, i am also



Reconfiguring K ins hip in T echnosci ence • 307

arguing that hominids did not "invent nature or culture wolves becomedogs) , then or now, but that all of the players emerge in a kind ofWhiteheadean concrescence, where none of the actors precede, nished, theirinteraction Companion species take shape in interaction They morethan change each other; they co-constitute each other, at least partlyThat's the nature of this at's cradle game And the ontology of companion species makes room for odd bedfellowsmachines; molecules;scientists; hunter-gatherers; garbage dumps; puppies; fox farmers; andrandy bitches of all breeds, genders, and species

I want to use the gure of companion species to do a lot of analyticaland associative work Figures are powerful attractors that collect up the

hopes, fears, and interests of collectives Figures promise to lll hopesin a sense related to Christian realism (Auerbach 1953). Companionspecies are gures of a relational ontology, in which histories matter; i e ,are material, meaningl, processual, emergent, and constitutive In thepast, I have written about cyborgs, and cyborgs are a kind of companion species congeries of organisms and machines located rmly in theCold War and its ospring Equally on my mind have been genetically

engineered laboratory organisms like OncoMouse™, also companionspecies tying together many kinds of actors and practices Dogs andhumans as companion species suggest quite dierent histories and lives,compared to cyborgs and engineered mice, emergent over the whole timeof species being for the participants In much of my own work, I havetried to gure out the consequences for biology and for cultural theoryand politics of the implosion ofbiologics and informatics in postWorldWar II life sciences In this implosion, organisms lost their ontolog

ical privilege to genomes, those wonderl generators of new wealth,new knowledge, and mutated ways of living and dying ile I take forgranted many of the consequences of the implosion of biologics andinformatics in shaping ways of being and knowing in the technopresent,I am here attending to a related but dierent sort of implosionthat ofthe utterly "natural and the wholly "technical, where, for example, endangered species in the necessarily managed wilderness wear electronic

sensors and live in habitats monitored by satellites as a crucial part ofteir biological reproductive apparatus It remains to be seen if this arrangement will be an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (Dawkins 1 982) , butit has surely become a gure of biosocial modernity Simply put, biodiversity has become dependent upon high technology in many parts ofthe world The physical implosion of te "natural and the "technical'mateialysemiotl speaking, is a normal, everyday, earthly fact n themost boph, tommtted communite every bt as much asn the mot thoh os oe o t oetor uty



308 • Cyborgs to Comp anion Species

s tere a moral to tis story? Dogs invented themselves; tey are notan invention ofhumans? Or dogs and people shaped each other in a longand complicated history, where the story of the wannabe dogs taking therst steps is more convincing than its opposite? If dogs are a humantecnology, so also is the reverse true, as part of an extended phenotypein a canine sociobiological tale. I like the coevolution story better thaneither the version that the dogs did it, or the people did it. It redoes testory of the human place in nature in homely ways that also impact onfortications between categories of nature and culture.

There are stakes here beyond what we think about dog evolution.The stakes are how we think about liveliness and agency in dier

ent worlds. We require a multi-species and a multi-expertise way ofdoing/thinking worlds and ways of life, and that requires muting thecommand/communication/control/intelligence idiom of cyborgs .

Companion species are, among other things, a serious feminst matter,right at the heart of the ongoing Western feminist eort to do better thanrecycling idioms of liberalism and their benets-maximizing, bounde,and independent selves as archetypes of freedom. Companion species

oer a kind of bypass surgery for liberal idioms of both individualsand of diversity. Companion species do this right in the belly of themonsterinside biotechnology and the New World Order, Inc. Genders,breeds, races, l nes, speciesall the kinds are in play in these narrativemorphings, with material- semiotic consequences. This is concrescencefrom the point of view of the birth of the kennel, in ongoing, relentlesslyhistorical layers of practice, where all the actors and agencies are nothuman.

