Monkey business social and cultural geography 2010

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [National University Of Singapore]On: 22 September 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 779896407]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social & Cultural GeographyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713708888

Monkey business: human-animal conflicts in urban SingaporeJun-Han Yeoa; Harvey Neob

a Raffles Girls School, Singapore b Department of Geography, National University of Singapore,Singapore

Online publication date: 17 September 2010

To cite this Article Yeo, Jun-Han and Neo, Harvey(2010) 'Monkey business: human-animal conflicts in urban Singapore',Social & Cultural Geography, 11: 7, 681 — 699To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2010.508565URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2010.508565

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713708888

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2010.508565

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Monkey business: human–animal conflicts in urbanSingapore

Jun-Han Yeo1 & Harvey Neo21Raffles Girls School, 20 Anderson Road, 259978, Singapore and 2Department of Geography,

National University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link, 117570, Singapore, [email protected]

Ongoing human–long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) conflicts in Bukit TimahNature Reserve, Singapore, have seen native macaques significantly affected, asresidential development encroaches into animals’ habitat, destroying important wildlifecorridors. The search for a more humane treatment of these transgressive animals can beseen as an attempt to extend and include non-human animals within humanistic notionsof ethics and care, in the process destabilizing the assumed divide between human/animal.Yet, a feasible solution is difficult to reach as National Parks Board (NParks), the stateagency overseeing the conservation of reserves and wildlife, has to negotiate constantlybetween their goal of maintaining biodiversity and appeasing the complaining residents.The paper seek to understand urban–wilderness conflicts between human–macaque,showing that the divide between tamed/wild is multi-sited, ambiguous and constantlyshifting. In this regard, we are especially interested in the role of intermediaries ininitiating actions to ‘make discursive as well as material space’ for macaques in thereserve. Intermediaries, here referring to NParks and animal activists, are actors who donot reside near the reserve thus having no frequent encounters with wildlife, yet areenrolled as mitigators during instances of human–animal conflicts.

Key words: animal geography, environmental politics, transgression, borderlands,urbanization, intermediaries.

Introduction

‘New’ animal geography emerged during the

mid-1990s, interrogating the anthropocentr-

ism of social theory by ‘bringing the animals

back in’ (Wolch and Emel 1995) and examin-

ing the material welfare and cultural signifi-

cance of nonhuman animals within the

geographies of social life. The post-structural

turn in geography in the 1980s, together with

rising environmental movements challenging

speciesism, led the newly emerging animal

geographers to rethink the concept of sub-

jectivity and disrupt the assumed dichotomy

between human/animal (Wolch and Emel

1998). Animals are reconceptualized as beings

possessing subjectivity, agency and intention-

ality, active in configuring both the environ-

ment they inhabit and their interactions with

people. AlthoughWilbert (2000) questions the

Social & Cultural Geography, Vol. 11, No. 7, November 2010

ISSN 1464-9365 print/ISSN 1470-1197 online/10/070681-19 q 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2010.508565

Downloaded By: [National University Of Singapore] At: 12:18 22 September 2010

necessity of such conceptualizations in

acknowledging animals’ agency, and the

effectiveness of such exercises in uncovering

animals’ ‘beastliness’ and the (ineluctable?)

risk of anthropomorphism (see also Johnston

2008); animals, nevertheless, began to figure

critically in the construction of human

identities and formation of places and

landscapes.

This paper studies the ongoing human–

long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis;

Figure 1) conflicts in Bukit Timah Nature

Reserve (BTNR), Singapore. Native macaques

are significantly affected, as residential devel-

opment encroaches into animals’ habitat,

destroying important wildlife corridors, and

in the process, discursively rewriting the

meaning of the landscape (Wolch 2002). In

2007, 206 macaques were caught and culled,

double the figure of ninety-three in 2004 (The

Straits Times 2008b). Culling signifies the

shifting of spatial relations between human

and animals, where wildlife are rendered ‘out-

of-place’ as spaces become urbanized.

BTNR is an example of what Wolch, Emel

and Wilbert (2003: 188) termed ‘“border-

land” communities’ where humans and wild

animals share spaces. Material and metapho-

rical boundaries are placed to demarcate

urban spaces as domains of human dom-

inance. Such boundaries are highly permeable

and susceptible to animal transgressions.

Transgression, the physical and ‘metaphorical

crossing of social boundaries (norms, conven-

tions, and expectations)’ (Philo 1995: 656),

blurs human/animal divide, producing anxiety

that legitimizes the removal of the transgressor

for the perceived order to be restored.

However, the ambiguity of borderland,

namely the trans-species sharing of spaces,

makes animal culling a morally-charged issue

(Gullo, Lassiter and Wolch 1998; Proctor

1998). The search for a more humane

treatment of these transgressive animals can

be seen as an attempt to extend and include

nonhuman animals within humanistic notions

of ethics and care, in the process, destabilizing

the assumed divide between human/animal.

Yet, a feasible solution is difficult to reach as

National Parks Board (NParks), the state

agency overseeing the conservation of reserves

and wildlife, has to constantly negotiate

between their goal of maintaining biodiversity

and appeasing the complaining residents.

The paper seeks to understand urban–

wilderness conflicts between human–macaque

within BTNR, showing that the divide

between tamed/wild is multi-sited, ambiguous

and constantly shifting. In this regard, we are

especially interested in the role of intermedi-

aries in initiating actions to ‘make discursive

Figure 1 Long-tailed macaque. Authors’ own

photograph.

682 Jun-Han Yeo & Harvey Neo


as well as material space’ (Wolch 2002: 736)

for macaques in the reserve. Intermediaries,

here referring to NParks and animal activists,

are actors who do not reside near the reserve

thus having no frequent encounters with

wildlife, yet are enrolled as mitigators during

instances of human–animal conflicts. We will

also elaborate on a ‘dwelt perspective’ to

interrogate the role played by the intermedi-

aries in the management of animal–human

conflicts; this is a research lacuna that we seek

to contribute to.

Following this introduction, we will give an

overview of work within animal geographies

that recognizes the discursive role of animals

in the social construction of places and

landscapes, followed by a suggested concep-

tual framework and a brief note on method-

ologies. In the substantive empirical section,

we first discuss BTNR residents’ attitudes and

behaviors towards wild macaques, to reveal

the socio-spatial implications for macaques as

spaces become urbanized. We then examine

the discourses and agencies of intermediaries,

specifically scrutinizing the mitigating role of

NParks. NParks’ positionality within this

conflict is, we will show through the issue of

culling, constantly shifting. As conflicts occur

within ambiguous trans-species borderlands,

mitigation process can never be assumed as

objective, as any solution reached is always

situational and politicized.

Animal geographies: politics and repre-sentations

Animal geographers have shown how humans’

interpretation of, and relations with animals

inevitably have their own spatial implications.

