The Pest We All Live With: Cultural Meaning and the Life and Death of Rats
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This dissertation examines the cultural meaning of some of our least-loved nonhuman companions: rats. Scholarship in sociology and other humanities and social sciences disciplines has increasingly sought to treat nonhuman animals as important participants in social processes, rather than superficial window dressing on the periphery of the human social world. I extend this work by examining a specifically antagonistic relationship between humans and animals, namely rat extermination. This topic, I argue, has important lessons to impart regarding social relationships with the nonhuman world and nature, despite being overlooked due to rats’ generally negative associations and the unpleasantness of the killing involved in extermination.My study is primarily based on a multi-sited ethnography featuring participant observation and semi-structured interviews in three locations: the Canadian province of Alberta, Downtown Los Angeles, California, and Ecuador’s Galápagos Islands. These three sites represent a typology of landscapes (rural, urban, and island) where the practice of rat control proceeds in varying ways and for varying motivations. In rural places like Alberta, rat control is a measure taken to guard against economic losses by preventing rats from contaminating agricultural yields and draining the resources of farmers. In urban areas, rats prevent a public health risk as vectors for infectious diseases. Finally, on islands, rats are targeted for eradication for environmental conservation purposes by organizations hoping to protect native species and their habitats.\nBeyond these general differences related to their landscapes, each of my specific cases has a particular relationship between the rat control and the social and cultural context within which it occurs. In Alberta, a government program inspects farms near the border with neighboring Saskatchewan to guard its decades-long claim to province-wide “rat-free” status. This program, I find, clarifies Alberta’s geographic borders and the boundaries of its collective cultural identity by resonating with broader cultural currents of nativism and opposition to outside influence. Los Angeles’s Civic Center, meanwhile, had a widely reported rat infestation in 2019, prompting a multi-pronged government response. I find that LA’s rat issues are inseparable in the public imagination from the city’s homeless crisis, which was specifically cited as a cause of the infestation. The attempts to simultaneously address both these issues attempt to secure public faith in the notion of a clean separation between “inside” and “outside.” Finally, rats are one of many invasive species targeted by a group of NGOs in the Galápagos Islands, in programs aimed at preventing the extinction of native species. These programs raise deep ethical questions around what interventions are morally justified for the goals of environmental stewardship.\nWith these three separate empirical investigations, I advance two overarching arguments: First, rat control is a social practice that draws and clarifies the boundaries of nature and society, and second, rat control enforces an implicit hierarchy of living things that mirrors and is entangled with social inequalities. Together, these findings demand that we extend the lessons of environmental justice, the notion that the burden of environmental problems fall disproportionately on already marginalized populations, to the cultural imaginations of nature and environmentalism itself.\n
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,042 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».