B. B iodiversity Goes to the Dogs8

Genetic disease is not news to dog people, and perhaps especially purebred dog people. Many breeders and ownerssome willingly, soenothave become used to thinking about the genetic difculties common to their breeds and even about polygenic traits with unknown modes

of inheritance and strong environmental and developmental components affecting expression, like canine hip dysplasia. In myriad ways,genetic disease discourse shapes communities of practice for owners,breeders, researchers, dog rescue activists, breed clubs, kennel clubs,journalists, shelter workers, veterinarians, dog sports competitors, andtrainers. Tere is much tQ say about the fascinatin cultures of geneticdsease in dogs, but in tis paper want to focus on a much more unsettin topic n purebred og land: genetic dversty n small populationsFst, et us oo at w eetc vest concerns are nesand hard



Reconfiguring Kinshi p in T echnoscience • 309

to digest newsfor most dog people, in spite of the long history of population genetics and its importance for the modern theory of naturalselection and the neo-Darwinian synthesis and its ospring.

Genetic culture for both professionals and non-professionals, especially but not only in the United States, has been strongly shaped bymedical genetics. Human genetic disease is the moral, technoscientic,ideological, and nancial center of the medical genetic universe. Typological thinking reigns almost unchecked in this universe; and nuancedviews of developmental biology, behavioral ecology, and genes as nodesin dynamic and multi -vectorial elds of vital interactions are only someof the crash victims of high -octane medical genetic fuels and gene-jockey

racing careers . For my taste, genomes are too much made up of investment opportunities of the "one regionone produt sort, a kind ofenterprised-up descendant of the "one geneone enzyme principle thatproved so fruitful in research. Taken one at a time, genes, especiallydisease-related genes, induce brain damage in those trying to come togrips with genetic diversity issues and their consequences.

Evolutionary biology, bio-social ecology, population biology, and

population genetics (not to mention history of science, political economy, and cultural anthropology) have played a woefully small role inshaping public and professional genetic imaginations, and all too smalla role in drawing the big money for genetic research. Considering onlydog worlds, my preliminary research turns up millions ofdollars in grantsgoing into genetic disease research (even though peanuts compared todollars for genetic research in organisms like mice who are onventionally models for human disease; dog genetics gets more money as it is

shown that genome homologies across taxonomic divisions make canines ideal for understanding lots of human conditions, e.g. , narcolepsy,bleeding disorders, and retinal degeneration) , and only a few thousanddollars (and lots of volunteer time from both professionals and lay collaborators) going into canine genetic diversity research.

The emergence since the 1980s of biodiversity discourses, environmentalisms, and sustainability doctrines of every political color on the

agendas of myriad NGOs and of First World institutions like the WorldBank, the International Union for the Conservation ofature and Natural Resources (IUCN ), and the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD), as well as in the Third World, has made adifference in this situation.9 The notoriously problematic politics andalso the compelling naturalcultural complexity of diversity discoursesrequires a self of bs, some of which have been written. I thin theemerence f genetic iversity nerns in d worlds only maes senseistrically s a wavelet in the set reers nstitutin transnational,




globalizing, biological and cultural diversity discourses, in which genesand genomes (and immune systems) are major players. Noticing someof the conditions of emergence of a discourse is not the same thing asreducing its value to ideological stepchild status Quite the opposite: I acompelled by the irreducible complexitymorally, politically, culturalland scienticallyof diversity discourses, including those leashed to thegenomes and gene pools of purebred dogs and their canine relatives inand out of "nature.

The last few paragraphs are preparation for logging onto the CanineDiversity Project website,w.magma.ca/ kaitlin/ diverse.html, ownedby Dr. John Armstrong, a lover of Standard and Miniature Poodles and a

faculty member in the Department ofBiology at the University of Ottawauntil his death in the summer of200 1 . Armstrong wrote and distributedas widely as possible his analyses of the effects of a popular sire and aparticular kennel in Standard Poodes. so the owner of CANGEN-L,Armstrong conducted collaborative research with dog health and genetics activists to study whether longevity is correlated to the degreeof inbreeding. Aiming in its introductory sentence to draw the atten