Human discourses about animals shape

their attitude and socio-spatial practices

towards them, in which different species are

in-/excluded in different spaces (Philo 1995:

664). Philo (1995) shows how medical, moral

and sanitary discourses had been mobilized

to render behavior of livestock animals as

disruptive and polluting to civility and order

of nineteenth-century Smithfield, London,

thus constituting livestock, together with

meat markets and slaughterhouses, as ‘out-

of-place’. Howell (2000) shows how dog-

stealing in the Victorian age undermined the

gendered, bourgeois ideology of domesticity,

thus legitimizing the domestication and

confinement of both the ‘feminized’ lap dogs

and their virtuous women keepers within

the security of the household. Michel (1998)

argues that the conservation/rehabilitation of

endangering golden eagles and their habitat by

grassroots communities produce politicized,

trans-species acts of care that position eagles

as important actors in the making of the

southern California landscape.

Domesticated animals, like livestock, are

crucial in the imaginative geography of

rurality. They embody the values of rurality,

and are symbols of rural ways of life and

livelihood. In their study of the changing

geography of livestock distribution in the

British countryside, Yarwood and Evans move

beyond economistic reasoning, and draw a

relationship between ‘breeds, place and cul-

ture’ (2000: 100) to argue that certain rare

place-specific breeds are preserved to not only

protect local ecology and promote agrotour-

ism, but also to (re)constitute local identity

through the animal’s historical and cultural

links with the landscape. Similarly, Hovorka

(2008) also argues that chickens are influential

actors in determining the ‘form, function and

dynamics’ of Greater Gaborone, Botswana,

through their important socio-economic trans-

species relationships with humans.

Despite the absence of animals’ physical

participations in political processes, their

Monkey business 683


representations are still mobilized in such

contestations (Woods 1998, 2000). Woods

(1998) shows how representations of deer are

variedly mobilized by different politically-

motivated actors to legitimize their claims in

the staghunting debates. Anti-hunting cam-

paigners utilize emotive images to portray deer

as defenseless animals suffering from pain and

cruelty in the hunt; whereas hunt supporters

use scientific discourses to affirm hunting as

‘natural’ and necessary in controlling deer

population. Similarly, during the ‘BSE crisis’,

cattle were imbued with monetary and

cultural values by farmers and agricultural

lobbyists in their negotiations for compen-

sation over the cattle culled, and also

scientifically represented by British govern-

ment to ‘establish “facts” about the disease

and hence make recommendations about its

control’ (Woods 1998: 1229). As livestock are

central to meanings of rurality, the crisis also

represented rural alternatively as a diseased

space, overturning the popular purity imagery

of the countryside.

These examples illustrate that the represen-

tations of animals are always political; biased

and partial, reflecting solely the interests of

humans in their political debates. Animals are

enrolled and mobilized in often contradictory

‘representations’, with their ‘beastly’ presences

purposefully erased (Marvin 2001; Woods

2000).

Hence, when animal behaviors contradict

the way humans perceive or ‘represent’ them,

or when they transgress those boundaries

humans imaginatively scripted them into,

conflict arises. Jerolmack (2008) interrogates

the spatial-cultural logic of the metaphor ‘rats

with wings’ that represents pigeons as nui-

sance animals and vectors of diseases, hence

‘out-of-place’ in the modern city. The meta-

phorical association with rats, popularly

perceived as filthy and disease-ridden, creates

a moral baggage and deviant label for the

pigeons that legitimizes their extermination.

However, pigeons’ capacity for flight makes

them ‘effective transgressor(s)’ (Jerolmack

2008: 89), that continuously blurs the ideo-

logical spatial ordering between nature/culture

in the city.

Western suburbs are examples of urban–

wilderness border zones, where urban sprawl

encroaching into animal habitats resulted in

increased interactions and conflicts between

humans and animals.1 Baron (2004) provides

a chronological documentation of how public

debate and conflict in issues, like lawsuits over

wildlife-related injuries, hunting and extermi-

nation policies, were raised as wild cougars

return to their habitat of Boulder, Colorado.

Similarly Gullo, Lassiter and Wolch (1998)

account for how people’s social construction

of cougars and their characters shifted and

became polarized over time as cougar encoun-

ters increased in Orange County, California.

With the reinforcing role of media coverage,

representations of cougars as respected charis-

matic symbols of wilderness in the mid-1980s

were displaced gradually by constructions of

them as cold-blooded ‘killing machines’ in the

1990s with heightening incidences of cougar-

induced injuries. The falling moral status of

the cougars left an opening for negotiating the

reinstating of trophy hunting.

Considering intermediaries

What is largely missing in the literature is the

examination of the role of intermediaries, like

wildland management agencies. Although

Gullo, Lassiter and Wolch (1998) did

acknowledge the role of such agencies in

balancing multiple contradictory roles of

realizing bioconservation goals, ensuring pub-

lic safety and mitigating political pressures,



they did not further interrogate how such

negotiations are made and how decisions are

derived. They also fail to question whether

intermediaries’ discourses of wildlife shift in

times of conflict mitigation. Intermediaries

occupy a unique space in borderland debate.

Unlike residents who hold particular ‘dwelt

perspectives’, they have less daily contact with

animals, but are nevertheless enrolled to

resolve human–animal conflicts, often in an

assumed objectivity and professionalism. It is

also important to consider whether interme-

diaries are involved in implementing educa-

tional/outreach programs (Michel 1998) to

create a ‘zoopolis’ (Wolch 1998), where

networks of care and coexistence between

animals and humans could be fostered.

The media also constitutes another form of

intermediary, as it significantly influences

people’s knowledge of, perceptions and beha-

viors towards an issue. In the cougar

controversy, Gullo, Lassiter and Wolch

(1998) have shown how media is influential

in perpetuating negative images and ideas

about cougars, which then shaped and

reinforced the exclusionary attitude and

behavior humans have towards them. Inci-

dents of macaque transgressions and attacks

not only heightened media coverage of the

macaque issue, but also influenced the very

nature of the issue, in turn, shaping the ways

macaques are discursively represented and

understood. Media discourses reflecting the

perspective of those affected by ‘problem’

animals often seek to order and consolidate

the spatialities of, and boundaries between

humans and animals, by portraying wildlife

presence in residential/urban spaces as dis-

ruptive and dangerous. It is crucial to examine

how wildlife control agents perceive, and react

towards such discourses. Such discourses are

often mobilized to pressure wildlife control

agents into executing drastic actions like

culling, which are of anthropocentric interests.

The liminality of borderland, and thus well-

being of wildlife, can only be maintained if

such sites are firmly established as places

where wildlife ought to belong.

Dwelt perspective: living and trans-speciesco-relationality

For those living within the borderlands, their

understandings of the macaque issue are also

partially influenced by narratives and hearsays

of others’ experiences and encounters with

macaques. Most importantly, individual resi-

dent’s everyday practices and experiences

affect the ways they come to understand the

macaques; experiences which intermediaries

arguably lack. It is crucial to consider how

borderland residents relate to their immediate

environment and question if the continual

cohabitation with their nonhuman neighbors

has changed the ways these trans-species

relationships are formed and understood.

