請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92059
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 王驥懋 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.advisor | Chi-Mao Wang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 黃思敏 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author | Szu-Min Huang | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-04T16:19:42Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-05 | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2024-03-04 | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024 | - |
dc.date.submitted | 2024-02-03 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 吳宗憲(2014)。當政治遇上動物-多元政治意識形態下的動物保護觀點。應用倫理評論,56,23-43。
吳宗憲、陳裕哲(2015年4月14日)。【吳宗憲專欄】對動物的愛,能夠被計算嗎? 從支付意願(WTP)調查看農場動物福利產品政策的推動。關懷生命協會。檢自:https://www.lca.org.tw/column/node/7709 李朝全、林書帆(2019)。客座總編輯-以本土化動物福利指標,帶動畜牧產業友善轉型。豐年雜誌,69(2),16-17。 汪盈利(2020)。臺大法律系林明鏘教授談動保法的問題。關懷生命協會。檢自:https://www.lca.org.tw/avot/7511 林怡君(2018)。[專題講座] 放手的勇氣:QA時間。動物當代思潮。檢自:https://thought-of-animal.com/index.php/seminar/2018/2018-12-30-14-57-45/519-qa.html 林怡君(2018)。如何落實友善飼養——淺談剪喙之動物福利議題,從巢箱到餐盤。蛋雞動物福利國際研討會。 林鈺容(2023)。多物種民族誌的轉向——評介 Anna Tsing《末日松茸》及 Hugh Raffles《昆蟲誌》。人類與文化,48,85–96。 邱宜君、林書帆(2019)。《動物福利白皮書》領銜邁向制度化-消費調查、實證研究及輔導制度為重要行動方針。豐年雜誌,69(2),38-42+44。 陳宗文(2013)。權力的技術與技術的權力:臺灣疫苗採用的歷程分析。臺灣社會學,25,45-87。 陳裕哲(2016)。在「通權達變」與「一體適用」之間-我國經濟動物福利政策執行之研究〔碩士論文〕。 國立臺南大學,臺南市。 陳廣祐(2019)。畜產品有機驗證基準之法制研究—以維護動物福祉為中心〔碩士論文〕。國立政治大學,臺北市。 黃涵榆(2021)。閱讀生命政治。臺灣:春山出版。 趙恩潔(2018)。清真的電擊:關於動物福利與伊斯蘭屠宰的一段道德技術史。科技醫療與社會,26,7–54。 蔡晏霖(2020)。金寶螺胡撇仔:一個多物種實驗影像民族誌。中外文學,49(1),61-94。 饒祐睿(2021)。 從親屬研究與多物種民族誌回應人類世中的跨物種親緣倡議。考古人類學刊,95,177–200。 Anneberg, I. & N. Bubandt. (2015). “The Animal Welfare State: The Body of the Pig, the History of Welfare and the Politics of Life Itself in Denmark.” In Danish: dyrevelfærdsstaten. Grisens krop, velfærdens historie og selve livets politik i Danmark. Særnummer om velfærdsstaten. Tidsskrift for Antropologi 73 (2016). Anneberg, I. & Vaarst, M. (2018). 4. Farm Animals in a Welfare State. Commercial Pigs in Denmark. In H. Swanson, M. Lien & G. Ween (Ed.), Domestication Gone Wild: Politics and Practices of Multispecies Relations (pp. 94-116). New York, USA: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1515/9780822371649-006 Baker, T., & McGuirk, P. (2017). Assemblage thinking as methodology: Commitments and practices for critical policy research. Territory, Politics, Governance, 5(4), 425–442. doi: 10.1080/21622671.2016.1231631 Bear, C. (2021). Making insects tick: Responsibility, attentiveness and care in edible insect farming. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 4(3), 1010–1030. doi: 10.1177/2514848620945321 Beldo, L. (2017). Metabolic Labor: Broiler Chickens and the Exploitation of Vitality. Environmental Humanities, 9(1), 108–128. Broom, D.M. (1986) Indicators of poor welfare. Br Vet J 142:524–526 Broom, D.M. A History of Animal Welfare Science. Acta Biotheor 59, 121–137 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s10441-011-9123-3 Buller, H. (2015). Animal geographies II: Methods. Progress in Human Geography, 39(3), 374–384. doi: 10.1177/0309132514527401 Buller, H., & Roe, E. (2018). Food and animal welfare. Bloomsbury Academic. Candea, M. (2010). “I fell in love with Carlos the meerkat”: Engagement and detachment in human-animal relations. American Ethnologist, 37(2), 241–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01253.x Carton, W. (2020). Rendering Local: The Politics of Differential Knowledge in Carbon Offset Governance. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 110(5), 1353-1368. doi:10.1080/24694452.2019.1707642 Chrulew, M. (2012). Animals in Biopolitical Theory: Between Agamben and Negri. New Formations, 76(76), 53–67 Clutton-Brock, J. (1989). The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism and Predation. London: Unwin Hyman. Cole, M. (2011). From “Animal Machines” to “Happy Meat”? Foucault’s Ideas of Disciplinary and Pastoral Power Applied to ‘Animal-Centred’ Welfare Discourse. Animals, 1(1), 83–101. doi: 10.3390/ani1010083 Collard, R.