tion of dog breeders to "the dangers of inbreeding and the overuse ofpopular sires, the Diversity Project website started in 1 997. Used by atleast severa hundred dog people of several nationalities, in the rst threeand half months of 2000, the site registered 4,500 logons. I have myseflearned a tremendous amount from this website; I appreciate the qualityof information, the controversies engaged, the evident care for dogs andpeople, the range of material, and the commitments to issues I am concerned with. I am alo professionaly acutely alert to the semioticsthe

meaning-making machineryof the Canine Diversity Project website.Animated by a mission, the site draws its users into its reform agenda

at every turn. Some of the rhetorical devices are classical Americantropes rooted in old popular self-help practices and evangelical Protestant witness, devices so ingrained in U.S . culture that few users wouldbe conscious of their history. For example, right aer the introductoryparagraph with the in itial link terms, the Diversity Project website leads

its users into a section called, "How You Can Help. The question thevisitor confronts is like that used in advertising and in preachingHaveyou been saved? Have you taken the Immune Power pledge? (slogafrom an ad for a vitamin formulation in the 1 980s ) . Or, as the DiversityProject puts the query, "Ask the QuestionDo you need a Breed Sur-

vival Plan'?'' This is the stu f subject-reconstituting, conversion andconviction discourse (Harding 1 999) .

The rs fou highlghte linkage words in the opening paragraphsof he webse ae "popla ses' a common erm for man ears in






wys of hinking nd cting 1 The rs obvious point is h "survivaplans connoe h somehing is endangered The line between a secur crisis nd a sacred apocaypse is a very hin one in US Americandiscourse, where miennia} matters are written ino the fabric of he national imagination from the rst Puritan City on a Hi o Str Trek andits sequeae The second obvious point is that he prominent roe givento species surviva pans on the anine Diversiy Project websie invites areproductive tie between natura species and purebred dogs This is oneof those ties where the naura and the technica keep cose company,semitoticay and materiay

To iustrate this point, I wi dwe on the materia on my screen aer

I cick on "Species Surviva Pan and foow up with a cick on "Introduction to a Species Surviva Pan I am teeported to the website forthe Tiger Information Center; and, appreciating a face-ont photo oftwo imposing tigers crossing a stream, I am presented with a paper on"Regiona and Goba Management of Tigers' by R Tison, K. TayorHozer and G Brady Now, I know ots of dog peope ove cats, contraryto popuar stereotypes about foks being either canine or feine in their

affections But tigers in zoos around the word and in shrunken "forestpatches spread from India across China to the Russian Far East and southto Indonesia is a eap out of the kenne and the show ring or herdingtrias I earn that three of the eight recognized subspecies of igers are aready extinc, a fourth on the brink, and a the wid popuations stressedIdeay, the goa of a SSP msterpan for an endangered species is, outof existing anmas in zoos and some new "founders brought in om"nature' to create viabe, managed, captive popuations to maintain as

much of the genetic diversity for a the extant taxa of the species as possibe The purpose is to provide a genetic reservoir for the reinforementor reconstiution of wid popuations where necessary and possibe Apractica SSP, "because of space imitations generay targes 90 of genetic diversity of the wid popuations for 1 00200 years as a reasonabegoa' I am in ove with the hopefuness of that kind of reasonabenessThe "Zoo Ark for the tigers, amentaby, has to be more modest because

the resources are too few and he needs too grea An SSP is a compex,cooperative mangement program of the Americn Zoo and AquariumAssociation (AZA)

What does deveoping and impementing a SSP invove? The short answer isa ong ist of companion species of organic, organization, andechnoogic kinds A minium account of such compnion speciesmus incude: he Word Conservtion Union's speciais groups whome ssessmens o endngermen member zoos, wih heir scienists,eees, nd bods o vens sml nemen Grou under he