Johnston’s (2008) recent proposal for a

‘dwelt animal geography’, which is theoreti-

cally informed by Ingold’s dwelling perspec-

tive, is useful in understanding such everyday

trans-species relationships. Taking life as

constituted in process; emerging from the

practical engagements between individual

beings (humans, nonhuman animals and

inorganic entities), the landscape and com-

ponents within the immediate environment,

Ingold theorizes that how beings come to

comprehend the world is thus always through

an ongoing holistic and situated process, that

is based on the active engagement of the body

as a complete organism (Johnston 2008: 641).

Knowledge is gained through ‘engagement,

rather than discovery or construction’ (John-

ston 2008: 641), where all body parts, cells

and organs co-exist, without a part being

Monkey business 685


privileged over another. Ingold’s dwelling

perspective seeks to disrupt those Cartesian

binaries like culture/nature, mind/body, and

illustrates the immanent, ‘messy’ entangle-

ments that constitute the life of a dwelling

subject (Johnston 2008).

In essence, Ingold urges scholars to be

sensitive to those embodied practices and

bodily sensations which are situated, ephem-

eral effects emerging from the immediate co-

relations and (emotional) entanglements

between entities within the relational environ-

ments. Ingold does not seek to undermine

the privileged position of the cognitive

and the representational logic, but to highlight

the importance of those other unspoken, pre-

cognitive, and intuitive communicative regis-

ters of the body like smell, sound, touch and

affect, that are equally capable of forming new

relations and understandings between bodies.

Johnston (2008) termed these as ‘aesthetic

knowledge’, those relational or shared under-

standings developed through ‘daily experi-

ence, learned practices and shared events’

(Johnston 2008: 643) between human and

nonhuman bodies. Similar to current develop-

ment within nonrepresentational theory

(Thrift 2008), the dwelt animal geography

also seeks to reconfigure what constitutes

knowledge by being attuned to the poetics of

everyday life; remaining open to those

situated, intuitive and spontaneous multi-

sensual experiences and practices that could

offer alternative interpretations to an event.

Johnston (2008: 643) argues that attention

to bodily engagement and non- or pre-

linguistic forms of communication could

enable a more ‘responsible and informed

anthropomorphism that might speak to a

more intuitive animal ethics’. Like hunters and

herdsmen, borderland residents’ day-to-day

living inevitably involves intimate encounters

with nonhuman animals, which require

residents to engage and act intuitively with

the immediacy of the moment. Instances of

cross-species encounters allows for new

embodied practices to emerge, which are

experimental and pregnant with creativity

and possibility, potentially opening up new

forms of relations. Familiarity and trust could

develop over time, thus enabling the develop-

ment of a responsible anthropomorphism,

based not on any forms of ‘abstract philoso-

phical argument, but on (our) actual relation-

ships, (our) day-to-day living’ (Johnston 2008:

646) with the animals. Mutual empathy, based

aesthetically on such situated, sensuous

geography of dwelling, can be nurtured and

in turn create new spaces where animals can

be included and continue to co-exist alongside

the human inhabitants. Yet, despite such

possibilities, as the study suggests, it is just as

likely that dwelling amongst the animals can

sustain and/or aggravate negative human–

animal relationships.

Reanimating geography

Urbanization involves a denaturalization of

the environment, producing deleterious

environmental impacts that affect the exist-

ence of wildlife. Yet, contemporary urban

theory is often anthropocentric, ignoring the

subjectivity and agency of nonhuman animals.

In response, Wolch (2002: 721–735) argues

for a reanimated urban theory, the anima

urbis, ‘the breath, life, soul and spirit of the

city . . . embodied in its animal as well as

human life forms’, which considers the

‘political ecology of people and animals in

the city’ and recognizes the agency, as well as

both utilitarian and symbolic values of

animals in constituting city life.

Wolch’s anima urbis (2002) is especially

useful in studying the process of place-making



in borderland communities. ‘Borderland’ is an

effective metaphor that captures the blurring

of boundaries between wild/urban, to consti-

tute a hybridized spatial context that is neither

fully domesticated nor wild, belonging neither

wholly to humans nor animals. Regular

contacts with animals change human attitudes

and socio-spatial practices towards them over

time, evident in the case of cougar encounters

in USA (Baron 2004; Gullo, Lassiter and

Wolch 1998). Similarly, residential spaces

situated close to BTNR also produce such

complex borderland human–animal relations,

where Wolch’s (2002) anima urbis is useful

in asking what urbanization means to the

borderland wildlife and how this in turn

shapes humans’ attitudes and practices

towards them.

‘Dirt’ and exclusionary geographies

Instances of human–animal conflict presup-

pose the omnipresence of a socio-spatial

ordering that seeks to demarcate and dis-

tinguish boundaries between humans and

animals. Conflict occurs when transgression

takes place and disrupts such orderings. What

constitutes a ‘transgression’ is based on

context-specific, discursive constructions that

distinguish between ‘purity’ and ‘defilement’.

Transgression blurs such distinction, creating

‘liminal zones or spaces of ambiguity and

discontinuity’ (Sibley 1995: 33) that produce

anxiety. Reducing anxiety requires the prompt

removal of the ‘impurity’ so that the ‘purity’ of

space, thus spatial order, could be maintained.

Mary Douglas (1966: 12) argues that what

is ‘dirt’ is very dependent on space, as ‘(t)here

is no such thing as absolute dirt. It exists in the

eye of the beholder’. Thus, ‘dirt as a matter out

of place . . . implies two conditions: a set of

ordered relations and a contravention of that

order’ (Douglas 1966: 35). In that sense, the

act of killing/culling to remove ‘dirt’ and

re-establish the ‘purity’ of space (both of

which are socially constructed) is self-serving

and morally suspect. Yet, animals (like the

macaques in this paper) are often ordered and

inscribed with certain meanings within the

wider spatial-cultural context, which renders

them ‘out of place’ should they transgress into

territories where they (allegedly) do not

belong. Animals appearing within human

home spaces, for example, can trigger an

anxiety, which in turn legitimizes their

persecution, enabling the perceived spatial

order between home and wilderness to be re-

affirmed and re-established.

Douglas’s thesis was incorporated into

David Sibley’s (1995) Geographies of Exclu-

sion. Using psychoanalytical Object Relations

Theory to establish the notion of boundaries

between Self and ‘Other’, Sibley (1995)

provides a culturalist account of why some

social groups, and spaces they inhabit, are

stigmatized. ‘Space is implicated in many cases

of social exclusion’; a plethora of imaginative

geographies in different spatial and temporal

contexts exists where minorities and Others

(those perceived as threatening and polluting

to dominant society) are cast into ‘elsewhere’

(Sibley 1995: 46–49). ‘Elsewhere’ refers not

just to stigmatized peripheral spaces like gypsy

camps, but also ‘nowhere’—the ‘no-space’ of

events like massacres and genocides. Sibley

(1995: 72) also argues that an understanding

of exclusion requires a contextualized, ‘cul-

tural reading of space . . . which emphasizes

the rituals of spatial organization’, referring to

the policing and purifying of space that chimes

with Douglas’s idea of removing dirt. It is thus

important to analyze those underlying exclu-

sionary discourses that seek to legitimize

purification actions.