-C. (2014). Putting Animals Back Together, Taking Commodities Apart. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(1), 151–165. Cooper, M. H. (2015). Measure for measure? Commensuration, commodification, and metrology in emissions markets and beyond. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 47(9), 1787-1804. doi:10.1068/a130275p Coppin, D. (2003). Foucauldian Hog Futures: The Birth of Mega-Hog Farms. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(4), 597–616. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2003.tb00527.x Cusworth, G., Brice, J., Lorimer, J., & Garnett, T. (2023). When you wish upon a (GWP) star: Environmental governance and the reflexive performativity of global warming metrics. Social Studies of Science, 53(1), 3-28. doi:10.1177/03063127221134275 De Jong, I.C. and Guéméné, D. (2011) Major welfare issues in broiler breeders. World’s Poultry Science Journal 67, 73–82. de Jonge, J., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2013). The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Poultry Science, 92(12), 3080–3095. doi: 10.3382/ps.2013-03334 Duncan, I. J., & Petherick, J. C. (1991). The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. Journal of Animal Science, 69(12), 5017–5022. doi: 10.2527/1991.69125017x Elden, S. (2007). Governmentality, Calculation, Territory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25(3), 562–580. doi: 10.1068/d428t Foucault, M. (1982). “The Subject and Power.” Critical Inquiry 8, no. 4: 777–95. Foucault. (1994). Histoire de la sexualité T. I. Gallimard. doi: 10.14375/NP.9782070740703 Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare: The science in its cultural context. Wiley-Blackwell. Gibbs, L. (2021). Animal geographies II: Killing and caring (in times of crisis). Progress in Human Geography, 45(2), 371–381. Gibbs, L. M. (2020). Animal geographies I: Hearing the cry and extending beyond. Progress in Human Geography, 44(4), 769–777. doi: 10.1177/0309132519863483 Grandin, T. (Ed.). (2021). Improving animal welfare: A practical approach (3rd edition). CABI. Grandin, T. (Ed.). (2021). Improving animal welfare: A practical approach (3rd edition). CABI. Grandin, T., & Whiting, M. (Eds.). (2018). Are we pushing animals to their biological limits? Welfare and ethical implications. CABI. doi: 10.1079/9781786390547.0000 Hansson, H., & Johan Lagerkvist, C. (2012). Measuring farmers’ attitudes to animal welfare and health. British Food Journal, 114(6), 840–852. doi: 10.1108/00070701211234363 Harbers, H., & Pols, J. (2010). Animal farm love stories About care and economy Telecare What patients care about. In A. Mol, I. Moser, & J. Pols (Eds.), Care in Practice (pp. 141–194). transcript Verlag. Hetherington, K. (2020). Agribiopolitics: The health of plants and humans in the age of monocrops. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 38(4), 682–698. doi: 10.1177/0263775820912757 Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M. B., Degen, M., & Whatmore, S. (2005). Urban Wild Things: A Cosmopolitical Experiment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 643–658. doi: 10.1068/d351t Hodgetts, T., & Lorimer, J. (2015). Methodologies for animals’ geographies: Cultures, communication and genomics. Cultural Geographies, 22(2), 285–295. Holloway, L., & Morris, C. (2007). Exploring Biopower in the Regulation of Farm Animal Bodies: Genetic Policy Interventions in UK Livestock. Genomics, Society and Policy, 3(2), 82. doi: 10.1186/1746-5354-3-2-82 Holloway, L., Bear, C., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Re-capturing bovine life: Robot–cow relationships, freedom and control in dairy farming. Journal of Rural Studies, 33, 131–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.01.006 Holloway, L., Mahon, N., Clark, B., & Proctor, A. (2023). Changing interventions in farm animal health and welfare: A governmentality approach to the case of lameness. Journal of Rural Studies, 97, 95–104. