Abstract
In this paper I explore the differences in the ways people write and talk about their relationships with animals, focusing on those they regard as kin and with whom they live. I draw on responses to the Animals and Humans Mass Observation directive, which was sent out in the summer of 2009, and 21 in-depth interviews with people who share their domestic space with animals. I suggest that writing about relationships with animals produces a particularly intimate representation which is almost confessional, while talking to another person about similar relationships renders the intimacy less obvious and represents human-animal relations in a different way. I argue that this is because the written accounts are composed with a particular audience in mind, the information divulged is not mediated by another human being and, as a result, normative constraints are less pervasive. Interview data, in contrast, are co-constructed in conversation with another person, there is the possibility of judgment during the course of the interview and normative expectations shape the discursive representation of human-animal intimacy. I reflect on the methodological implications of these findings for developing an understanding of intimacy across the species barrier.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