Monkey business 687


Similar to marginalized social groups like

gypsies (Sibley 1995), animals can also be

conceived ‘as a social group possessing both

inner experiences and outer determinations’

(Philo 1995: 677, also see Tuan 1984),

continuously entangled within the power

relations and socio-spatial practices of the

wider human community. Analysis of dis-

courses about animals will reveal how

different animals are culturally defined or

interpreted and what material and symbolic

spaces are implied for them as a result (Philo

and Wilbert 2000). Companion animals like

pets are desired by their owners, but wild

animals like macaques and cougars or even

‘out-of-place’ stray animals can raise human

anxiety leading either to their spatial exclusion

or execution. It is in these ways that Johnston’s

(2008) optimism in a ‘dwelt animal geogra-

phy’ that builds positive co-relationality of

human and animals can be undermined.

Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework

for this paper. We will examine how macaques

are discursively constituted as a social

group that is implicated within the imaginative

geographies of human borderland residents,

and their related socio-spatial practices of in-

/exclusion (Philo 1995). Analyzing discourses

resonates with Wolch’s anima urbis (2002),

revealing how urbanization leads to the

construction of macaques as ‘out-of-place’,

and how humans’ behavior and attitude

changed as once distanced animals become

closer to them. Intermediaries, both state

agents and grassroots activists, also play a key

role in shaping borderland politics, invariably

affecting the existence of wildlife through their

agencies and discourses. Meanings of border-

land thus emerged and materialized out of

such processes of negotiations between these

various (predominantly human) actors. We

argue that liminality of BTNR affects not only

residents’ interpretations of macaques as

ambiguously belonging and not-belonging,

but also influences the way intermediaries

mitigate the issue. Lynn (1998: 282–284)

argues that resolving animal–human conflicts

requires what he calls, ‘geoethics’, the con-

textual understanding of human–animal

relations within their ‘geographic community’.

Since borderlands are spaces of trans-species

co-existence, the culling of macaques thus

raises important ethical debate.

Methodology

In-depth semi-structured interviews were con-

ducted with representatives from NParks, the

state agency involved in the mitigation of

borderland conflicts, and Raffles Girls School’s

(RGS) Monkey Business (MB) Group, a

student-initiated activist group that looks

specifically at the macaque issue. MB was

created by six RGS students, aged 15–16, to

fulfill the requirement of their community

management problem-solving module in the

school curriculum. The idea was conceived by

one of the members who had an experience of

macaque attack, which ended in the culling of

the ‘problem’macaque. The aim of the group is

to find measures to curb human–macaque

conflict. Topics discussed pertained to animal

ethics, conflict management (for NParks

especially), and to understand if campaigns

or legislations are implemented to sustain the

livelihood of wildlife in the borderland.

Sixteen residents living close to BTNR were

also interviewed in their homes (Figure 3), to

understand how macaques are being rep-

resented, and what human–animal spatial

orderings are hence implied. Resident respon-

dents were recruited through the snowballing

method. The residents live in either condomi-

niums or landed property, with those living in

the latter potentially having more ‘intimate’



contact, where they have more frequent visual

and physical contact with the macaques. For

the residents, NParks officials and RGS

students, interviews were conducted at their

homes, offices and school, respectively. Semi-

structured interview allows for opinion and

information to be elicited from a predeter-

mined way, but ‘still ensures flexibility in the

way issues are addressed by the informant’

(Dunn 2005: 80). Whilst our sympathies lie

Anima urbis

Borderland communities

The conflict between human and macaques

Exclusinary discourse

Process ofurbanization

Change inbehavior and

attitude

State andscientific

discourses

Grassrootsactivism

Intermediaries

Figure 2 Conceptual framework.

Figure 3 Map of BTNR indicating research locations. Authors’ own map.

Monkey business 689


somewhat with the macaques, we do not have

a fixed ideological agenda and have tried

consciously to avoid influencing the opinions

of interviewees (particularly the residents)

when speaking to them. Newspaper articles

from The Straits Times, the most widely

circulated English-medium paper in Singa-

pore, and videos that touch on human–

macaque conflicts were also used in my

discussion of alternative, humane solutions

to the issue.

‘In-/excluded’: ambiguous macaquediscourses of residents

Residents reveal that they are aware of

incidents of human–macaque conflicts in

BTNR prior to staying there. Nevertheless,

interviews with the residents reveal that the

desire to be close to nature motivates them to

take up residency there. Analysis of respon-

dents’ narratives and newspaper articles show

that macaques are ambiguously constructed as

borderland/liminal creatures, simultaneously

perceived as ‘out-of-place’ and belonging in

the BTNR landscape. Table 1 shows the

various terms and phrases used by residents to

describe macaques and their behaviors. While

most of the terms are unambiguous in their

meanings and intent (in terms of whether they

are positive, negative and neutral), a few of the

terms we grouped as negative can be seen as

positive or neutral (e.g. ‘cheeky’ and ‘feisty’)

and some which we grouped as neutral can be

seen as negative (e.g. ‘territorial animals’). In

such cases, we have interpreted the context

and tone of the conversations conducted with

the residents to determine whether these terms

are used in a negative, positive or neutral

sense.

In any case, negative discourses are domi-

nant. Macaques’ ability to scavenge, trespass

houses, and snatch food from humans, have

led to their labeling as ‘thieves’, ‘aggressors’

and ‘nuisance’. Verbs like ‘plagued’ and ‘raid’

further suggest their ‘out-of-placeness’, where

their presence/behaviors are perceived to be

intrusive within urban spaces, especially when

they transgress home spaces and disrupt the

context of home as a safe, secure, autonomous

human territory. Interestingly, one does not

naturally (and cannot legitimately) call for the

killing of human intruders and scavengers,

suggesting a deep speciesism which establishes

the macaques as a ‘dangerous other’ is the key

rationale behind the extreme treatment of the

macaques favored by some residents. Indeed,

to further establish the macaques as the

‘dangerous other’, medical discourses con-

structing macaques as vectors of diseases are

also used to legitimize their exclusions and

executions. Justifications for macaques’ eradi-

cation were also gendered at times, in which

women and children were perceived to be

more vulnerable (The Straits Times 2008a)

and prone to predatory attacks of macaques:

They [the macaques] can judge and tend to attack

women. (Chris, condominium resident)

Indeed, media reporting of human–maca-

que conflicts heightened in early 2008,

following a somewhat sensationalized report

of the harassment of a pregnant woman and

her toddler by a troop of fifteen macaques

(The Straits Times 2007). Anxiety over

property damage, safety and health concerns,

as induced by transgressions, undermine the

apparent human ideals of home space, thus

legitimizing the control/purification of space

to restore and reaffirm the assumed ideological

order between home/‘wild’. Yet, such per-

ceived spatial order is multi-porous and

shifting, often extending beyond home spaces.