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.004 Jonathan Murdoch. (2006). Post-Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space: Sage Publications Ltd. (Ch1-Ch3). In Post-Structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: 10.4135/9781446221426 Kallio, G., & LaFleur, W. (2023). Ways of (un)knowing landscapes: Tracing more-than-human relations in regenerative agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 101, 103059. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103059 Kohn, E. (2013). How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human. University of California Press. doi: 10.1525/california/9780520276109.001.0001 Lassen, J., Sandøe, P. and Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty! – conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103, 221-230. Latour, B. (2000). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies (2. print). Harvard University Press. Law, J., & Mol, A. (2008). The Actor-Enacted: Cumbrian Sheep in 2001. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material Agency (pp. 57–77). Springer US. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_4 Lemke, Thomas. "8. Environmentality: Mapping Contemporary Political Topographies". The Government of Things: Foucault and the New Materialisms, New York, USA: New York University Press, 2021, pp. 168-190. doi: 10.18574/nyu/9781479808816.003.0009 Lien, M. E., & Pálsson, G. (2021). Ethnography Beyond the Human: The ‘Other-than-Human’ in Ethnographic Work. Ethnos, 86(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1080/00141844.2019.1628796 Lopez, B. H., & Bauguess, J. (2004). Of wolves and men (Scribner paperb. ed., [Repr.]). Scribner. Lorimer, J. (2017). Probiotic Environmentalities: Rewilding with Wolves and Worms. Theory, Culture & Society, 34(4), 27–48. doi: 10.1177/0263276417695866 Lorimer, J., & Driessen, C. (2013). Bovine biopolitics and the promise of monsters in the rewilding of Heck cattle. Geoforum, 48, 249–259. Lovell, H., & MacKenzie, D. (2011). Accounting for Carbon: The Role of Accounting Professional Organisations in Governing Climate Change. Antipode, 43(3), 704-730. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2011.00883.x Lulka, D. (2004). Stabilizing the herd: fixing the identity of nonhumans. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space, 22(3), 439-463. Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. and Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science—Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97, 37-49. Lundmark, F., Berg, C., Schmid, O., Behdadi, D., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2014). Intentions and Values in Animal Welfare Legislation and Standards. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(6), 991–1017. doi: 10.1007/s10806-014-9512-0 Marianne Elisabeth Lien. (2015). BECOMING SENTIENT: Choreographies of Caring and Killing. In Becoming Salmon: Aquaculture and the Domestication of a Fish (pp. 126–147). University of California Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctt19633kr.10 McGregor, A., Rickards, L., Houston, D., Goodman, M. K., & Bojovic, M. (2021). The Biopolitics of Cattle Methane Emissions Reduction: Governing Life in a Time of Climate Change. Antipode, 53(4), 1161–1185. doi: 10.1111/anti.12714 Mellor, D. (2016). Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the “Five Freedoms” towards “A Life Worth Living.” Animals, 6(3), 21. doi: 10.3390/ani6030021 Mellor, D. (2017). Operational Details of the Five Domains Model and Its Key Applications to the Assessment and Management of Animal Welfare. Animals, 7(12), 60. doi: 10.3390/ani7080060 Mellor, D. J., & Reid, C. S. W. (1994). Concepts of animal well-being and predicting the impact of procedures on experimental animals. Improving the well-being of animals in the research environment, 3-18. Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. doi: 10.3390/ani10101870 Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. Routledge. Mol, A., Moser, I., & Pols, J. (Eds.). (2010). Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms (1st ed., Vol. 8). transcript Verlag. doi: 10.14361/transcript.9783839414477 Müller, M. (2015). A half-hearted romance? A diagnosis and agenda for the relationship between economic geography and actor-network theory (ANT). Progress in Human Geography, 39(1), 65–86. doi: 10.1177/0309132513518833 Müller, M., & Schurr, C. (2016). Assemblage thinking and actor‐network theory: Conjunctions, disjunctions, cross‐fertilisations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(3), 217–229. doi: 10.1111/tran.12117 Ogden, L. A., Hall, B., & Tanita, K. (2013). Animals, Plants, People, and Things: A Review of Multispecies Ethnography. Environment and Society, 4(1). Puig de la Bellacasa, M. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. University of Minnesota Press. Robinson, S., Sparrow, S., Williams, B., Decelle, T., Bertelsen, T., Reid, K., & Chlebus, M. (2020). The European Federation of the Pharmaceutical Industry and Associations’ Research and Animal Welfare Group: Assessing and benchmarking ‘Culture of Care’ in the context of using animals for scientific purpose. Laboratory Animals, 54(5), 421–432. doi: 10.1177/0023677219887998 Rodenburg, T. B., & Turner, S. P. (2012). The role of breeding and genetics in the welfare of farm animals. Animal Frontiers, 2(3), 16–21. doi: 10.2527/af.2012-0044 Roe, E., & Greenhough, B. (2021). A good life? A good death? Reconciling care and harm in animal research. Social & Cultural Geography, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/14649365.2021.1901977 Rollin, B. (2015). Why is agricultural animal welfare important? The social and ethical context. Rose, H. (1983). Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences. Signs, 9(1), 73–90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173664 Rose, H. (1983). Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences. Signs, 9(1), 73–90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173664 RSPCA. (2017) RSPCA welfare standards for laying hens 2017. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards RSPCA. (2018) RSPCA welfare standards for beef cattle. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://science.rspca.org.uk/sciencegroup/farmanimals/standards Simpson, P. (2020). Non-representational Theory. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315148007 Singleton, V. (2010). Good farming Control or care? In A. Mol, I. Moser, & J. Pols (Eds.), Care in Practice (pp. 235–256). transcript Verlag. Sugiyama, K. (2015). Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame by Cary Wolfe. SubStance, 44(2), 176–180. doi: 10.1353/sub.2015.0025 Taylor, N. (2011). 8. Can Sociology Contribute To The Emancipation Of Animals? In N. Taylor & T. Signal (Eds.), Theorizing Animals (pp. 201–220). BRILL. doi: 10.1163/ej.9789004202429.i-294.51 Toncheva, S., & Fletcher, R. (2022). Knowing bears: An ethnographic study of knowledge and agency in human–bear cohabitation. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 5(2), 901–923. doi: 10.1177/25148486211015037 Tronto, J. C. (2020). Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (1st ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003070672 Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton University Press. Tsing, A. L. (2021). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins (New paperback printing). Princeton University Press. van de Weerd, H., & Sandilands, V. (2008). Bringing the issue of animal welfare to the public: A biography of Ruth Harrison (1920–2000). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 404–410. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.014 Van Patter, L. E., & Hovorka, A. J. (2018). ''Of place'' or ''of people'': exploring the animal spaces and beastly places of feral cats in southern Ontario. Social & Cultural Geography, 19(2), 275-295. doi:10.1080/14649365.2016.1275754 Wang, C. (2022). Securing the pig farmgate? Biosecurity, affects and pathological atmospheres. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, tran.12556. doi:10.1111/tran.12556 York, R. (2011). Book Review: Nicole Shukin Animal Capital: Rendering Life in Biopolitical Times Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009. Organization & Environment, 24(1), 99–101. doi:10.1177/1086026611402294 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/92059 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 從國際到臺灣,農場動物福利(動福)已從動保倡議,躍升為畜牧業改革的新標竿。本研究將回顧近半世紀以來,動福如何透過「科學化」的過程,從悲天憫人、主觀、感性的人道關懷,逐漸被認可為中立、客觀、理性的普世進步價值。然而,來自科技與社會研究以及動物地理學的相關研究指出,科學知識與標準化的測量指標,並非客觀、中立地定義與評估動福,而是在進行政治的區分與判斷。換而言之,對動物的「好的照顧」難以被科學穩固,而是在人與動物的互動之中實踐,是動態變動、因地制宜、顧此失彼的。因此,本研究帶著動物地理學、跨物種民族誌、ANT與拼裝的視野,嘗試探討在臺灣由少數掌握科學知識、有權建構標準制度的專家學者所建立的動物福利標準制度,如何持續受到異質的在地脈絡、不同利害關係人的利益、多於人的主體產生協商與摩擦。筆者嘗試以更關係性、對稱的立足點,探討臺灣的農場動物福利,如何在「多於人」的混種的關係中實踐。本研究發現,臺灣的動福標準是被來自西方的科學知識、各懷不同政治議程的在地行動者所拼裝、協商出來的。事實上,面對氣候、疾病、動物主體等難以預知、肉眼不可見,卻時刻影響動福的多重因素,畜牧業者仍須在「揣測」中,與動物、微生物等非人網絡因地制宜地「協作」出好的照顧。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This paper aims to investigate how "western" animal welfare science was contingently enacted and challenged by local assemblages of more-than-human actors in Taiwan. Rooted in the European context, animal welfare policies have been considered a more progressive way of managing animal life. Regulatory guidelines and ethical protocols established by scientists and experts gradually informed policy-making across different geographical regions and claimed authority over reforming livestock management. However, this paper contends that the animal welfare status of heterogeneous farms can not be represented and adjudicated by unified scientific criteria; in fact, the messy materiality of local farms continues to challenge the stabilized and generalized knowings settled by science. Inspired by assemblage thinking and actor-network theory, this paper suggests that farmer’s care practices are developed through embodied encounters with animal bodies. These care practices are speculative and situated, which can not be fully grasped by the universal standard of animal welfare. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2024-03-04T16:19:42Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2024-03-04T16:19:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 前言 1
第二章 文獻回顧 7 2.1 從經濟價值到生命品質——農場動物福利的科學化與知識政治 7 2.2 當代畜牧的生命政治——個體、集體與環境的治理 14 2.3 非人主體與能動性——跨物種協作的照顧實踐 20 第三章 研究方法 28 3.1 動物地理學 28 3.2 行動者網絡理論與拼裝觀 30 3.3 研究設計 32 第四章 標準規範與異質脈絡的摩擦 36 4.1 農場動物福利的合法性 36 4.2 客觀的標準?西方科學與在地脈絡的摩擦 40 4.3 均質化的標準 拼湊的評估 46 4.4 顧此失彼的治理 解方也是問題 50 4.5 不均等的照顧 經濟的取捨 53 第五章 多於人的關係網絡與動物福利實作 57 5.1 無形的空氣、溫差與雞的體感溫度 59 5.2 微生物與中藥 63 5.3 野化與再馴化蛋雞 68 第六章 結論 75 6.1 研究發現 75 6.2 研究貢獻 78 6.3 研究限制與未來方向 79 參考文獻 80 附錄一、受訪者列表 91 | - |
dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
dc.title | 利「牠」的多重實踐:臺灣動物福利的知識政治與照顧實作 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The situated care: animal welfare, ontological politics, and attunement | en |
dc.type | Thesis | - |
dc.date.schoolyear | 112-1 | - |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李鑑慧;蔡晏霖 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Chien-Hui Li;Yen-Ling Tsai | en |
dc.subject.keyword | 動物福利,科技與社會學,生命政治,動物地理學,照顧,行動者網絡理論,拼裝, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | animal welfare,care,materiality,assemblages,actor-network theory,multispecies,animal geography, | en |
dc.relation.page | 91 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202400308 | - |
dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
dc.date.accepted | 2024-02-05 | - |
dc.contributor.author-college | 生物資源暨農學院 | - |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 | - |
顯示於系所單位: | 生物產業傳播暨發展學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-112-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 5.03 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。