Reconfiguring K inship in T echnosci ence • 3

AZA; a database maintained as a Regional Studbook, using specializedsoware like SPARKS ( Single Population and Records Keeping Systemand its companion programs for demographic and genetic analysis, produced by the International Species Information System; nders; nationalgovernments; international bodies; and, hardly least, the animals in danger. Crucial operations within a SSP are measurements of diversity andrelatedness. One wants to know Founder Importance Coefcients (ICas a tool for equalizing relative founder contributions and minimizinginbreeding. Full and accurate pedigrees are precious objects for an SSP.Mean Kinship (MK) and Kinship Values (KV) rule mate choice in thissociobiological system. "Reinforcing wild species requires a global appa

ratus of technoscientic production, where the natural and the technicalhave very high coecients of semiotic and practical inbreeding. 1 2

Purebred dog breeders also value deep pedigrees, and they are accustomed to evaluating matings with rgard to breed standards, which is acomplex, non-formulaic art. Inbreeding is not a new concern. So what isso challenging about a SSP as a universe of reference? The denition ofpopulations and founders is perhaps rst. Discussions among engaged

breeders on CANGENi.e. , people sufcently interested in questionsof genetic diversity to sign on and post to a specialized Internet mailing listshow that dog people's "lines and "breeds are not equivalentterms to wildlife biologsts' and geneticists' "populations . The behaviorproperly associated with these dierent words is quite dierent. A dogbreeder educated in the traditional mento ring practices of the fancy willattempt through line breeding, with variable frequencies of outcrosses,to maximize the genetic/blood contribution of the truly "great dogs'

who are rare and special. The great dogs are the individuals who bestembody the type of the breed. The type is not a xed thing, but a l iving,imaginative hope and memory. Kennels oen are recognized for the distinctiveness of their dogs, and breeders point proudly to their kennel'sown founders, and breed club documents to the breed's founders. Thenotion of working to equalize the contribution of all of the founders inthe population geneticists' sense is truly odd in traditional dog breed

ers' discourse. Of course, a SSP, unlike nature and unlike dog breeders,is not operating with adaptational selectional criteria; the point of aSSP is to preserve diversity as such as a reservoir. Small populations aresubject to intense extinction pressuresloss ofhabitat, fragmented subpopulations no longer able to exchange genetic material, loss of genesthough the random process called genetic dri, crisis events causingpopulation crases ie famines or disases, and on and on.

he S is svio management pan, not natue, owever concetulize, s wien stna o an inividua eeers




ierpreaion of hat stadard. Like a SSP, a breed standard is also a kindof large-scale action blueprit, but for other purposes. Some breedersalk of hose purposes i capital letters, as the Original Purpose of agive breed. Others are not typological in that sense and are atunedo dynamic histories and evolving goals within a partly shared sense ofbreed history, structure, and function. These breeders are keely awareof the need for selection on he basis of many crieria as holistically aspossible o maintain and improve a breed's overall quality and to achievehe rare special dogs. They take these responsibilities very seriously; andthey are not virgins to controversy, contradiction, and failure. They arenot against learning abou genetic diversity in the context of the prob

lems hey know or suspect their dogs face. Some breedersa very few,I thinkembrace genetic diversity discourse and population genetics.They worry that the foundation of their breeds might be too narrow andgetting narrower. But the breeder's art does not easily entertain adoptingthe heavily mathematical and sowaredriven mating systems of a SSP.I witness in my research several courageous breeders insisting on deeperpedigrees and regular calculations of coefcients of inbreeding, with ef

forts to hold them down where possible. But the breeders I overhear areloathe to cede decisions to anything like a master plan. In my judgment,they do not see their own dogs or their breed primarily as biologicalpopulations. The dominance of specialists over local and lay communities in the SSP world does not escape dog breeders' attention. Most ofthe breeders whom I overhear squirm if the discussion stays on a theoretical population genetics level and if few if any of the data come fromdogs, raher than, ay, a Malagasy lemur population or lab-bound mouse

strain. In short, breeders' discourse and genetic diversity discourse donot hybridize smoothly, at least in the F 1 generation. This mating is whaI hear breeders call a "cold outcross that they worry risks importing asmany problems as it solves.