Condominium residents mention that the mere



sightings of macaques near the swimming pool

or at public spaces outside the condominium

compound could induce them to chase them

away, to re-establish such spaces as ‘human

territory’ (Chris).

Discourses have its implicit spatialities.

Being represented as ‘out-of-place’ ‘here’,

macaques are then imaginatively zoned ‘else-

where’, where they ought to belong. For some,

this ‘elsewhere’ refers to ‘nowhere’, implying

that nuisance macaques ‘should be culled’

(The Straits Times 2008c). Others feel that

macaques should be relocated to some

peripheral spaces like an uninhabited island.

Despite these exclusionary narratives, BTNR

is still ambivalently recognized as macaques’

habitat. Yet, macaques are discursively

bounded within the reserve and are faulted

for their movement beyond:

They [macaques] should stay as a group within the

reserve . . . It is nuisance when they enter our

compound to scavenge and leave footprints or feces

on the car and walls. (Chris)

Furthermore, humans expect macaques to

behave and act in certain ways. Behaviors that

contradict human expectations and represen-

tations are rendered problematic:

Plucking fruits from trees is normal monkey

behavior, but boldly entering houses to steal food

and reacting aggressively are abnormal behaviors.

(Cindy, landed property resident)

Respondents attribute such ‘abnormal

aggression’ as a result of human’s indiscrimi-

nate, year-round, feeding of the macaques,

which changes their behavior, conditioning

them to be reliant on humans for food. Being

habituated to humans for food makes them

bolder, more demanding and aggressive when

food is found. To macaques, the presence of

humans equates to the availability of food,

thus enticing them to move towards the forest

fringe to forage.

Macaques’ aggression is also perceived as an

innate quality that differentiates wild animals

from humans. Macaques are being ‘Othered’

in relation to the human ‘Self’ on the criterion

of their inherent beastliness. This difference is

Table 1 Terms and phrases used by residents to describe macaque character/behavior

Negative terms/phrases Positive terms/phrases Neutral terms/phrases

† Can spread deadly disease† Behaving aggressively

† Joys and intricacies of thelong-tailed macaques’ behavior

† Animal† Primate

† Monkey mischief, cheeky † Dewy-eyed baby monkey † Monkeys

† Nuisance wildlife

† Monkey mayhem

† Most endearing and human-like native

species

† Wild animals

† Territorial animals† Plagued by moneys stealing food

† Repeat runways from troop/outcast pack

† Part of the heritage of

Singapore

† Blithely entered homes and helped

themselves to food† Bad-mannered, forward

† Indigenous of reserve

† Very appealing and their looksmelt everyone’s hearts

† Raid homes † Unique feature of the park

† Feisty † Highly intelligent animals

† Scavengers† Harassing residents

† Brazen and bold monkeys

† Thieves, vandals, aggressors

Monkey business 691


used to legitimize culling, often in the interest

of human safety even though it is widely

recognized that humans must also be held

responsible for causing macaques’ ‘abnormal

aggression’. Such ambiguity is evident when

Andrew, a condominium resident, discussed

culling as a solution:

Culling is important in controlling their population.

Macaques are sometimes responsible for their

behavior . . . you know, it is necessary to cull

those aggressive ones . . . but then again I guess the

only solution is that humans must change and adapt

to nature, having heavier punishment for those

monkey feeders.

Rationalizations neutralize the sense of guilt

(or ambivalence) associated with eradicating

macaques (Elder, Wolch and Emel 1998). In

retrospect, respondents often feel that culling

is too harsh and morally wrong, since

macaques are free-roaming animals that

belong to the reserve. Additionally, respon-

dents were often sympathetic with macaques’

behavior and use ‘human-like’ reasoning to

make sense of macaques’ aggressiveness:

Edward: They are like humans; some will just run

when you chased them away but some will be

aggressiveandbare their teeth . . . likea signofattack.

Researcher: But, from what I gather from

primatologists, this could mean a sign of fear . . .

Edward: Maybe, just like humans I suppose, they

could attack out of fear to protect themselves.

They [adult monkeys] are desperate to save their

young, just like how humans will react when their

young are trapped or missing. (Ann, member of MB,

when discussing the usage of monkey traps as a

solution)

Borderlands are in-between, hybrid spaces

where humans–animals co-habit. The choice

to reside within such liminal spaces requires

humans to adjust their living practices, or

adapt to the macaques’ presence to prevent

conflict with them. Structural borders like

walls, roofs and gates are highly porous in

borderlands, as macaques can still enter

houses through ‘ventilation slats above win-

dows or through roof eaves’ (The Straits Times

1995). Hence, respondents feel the need to

adjust their everyday homemaking practices

to prevent the macaques’ intrusion. These

include closing windows at all time, putting

up window nettings, using monkey-proof bins

with an additional latch (Figure 4) to prevent

scavenging, wrapping wire gauze around

plants and fruit trees, and distributing circu-

lars in the neighborhood to emphasize proper

garbage disposal. Macaques’ agency thus

significantly influences the process of home-

making as residents actively prevent the

rupturing of home spaces by them (Power

2009). Macaques also change respondents’

behaviors and practices beyond home spaces:

They change my daily behavior. When I come home

around 6 pm (when macaques usually appear), I

have to carry my groceries above my shoulders to

prevent them from snatching it away or I don’t buy

too much in case they snatch everything away. They

tend to attack you if you carry red plastic bags so I

will try to carry a [non-red color] recyclable bag

with me. (Chris)

Monkeys trek pipes of the carpark ceiling to guide

their movement, and I know the spots where it may

land and stay [where the pipeline ends] and will not

park my car there to avoid dirt and feces. (Danson,

condominium resident)

Respondents also commented that they were

habituated to the macaques, having knowl-

edge about their quirks and traits. Respon-

dents like Cindy commented that macaques

tend to recognize and attack those who carry



plastic bags, thus she uses recyclable bags,

which she claimed ‘will not get the attention of

the macaques’ (personal interview). Most

respondents feel that the best way to prevent

a conflict is to avoid eye-contact with the

macaques. They also feel that much should be

done by the authorities or primatologists to

educate them about macaques’ antics and

behaviors. Cindy also feels that macaques are

sensitive to, and could understand the verbal

and bodily expressions of humans:

I once reprimanded a monkey for attempting to

snatch my bag from me. It seems to understand my

reaction, like raising my voice, pointing a finger at

it, and it backed off.

Moreover, some of these knowings are also

sensuously gained through their dwelt experi-

ence within the borderland:

Wegotused to their sound, like it’s verynoisyatnights

during mid-years. I believe it is their mating season

then, there’s no one to snatch food from at night so I

suppose they might be fighting and screaming over

mates. True enough, after that time, you see many of

them holding their young with them. (Edward)

We know the timing the monkeys will make this

sound and then you will see them everywhere . . .

usually around late afternoon, just like the birds.

(Danson)

During some instances of encounter, respon-

dents like Edward also feel that there is a sense

of mutual empathy developed between the

macaques and him, which could potentially

avert a conflict from happening:

They seems to be able to know our human’s sense of

territory, and will stay at a distance and observe me,

at times seems scared of me. When I am around,

they will keep a distance, like knowing that’s my

territory and it should not get there.

