Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

While questioning culture and nature, the urban and the rular, the human and the non-human this paper explores why humans keep companion animals and what effects they have on city life. These questions will be examined through a case study in Reykjavik, and the effects of a recently lifted dog-ban

Paper long abstract:

While questioning the assumed binaries of culture and nature, the urban and the rural as well as the human and the non-human, this paper fundamentally explores why humans want to keep companion animals and what effects do they have on city life. It is often said that opposites attract, but are these concepts rather discursive mechanisms that co-exist and thrive on each other? Life in cities depends on the existence and production of what can be found outside them - and vice versa. Could the same be said in terms of discourse and can pets be considered liminal beings that represent both the urban and the rural? These questions will be examined through a case study on a recently lifted dog-ban in Reykjavík, its impact on discourse, views and the realities behind it. Dogs are considered humans best friends and are the first non human animals to live with humans and to be of use to them. They have a long and a diverse history with humans and have been useful to them in multiple ways through the centuries. In 2006 a ban on dog ownership in Icelandic towns was lifted for the first time since 1924. The commonly held view that "dogs don't belong in cities" seems to have eroded somewhat as their numbers have greatly increased in recent decades. In light of these developments, post-human approaches in folklore and ethnology will be applied to explore why humans keep companion animals and what effect they have on city life.