There is much more to the Canine Diversity Project website than theSSP links, and if I had the space to examine the rich texture of the wholewebsite, many more sors of openings, repulsions, inclusions, attrac

tions, and possibilities would be evident for seeing the ways dog breeders, healh activists, veterinarians, and geneticists relate to the questionof diversity. At the very least, the serious visitor o the website couldge a decent elementary education in genetics, including Mendelian,medical, and population genetics. Fascinating collaborations betweenidividual scieists and bred club healh and genetics activiss wouldemerge. Te differeces wihi dog people's ways of thinking abou geeic iversi a ibreeig woul be iescapable, as the �pocalypic oovesia Jee 's "evolvig bees an Seppaa Siberian



Reconfiguring K ins hip in T echnoscience • 35

Sled Dogs meet John Armstrong's more modest Standard oodles andhis more moderate action plan, "Genetics for Breeders : How to roduceHealthier Dogs) or Leos Kraal's and C. A. Sharp's ways of working inAustralian Shepherd worlds. Links would take the visitor to the extraordinary Cde of Ethics of the Co ton de Tulear Club of America and thibreed's alpha-male geneticist activist, Robert Jay Russell, as well as to theonline documents with which the Border Collie web site teaches geneticsrelevant to that fascinating breed. The visitor could follow links to themolecular evolution of the dog family, updated lists of current DNA genetests in dogs, discussions of wolf conservation and wolf taxonomic debates, accounts of a cross-breeding ( to a Pointer) and backcross project

in Dalmatians to eliminate a common genetic disease and of importingnew African stock in Basenjis to deal with genetic dilemmas. One couldclick one's way to discussions of infertility, stress, and herpes infections,or follow links to endocrine disrupter discourse for thinking about howenvironmental degradation might be affectng dogs, as well as frogs andpeople, globally. Right in the middle of the Diversity Project website isa bold-type invitation to join the mailing list Armstrong ran until his

death, the Canine Genetics Discussion Group (CANGEN-L), where asometimes rough and tumble exchange among heterogeneous lay andprofessional dog people stirred up the pedagogical order of the website.

So dog, not tigersand breeds, not endangered speciesactuallydominate on the Canine Diversity Project website. But the metaphoric,political, and practical possibilities of those rst links to Species Survivallans attach themselves like well positioned ticks on a nice blade of grass,waiting for a passing visitor from purebred dog land. Frontline defenses

are not always enough. We are in the ercely local and linked globalzones of technobiopolitics, where few species are more than a click away.Naturalcultural survival is the prize.

I l l . CAY'S CRADLE: A CONCLUSI ON I N TANGLES

What I L k e about the Matera-Semiotic Knot, the Literal ized Fi gure,

of Companion Spies1 Networks of co-constitution, co-evolution, communication,collaboration abound to help us rethink issues of communication and control at the heart of the cyborg gure.

2 Humans, other organisms, artifacts, and technologies are allplayers, a requirement of an aliberal approach. The relationshipis the smalle osble unt of analysis.

3 ewse, e, y eole, an dogs are all on te play bln evoluor r.




4 Companion species are not invoved in another Hegeian confrontation of sef-other, cuture-nature, or simiar duaisms

5 . Companion species are not another version of a Marxist humanist diaectic of nature remade by abor The making goes intoo many directions

6. The story is more Whiteheadean, fu of his kind of objectications

7. This story provokes nding nonanthropomorphic ways to gure agencies and actors

8 . Companion species throw comparative methods into crisis because the norm stabiizing comparison wobbes; eg, conscious

ness wi not do for considering anima we being Companionspecies discourse does not produce an anima rights or humanrights ageda, but does insist on compex ethica discourse

9. Here we have situated co-constitution, with inherited pasts ofmany inds, rather than diaectica unity; i e , situatedness dispaces teeoogy anayticay and moray This is a about originstories How we might ive and ouish is a permanent, nite,

mundane question; thee is no way out, especiay in terms ofextraterrestria projects of man (species ) evoving toward bodyessness

10 . Companion species words are at home with the non-heroicdaiiness of epistemoogica/ontoogica/ethica action; the birthof the kenne is a homey story