This shared understanding is spontaneous

and non-verbal, enacted through movement,

bodily engagement like sights or stares, or

other non-linguistic forms of embodied prac-

tices. The prevention of a trans-species conflict

or transgression, at least temporarily, is made

possible through the mutual empathy that

emerged out of that situational engagement

between the two beings. This empathy also

aids in consolidating Edward’s territorial

claim over that space.

Macaques are rendered ‘out-of-place’ as the

reserve fringe becomes urbanized, subjecting

them to related exclusionary socio-spatial

practices like culling. Yet, culling, as a control

measure, is not unproblematic in the border-

land context. As borderlands are neither

completely animal nor human, they constitute

‘liminal zones’ where irrational feeling of

Figure 4 Monkey-proof bins. Authors’ own

photograph.

Monkey business 693


anxiety is generated (Sibley 1995: 33). Anxiety

is symptomatic to an internal conflict, as

exemplified by those ambivalent, conflicting

discourses surrounding the macaques. Redu-

cing anxiety, thus re-establishment of an

ideological spatial order, requires the enforce-

ment of control/purification measures that are

often anthropocentrically rationalized. Yet,

this trans-species sharing of living spaces

within borderland, morally questions such

arbitrary control measures that denymacaques

survival opportunities in the very zones they

originally inhabit (Lynn 1998). I will next

consider the role of intermediaries, by examin-

ing how they negotiate with such exclusionary

narratives, what animal spaces then emerged

from their interactions with the residents and

why culling is still actualized, despite its

spatial–moral implications.

Intermediaries and borderland politics

Contrary to residents’ exclusionary discourses,

intermediaries mobilize discourses that seek to

include macaques within BTNR borderland,

with ecological reasoning being the most

prominent. Macaques are seen as ‘natives’ of

the reserve and vital to the forest ecosystem,

playing an important ecological role in the

food chain and in the regeneration of forest

through seed dispersal (refer to Table 1).

Generally, both MB and NParks attribute

the highly urbanized context of Singapore as

the root of human–macaque conflict, where

an urbanized lifestyle has conditioned people

to be out of sync with nature, thus generating

misconceptions and ‘negative views about

nature’ (Karen Teo, Senior Outreach Officer,

NParks, personal communication). Intermedi-

aries hence prioritize the need to educate

humans on basic reserve etiquettes to promote

a balance between conservation and recrea-

tion. Table 2 shows the various strategies

initiated by MB to create awareness about

borderland ethics, and equip both park users

and borderland residents with proper skills in

dealing with macaque encounters.

MB argues that present signboards in the

reserves do not recognize the ecological

importance of macaques; hence they propose

new signboards that take an educational tone

like those in Figure 5; raising awareness on

the negative impacts of feeding macaques,

instead of just emphasizing liable fines and

punishment.

Through mobilizations of ecological dis-

courses in their strategies, MB thus creates

discursive spaces for macaques in the border-

land. Additionally, the organization of out-

reach programs with residents to discuss

borderland ethics andmonkey-proof strategies

also raises recognition of macaques’ material

presence in the BTNR landscape. However,

receptiveness of such initiatives is highly

unequal, as only landed property residents

and foreigners are more involved in discus-

sions, and keen in individually actualizing

necessary monkey-proof measures.

Intermediaries feel that differences in hous-

ing types, and disparate wildlife experiences

between locals and foreigners, could explain

such disparity:

[R]eason why residents with houses are more

responsive is because they are responsible for their

own property. Unlike condo residents, they have no

management to depend on. (Karen, personal

communication)

Foreigners [i.e. non-citizens] are more receptive,

and willing to share their experiences than locals.

They might have experiences with wildlife when

they were back home making them more adaptive

to macaques . . . seeing them as part of nature they

enjoy. Locals are very ignorant, due to urbanized



living environment and few experiences with

wildlife. (Mariette Ong, teacher-in-charge of MB)

Intermediaries lamented that the absence of

governmental commitment to prioritize bio-

diversity issues has led to the persistence of

human–macaque conflict. Intermediaries feel

that, to government, macaques (unlike grizzly

bears and cougars) are not that ‘exotic’ to be

conferred a protection status, and do not pose

too much of a threat to warrant attention.

‘Nuisance’ monkeys are also common in Hong

Kong and local authorities choose to use

sterilization to control their population and

tagging to monitor their behavior, rather

than outright culling (TVB 2008). However,

such expensive, time-consuming measures are

not practiced here, due to the lack of resources

and governmental support. Such a lack of

resources (in terms of having insufficient labor

to effect sterilizations of the macaques) is

arguably a reflection of the low importance

state agencies place on such issues. In any case,

intermediaries, alongside local primatologists,

believe sterilization could adversely alter a

macaque’s behavior and interactions with the

troop. Thus, like culling, sterilization is

perceived as ethically wrong and unsustainable,

Table 2 Strategies by MB to alleviate human–macaque conflict

Strategies Aims/objectives Rationale

Scattering signboards within thereserve

To warn and notifypeople of macaques presence

in the vicinity

Park users still consume food within thereserve, thus new signboards are

to warn them of possible encounters within

the vicinity

Macaque Trail, showing picturesdepicting detailed facial expression

and behaviors of macaques

To educate people tolook out for small

details of macaques, and

to react appropriately to

such situations

People tend to misinterpretexpressions/behaviors of macaques, and

lack in skills to

react to encounters appropriately

Monkey Business Ambassador Increase awareness by expanding

the project to include

students from other schools

Expansion could incorporate more students

to perform outreach program in other sites

like MacRitchie Reservoir that

also experience macaques issuesMonkey storybook for young

children

Educate children to care

for and actualize ethics

towards animals

Children can influence and

get through to their

parents betterMonkey cut outs (similar

to those cow cut

outs around Singapore)

Educate people about basic

etiquettes in the reserves

Bigger and attractive cut

outs to capture people’s attention

Figure 5 Educative ‘No Feeding’ signboard.

Authors’ own photograph.

Monkey business 695


and intermediaries continue to work towards

finding a more humane solution to resolve the

issue.

In Singapore, although laws are implemented

to punish macaque feeders, no legislation is

drawn to consider issues of transgression, and

protecting caught macaques from culling.

‘Nuisance’ macaques do not enjoy immunity

from execution, as it is mandatory for those

caught in government-loaned traps to be culled,

without being relocated. Culling reaffirmed

macaques’ position as an ultimate ‘Other’ to be

excluded from the borderland and belonging

to ‘nowhere’, indirectly representing BTNR

as ‘wholly human’. As NParks ultimately

performs the culling, it hence emerged as an

ambivalent actor within the borderland

politics, as culling contradicts its bioconserva-

tion goals.

Politicizing culling: the ambiguity ofintermediary

BTNR is managed by the Central Nature

Reserve Branch under the Conservation

Division of NParks Operation team, with the

following goals and objectives (Karen, per-

sonal communication):

. Safeguard and conserve our biodiversity.