1 1 . Leigh Star's question ( 1 99 1 ) cannot be evaded: cui ? Whoives, and ives we, and who dies and why, in companion species

reations?12 We have rea histories of dogs and peope; not The Dog an

The Human; in co-constitution there are ayers of practices andmany chronicities Scae is made, not given ( Tsing 2000)

1 3 . There is aways a necessary weave ofnarrative and other materiasemiotic practices

14 . Fu of cross tak and questions about ocations of expertise and

authority, this story is not cynica about teing the truth Practices must be reentessy situated inside truth teing, and viceversa

1 5 . The story requires considering seriousy "companion animasand compex morascientic action outside the straight-jacketsof much anima right discourse, feminist and otherwise "Companion species is not a very friendy notion for those "animarihs perspectve that rely on a scale of simiarity �o humanmely for ss vlue Boh peope and ther partnersr osru sr of omnon spees, and he



Reconfiguring K inship in T echnosc ience • 37

issues of hierarchy and cruelty, as well as colleagueship andresponsibility, are open and polyvalent, both historically andmorally. Also, "companion species does not prejudge the category of the "species they could be artifacts, o rganisms, technologies, other humans, etc. The simple and obvious point isthat nothing is self-made, autocthonous, or self-sufcient. Origin stories have to be about fraught histories of consequentialrelationships. The point is to engage "ontological choreographyin the yearning for more livable and lively relationships acrosskinds, human and non-human.

16 Dog worlds become a place to work through idioms and prac

tices around diversity, including in environmental polit ics andhumananimal relationship politics, both of which are areas ofmajor feminist concern.

17 The literalized gure of companion species addresses the longhistory of feminist critique of possessive individualism. By "literalized' I mean materially semiotically engaged, leshly andsignicant all the way down.

1 8 The literalized gure of companion species does semioticmaterial work on idioms of breed, species, sex, reproduction,behavior, genome.

1 9 The literalized gure of companion species foregrounds relations of communities of practice in relation to intersectionally (Crenshaw 1993; gender, race, nation, and species areonly a start). Attention to dierentiated expertise and differentiated literacieswhether caled "lay or "professionalis

required.20. The literalized gure of companion species invites "intersec

tional analysis ofkey themes: breeds and the history ofeugenicstechnology and the organic body histories of class, race, gender,and nation.

2 1 A key question is: who cleans up the shit in a companion speciesrelationship?

NOTES

. Vicki Hearne is a dog writer, philosopher, and email correspondent, who died in thesummer of 2001 . See Hearne ( 986).

2 This slogan can be found on T-shirts an d windshied stickers among enthusiasts of thedog sport cale Schutzhun, which involves competition in tracking, protection work,a obeece

3 . See Gay ( 1995 ) o a ch et o ocumets an accout o f cyborg wods See o,

Jono, a Cavaao (2002) o a trik nte lectual htoy of cybecuture.4 See aaay ( 985 ) o y eot to ve the atuecutue of Maxst ecojuate t tecocec tue te te o Reaa' Sta Wa. See Soou



38 • Cyborgs to Compa nion Species

( 2002) for an incisive account of the fate ofthat cyborg material-semiotic doppleganger.See Goodeve (2000) for an extended interview on my cyborg and her associates.

5 The doghuman coevolution story below is sightly revised from For the Love of aGood Dog Webs of Action in the World of Dog Genetics' Haraway 2003a .

6.Recent taxonomic revisions make dogs into a subspecies of woves, Canis lupens famil-iaris, rather than into a species of their own, Canis familiaris This technica issue hasmultiple consequences beyond the scope of this paper. See Coppinger and Coppinger200 1 , pp. 273282. For a critique of Vil, et a's dating of dog evolution from mtDAdata, see Coppinger and Coppinger 2001 , pp. 283294.

7. Like much in the former USSR, this trickster drama of worker safety, industrial eciency, and evolutionary theory and genetics in the far north devoved in the postColdWar economic order. Since the salaries of the scientists at the Genetics Institute have notbeen paid, much of the breeding stock of tame foxes has been destroyed. The scientistsscramble to save the restand fund their researchby marketing them in the West as

pets with characteristics between dogs and cats. A sad irony is that if the geneticists andtheir foxes succeed in surviving in this enterprise cuture, the popuation of remaining animals bred for the internationa pet trade will have been geneticaly depleted bythe slaughter necessitated by the rigors of post-Soviet capitaism and commercializingthe animas not for r coats but as pets. ote also the tones of the Lysenko aair in thestory of the evolution of tame Soviet foxes.

8. The section on biodiversity in dogland below is drawn om an earlier version of partsof Cloning Mutts, Saving Tigers: Ethical Emergents in Technocultural Dogland' inFranklin and Lock, 2003.

9. See, for example, World Conservation Strteg IUC, 1 980; the Bruntland Report, OurCommon uture, WEC, 1987; Agenda 2 1 ; Convention on Biodiversity, 1 992; GuidingPrinciples on Forests; Valuing Nature's Services, WordWatch Institute Report ofProgresstoward a Sustainable Society, 1 997; Investing in Biological Diversi, Cairns Conference,OECD, 1997; Saving Biological Diversi: Economic Incentives, OECD, 1996.

10 . I a m using a version of th e website online in 2000.1 1 The Rare Breed Survival Trust in the UK (mainly for poultry, sheep, pigs, cattle, and

other farm ivestock heritage" animals not usually thought of as either companionanimalsespecialy not as pets"or wild animals, including the working colie dogs

that the Trust attends to) , and its journa TheArk, would repay close attention in relationto action in dog worlds. Thanks to Sarah Franklin and Thelma Rowel for handing meinto The Ark.

12 SSP i s a orth American term. Europeans have European Endangered Species Programs(EESPs); Austraasians have Australasian Species Management Programs, and China,Japan, India, Thai and, Malaysia, and Indonesia al have their own equivalents. This isglobal science of indigenous species.

1 3 . Information for those whose lives are not rued by rea ticks and rea dogs: Frontline™ isa new-generation tick and lea control product that has made dogs' and dog peope's

ives much less irritable.14 . I am in obvious and deep alliance with Bruno Latour on these matters. See. for example,Latour 1993.

REFERENCES

Auerbach, Eric 1953. Mimesis The Rpresentation of Reality i n Western Literature Princeton,NJ Princeton University Press

aa, aren 5 eet te nverse alay Ambiguties, Discontinuitis, Quatu

becs, a ue osonn n emnsm an hysics" In Feminism, Science,



Reconfiguring Kin shi p in T echnoscience • 39

and the Philosophy of Science: A Dialog, edited by L. H. Neson and J. Nelson Norwel:Kuwer Press

Beck, Aan, and Aaron Katcher. 1996. Between Pets and People: The Importance of AnimalCompanionship 2nd ed. West Lafayette, Ind. Purdue University Press

Belyaev, .K. 1969. "Domestication of Aimals' Science Journal, UK 547-52 Boitani, L, F Francisci, Ciucci, and G. Adreoli. 1 995 . " Population Bioogy an d Ecoogy ofFeral Dogs in Centra Italy. In Serpel, ed , pp. 2 1 7-244.

Brown, Norman 0. 1966. Love's Body New York Random House.Cynes, Manfred E., and Nathan S Kline. 1960 "Cyborgs and Space. Astraunatics, September

26-27, 1 960, pp. 5-76.Coppinger, Raymond, and Lorna Coppinger. 2001. Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of

Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution Ne York Scribner.Coppinger, Raymond, and Richard Schneider. 1995. "Evolution ofWorking Dogs. In Serpell,

pp. 21-47.

Crensha, Kimberle. 1 993 . "Demarginalizing the ntersection of Race and Sex A Black Feminist Critique of Atidiscrimination Doctr ine, Feminist Theory, and Atiracist Politics' In Feminist Legal Theo: Foundations, edi ted by D. Kelly Weisberg, pp . 3 83-395.Phiadelphia Tempe University Press.

Crockford, Susan J. 2000. "Dog Evolution A Roe for Thyroid Hormone Physiology in Domestication Changes. In Dogs through Time An Archaeological Perspective, edited by S.Crockford, pp. 1 1-20. Oxford, England BAR International Series 889.