. As a scientific authority on conservation in

Singapore.

. Manage visitorship.

In preventing potential human–macaque

conflicts and adhering to their goals and

objectives, NParks has constantly stressed the

need to keep food out of macaques’ sight.

Apart from the placement of ‘No Feeding’

signs and CCTVs, and having routine surveil-

lance by park rangers to deter feeding, NParks

also advise residents to ‘monkey-proof’ their

homes, arguing that the choice to reside close

to nature entails the need for humans to adapt

to nature, not vice versa.

NParks is tasked to mitigate conflicts that

occur both within, and at the fringe of the

reserve. Complaints are made by residents

through phone or email. NParks will often

attempt to resolve the conflict over the phone

without visiting the homes of complaining

residents, unless requested. There is a pro-

cedure in the mitigation process. Firstly,

NParks will try to understand the problem

from the resident’s perspective. The process of

negotiation follows next, with NParks empha-

sizing the importance of observing borderland

ethics and suggesting ways to ‘monkey-proof’

the house to prevent recurrence of conflicts.

There are mixed reactions towards this advice,

where some will heed, and others ignore it

arguing that they ‘should not be told what to

do within the privacy of their homes’ (Karen,

personal communication). It is such attitudes

of the latter group that lead NParks to the last

stage of their mitigation process, namely the

loaning of monkey cages to the residents upon

their insistence. Residents are then told that

macaques caught in the cages are to be culled,

ultimately giving them the choice to decide

on the life chances of the macaques. Karen

comments that most residents are very

adamant on the execution of the macaques at

this stage.

In allowing residents to decide on the

survival of the macaques, NParks acquires a

highly ambivalent position as it forgoes its

main objective of conserving biodiversity to

appease residents who simply cannot get along

with the macaques. It is also an acknowl-

edgment and deference to the fact that

residents, because of their dwelt perspective,

shouldhavea considerable say inhow theywant

their living spaces to be. However, feelings of

ambivalence are evident as intermediaries often



feel emotionally uncomfortable in culling the

macaques (Karen, personal communication).

Understanding that NParks has to juggle and

balance multiple contradictory goals, culling

is then a compromised solution as anthro-

pocentric interests ultimately take ascendance

over concerns of animal welfare. NParks hence

arguably does not assume an objective stance

when mitigating borderland conflicts. Instead,

its subjectivities and positionalities should be

conceptualized as situational, always shifting,

and are effects of their enrolment into the

conflict between animals/humans, in which

their agencies, and the ensuing macaque spaces

(whether ‘here’ or ‘nowhere’), are always

emerging from the immediacy of their nego-

tiations with the residents.

Conclusion

Macaques are constructed as liminal animals

(Power 2009); ambivalently perceived as ‘in-

/excluded’, as urbanization encroaches into

BTNR. BTNR, as an in-between, ‘grey zone’ of

humanity–animality, not only subjects resi-

dents to irrational (in that there have been few

documented cases of humans physically

harmed by the macaques) fear and anxiety

specifically during moments of transgressions,

but also prevents wildlife management inter-

mediaries like NParks from assuming an

objective, neutral position in conflict mitiga-

tion. The case study also illuminates the

paradoxical position of primates (such as

macaques) held by humans. Respondents’

expectations of the primates vacillate between

seeing them as humans (in that they want the

macaques to be ‘self-disciplined’) and seeing

them as dispensable, non-human, creatures (in

that they want the macaques to be culled as an

ultimate form of discipline for transgressive

behaviors). Culling, as a situational compro-

mised solution, undermines intermediaries’

inclusionary discourses of macaques and

perpetuates the ideology that borderlands are

zones for humans, rather than as supposed

zones of trans-species co-existence. From a

‘geoethical’ perspective (Lynn 1998), such ad

hoc solutions remain highly arbitrary and

morally problematic, as human interests still

overshadow animal welfare. Yet, borderland

residents still acknowledge the importance of

adapting to the immediate environmental

context and the wildlife. We argue that

sensitivity to their own sensuous geography in

moments of trans-species encounter, together

with accumulated knowledge and experiences

achieved through dwelling, could enable

alternative interpretations of their relation-

ship with the macaques, thus avoiding conflict

and the need to resort to culling. In resolving

borderland human–animal conflicts, a more

institutionalized solution is required, where

legislation prioritizes biodiversity and animal

welfare, and recognizes borderlands as stub-

born, ambiguous human–animal zones that

necessitate residents’ adaptations. Without

such changes, futile negotiations will continue

to work around irrational exclusionary dis-

courses that are often deprived of animal voices

and ‘beastliness’.

Note

1 This is not to say that non-urban areas are free from such

human–animal conflicts. Naughton-Treves, Treves,

Chapman and Wrangham (1998) have documented the

importance of managing wildlife intrusions and conflicts

in rural Uganda. Patterson and Wallis (2005) in their

edited volume have also focused on human–primate

conflicts in largely rural areas.

References

Baron, D. (2004) The Beast in the Garden. New York:

W.W. Norton.

Monkey business 697


Douglas, M. (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of

Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge

& Kegan Paul.

Dunn, K. (2005) ‘Interviewing’, in Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative

Research Methods in Human Geography (second

edition).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, pp. 79–105.

Elder, G., Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (1998) Le pratique

sauvage: race, place and the human–animal divide, in

Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds) Animal Geographies: Place,

Politics, and Identity in the Nature–Culture Border-

lands. London: Verso, pp. 72–90.

Gullo, A., Lassiter, U. and Wolch, J. (1998) The cougar’s

tale, inWolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds) Animal Geographies:

Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature–Culture

Borderlands. London: Verso, pp. 139–161.

Hovorka, A. (2008) Transspecies urban theory:

chickens in an African city, Cultural Geographies 15:

95–117.

Howell, P. (2000) Flush and the banditti: dog-stealing in

Victorian London, in Philo, C. and Wilbert, C. (eds)

Animal Spaces, Beastly Places—New Geographies of

Animal–Human Relations. London: Routledge,

pp. 35–55.

Jerolmack, C. (2008) How pigeons became rats: the

cultural-spatial logic of problem animals, Social

Problems 55: 72–94.

Johnston, C. (2008) Beyond the clearing: towards a dwelt

animal geography, Progress in Human Geography 32:

633–649.

Lynn, W.S. (1998) Animals, ethics and geography, in

Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds) Animal Geographies: Place,

Politics, and Identity in The Nature–Culture Border-

lands. London: Verso, pp. 280–297.

Marvin, G. (2001) Cultured killers: creating and represent-

ing foxhounds, Society & Animals 9: 273–292.

Michel, S.M. (1998) Golden eagles and the environmental

politics of care, in Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds) Animal

Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature–

Culture Borderlands. London: Verso, pp. 162–187.

Naughton-Treves, L., Treves, A., Chapman, C. and

Wrangham, R. (1998) Temporal patterns of crop-

raiding by primates: linking food availability in crop-

lands and adjacent forest, Journal of Applied Ecology

35: 596–606.