Cussins, Charis Thompson. 1 996. "Ontological Choreography Agency through Objectication in Infertiity Cinics, Social Studies of Science, 26575-610.

Dawkins, Richard. 1982. The tended Phenope: The Gene as a Uni t of Selection LondonOxford University Press.

Franklin, Sarah and Margaret Lock, eds. 2003. Remaking Life and Death. Santa Fe, NM SARPress.

Goodeve, Thyrza. 2000 . How Like a Lea Donna Harawa an Interview with Thyrza GoodeveNew York: Routledge.

Gray, Chris Hables, ed. 1 995 . The Cyborg Handbook New York Routledge.Haraay, Donna. 1985. "A Manifesto for Cyborgs;' Socialist Review, no. 80, pp. 65-1 08.

- 2003a. "For the Love of a Go od Dog Webs of Action in th e Word of Dog Genetics

In Race, Nature, and the Politics of Dierence, edited by Donald Moore Durham, NCDuke University Press.

2003b "Cloning Mutts, Saving Tigers Ethical Emergents in Technocultural Dogland.In Franklin and Lock.

2003c. The Companion Species Manifesto Chicago Prickly Paradigm Press.Harding, Susan. 1999. The Book of erry Falwell Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.Hearne, Vicki. 1986. Adam's Task: Calling Animals by Name New York Knopf.Hutchinson, George Evelyn. 1965. The Ecological Theater and the Evolutionary Play New

Haven Yae University Press.

King, Katie. forthcoming. Feminism and Writing Technologies Manuscript, University ofMaryland at Colege Park.Latour, Bruno. 1 993 We Have Never Been Modern, transated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge

Harvard University Press.Rabinow, Pau. 1992. "Articiality and Enlightenment From Sociobiology to Biosociality.

In Incorporations, edited by J. Crary and S. Qwinter, pp. 234-252. New York: ZoneBooks

Serpe, James, ed. 199. he Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions withPeole Came: Cme Unversity Press.

Soous, oe 2002. "Cee: arawa's aniesto In os et a!.

Sta, usan e 1 9 9 1 . owe, enoo an te enomenoo o Conventons: n



320 • Cyborgs to Compa nion Species

Beng Allergic to Onions In A Sociology of Monsters: Power, Technology, and the Modernorld, edited by John Law, pp 2656. Oxford Basil Blackwell

Strathern, Marilyn 1992 Reproducing the Future: Anthropology, Kinship, and the New Repro-ductive Technologies New York Routledge

Tempeton, Aan 1999. "Human Race in the Context of Human Evolution A MolecularPerspective Paper for the Wenner Gren Foundation Conference on Anthropology inthe Age of Genetics, June 1 1 19 Teresopolis, Brazil

Tos, Darren, Annemarie Jonson, and Alessio Cavallaro, eds 2002. Preguring CybercultureAn Intellectual History. Cambridge MT Press

Trut, Lyudamila N 1 999. MarchApril "Early Canid Domestication The Fox-Farm Experi-ment American Scientist ? (MarchApril) 1 601 69.

Tsing, Anna 2000. " nside th e Economy of Appearances' Public Culture 12 , no 1 : 1 15144.Verran, Helen 200 1 Science and an Aican Logic Chicago University of Chicago PressVil, Carles, Peter Savolainen, Jess E Maldonado, sabel R Amorim, John E Rice, Rodney L

Honeycutt, Keith A Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, and Robert K Wayne 1 997. "Multipleand Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog' Science 276 (June 13 ) : 1 6871 689.

Weidensau, Scott 1999. "Tracking Aerica's First Dogs' Smithsonian Magazine, March 1pp 4457

Whitehead, Alfred North 1 948 . Science and the Modern World New York Mentor; orig 1 925. - . 1969. Process and Reali New York Free Press; orig 1929 .

Wilson, E 0. 1992. The Diversity of Life New York and London W W Norton ed 1988 . Biodiversi Washington, DC ational Academy Press

Cyborgs to Companion Species Cap9 Haraway Reader

Documents