Patterson, J.D. and Wallis, J. (eds) (2005) Commensalism

and Conflict: The Human–Primate Interface, Norman,

OK: American Society of Primatologists.

Philo, C. (1995) Animals, geography and the city: notes on

inclusions and exclusions, Environment and Planning

D: Society and Space 13: 655–681.

Philo, C. and Wilbert, C. (2000) Animal spaces and

beastly places: an introduction, in Philo, C. andWilbert,

C. (eds) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places—New Geogra-

phies of Animal–Human Relations. London: Routle-

dge, pp. 1–34.

Power, E.R. (2009) Border-processes and homemaking:

encounters with possums in suburban Australian

homes, Cultural Geographies 16: 29–54.

Proctor, J. (1998) The spotted owl and the contested moral

landscape of the Pacific Northwest, in Wolch, J. and

Emel, J. (eds) Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and

Identity in the Nature–Culture Borderlands. London:

Verso, pp. 191–217.

Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion: Society and

Difference in the West. London: Routledge.

The Straits Times (1995) Monkey business off Upper

Thomson Road, 14 Mar.

The Straits Times (2007) Monkey mayhem at MacRitchie

Reservoir, 29 Dec.

The Straits Times (2008a) $4,000 fine for feeding

monkeys, 24 Jan.

The Straits Times (2008b) More monkeys caught in AVA

traps, 22 Mar.

The Straits Times (2008c) Brazen monkeys: ‘The AVA

should start culling the population’, 23 Oct.

Thrift, N. (2008) Non-representational Theory: Space,

Politics, Affect. London: Routledge.

Tuan, Y.-F. (1984) Dominance and Affection—The

Making of Pets. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

TVB (2009) Sunday Report 2009. Hong Kong: TVB

(Video in Cantonese.).

Wilbert, C. (2000) Anti-this-against-that: resistances

along a human–non-human axis, in Sharp, J., Routle-

dge, P., Philo, C. and Paddison, R. (eds) Entanglements

of Power: Geographies of Domination/Resistance.

London and New York: Routledge, pp. 238–255.

Wolch, J. (1998) Zoopolis, in Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds)

Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the

Nature–Culture Borderlands. London: Verso,

pp. 119–138.

Wolch, J. (2002) Anima urbis, Progress in Human

Geography 26: 721–742.

Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (1995) Guest editorial: bringing the

animals back in, Environment and Planning D: Society

and Space 13: 632–636.

Wolch, J. and Emel, J. (eds) (1998) Animal Geographies:

Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature–Culture

Borderlands. London: Verso.

Wolch, J., Emel, J. and Wilbert, C. (2003) Reanimating

cultural geography, in Anderson, K., Domosh, M., Pile,



S. and Thrift, N. (eds) Handbook of Cultural

Geography. London: Sage, pp. 184–206.

Woods, M. (1998) Mad cows and hounded deer: political

representations of animals in the British countryside,

Environment and Planning A 30: 1219–1234.

Woods, M. (2000) Fantastic Mr Fox? Representing

animals in the hunting debate, in Philo, C. and

Wilbert, C. (eds) Animal Spaces, Beastly Places—New

Geographies of Animal–Human Relations. London:

Routledge, pp. 182–202.

Yarwood, R. and Evans, N. (2000) Taking stock of farm

animals and rurality, in Philo, C. and Wilbert, C. (eds)

Animal Spaces, Beastly Places—New Geographies of

Animal–Human Relations. London: Routledge,

pp. 98–114.

Abstract translations

Manigances: des conflits humains–animaux dans leSingapour urbain

Des conflits continuels entre les humains et lesmacaques aux longues queues (Macaca fascicularis)dans la Reserve Naturelle de Bukit Timat,Singapour ont vu des macaques natifs significative-ment atteints, pendant que le developpementresidentiel empiete sur les habitats des animauxet detruit des couloirs des faunes. La recherche pourun traitement plus humain de ces animauxtransgressifs peut etre vue comme une tentatived’elargissement et d’inclusion des animaux non-humains dans des notions humanistiques desethiques et des soins, destabilisant en meme tempsla division assumee entre humain/animal. Pourtant,une solution realisable est difficile a atteindre parceque le Conseil des Parcs Nationaux (NParks),l’agence d’etat supervisant la conservation desreserves et des faunes, a constamment besoin denegocier entre leur but du maintient de labiodiversite et l’attenuement des residents recla-mants. Cet article cherche a comprendre les conflitszones urbaines-zones naturels entre humains–macaques, montrant que la division entre apprivoi-se/sauvage est multi-site, ambigue, et constammentvariable. Dans ce point de vue, nous nous sommesspecialement interesses dans le role des interme-diaires pour mettre en œuvres des actions de ‘fairedes espaces discursifs ainsi que des espaces

materiels’ pour les macaques dans la reserve. Desintermediaires, ici en reference de NParks et desactivistes des animaux, sont des acteurs qui neresident pas a cote de la reserve donc n’ayant pas derencontres frequentes avec la faune, et qui sontpourtant inscrits comme mitigateurs pendant lesinstances des conflits humains–animaux.

Mots-clefs: Mots-clefs: geographie animal, poli-tiques environnementales, transgression, frontieres,urbanisation, intermediaires.

Monkey business: conflictos humanos–animales enSingapur urbano

Conflictos actuales entre humanos y macacos delargo cola (Macaca fascicularis) en La Reserva

Natural de Buktit Timah, Singapur, han afectado la

poblacion de macacos nativos considerablemente; el

desarrollo residencial se esta invadiendo al habitat de

los animales y destruyendo pasillos importantes de

fauna y flora. Se puede comprender la busqueda por

un tratamiento mas humano de estos animales

transgresivos como un intento extender e incluir

animales no-humanos entre nociones humanistas de

eticas y cuidado, y en el proceso desestabilizar la

division humana/animal presumida. Pero es difıcil

llegar a una solucion viable porque La Junta de los

Parques Nacionales (NParks), la agencia civil que se

supervisa la conservacion de las reservas y la flora y

fauna, tiene que negociar constantemente entre su

meta de mantener la biodiversidad y apaciguar los

residentes quienes se quejan. Este papel se intenta

entender los conflictos urbanos-selvaticos entre

humanos y macacos, mostrando que la division entre

domado/salvaje esta multi-situada, ambigua y cam-

biando constantemente. En este sentido, lo que nos

interesa particularmente es el rollo que tiene los

intermediarios para hacer ‘espacios discursivos y

materiales’ para macacos en la reserva. Los

intermediarios, NParks y los activistas animalistas,

son actores quienes no viven cerca de reserva y ası no

se encuentran frecuentemente con los animales, aun

trabajan como mediadores durante instantes de

conflicto humano–animal.

Palabras claves: geografıa animalista, polıticaambiental, transgresion, tierras fronterizas, urbani-zacion, intermediarios.

Monkey business 699


Monkey business social and cultural geography 2010

Technology

urban singapore

humananimal conflicts

nonhuman animals

human macaque

instances of human animal

nonhuman animals

animals habitat

transgressive animals