This article was downloaded by: [Owain Jones]On: 13 July 2013, At: 06:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

“Who Milks the Cows at Maesgwyn?”The Animality of UK Rural Landscapesin Affective RegistersOwain Jones aa Countryside & Community Research Institute, University ofGloucestershire , UKPublished online: 09 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Landscape Research (2013): “Who Milks the Cows at Maesgwyn?”The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers, Landscape Research, DOI:10.1080/01426397.2013.784246

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.784246

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

“Who Milks the Cows at Maesgwyn?” TheAnimality of UK Rural Landscapes inAffective Registers

OWAIN JONESCountryside & Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, UK

ABSTRACT Landscapes are complex outplays of intersecting flows of agency in which humansand non-humans combine in a series of registers, and in cycles of comings and goings to makemeshworks of life in place. The presence of animals in some landscapes can be particularlyculturally, politically, ecologically, and economically significant but are often overlooked or onlypartially acknowledged. Here I focus on UK rural landscapes which are rich in animal presencesboth historically and today. I show how animal presences, and human engagements with them,form key elements of individual and collective practices and imaginings of identity. Thesepresences come in many interrelating, messy, and contesting forms, such as companion animals,wildlife, agricultural livestock, and animals bound up with conservation and field sports. In theshifting meshworks of social, cultural, economic, political and ecological forces at work in rurallandscapes, the composition of these animal presences, and the natures of these encounters, willbe ever-changing but also retain familiar themes and iconographies. I argue that the animality ofrurality is far more strongly represented in popular culture (television, film, literature) than it hasbeen in academic readings of the rural. I also suggest that much of the exchange that makes upanimality–rurality meshworks is articulated in affective/emotional registers. Landscape and ruralstudies need to develop awareness of these registers, and means by which they can be moresensitively investigated. This will be an important step in developing our understandings of alllandscapes and the practices of relational, affective, everyday life, both of humans andnon-humans, within them.

KEY WORDS: Animality, landscape, rurality, affect, emotion, meshwork

Fourth Drowned: “Who milks the cows at Maesgwyn?”

(Dylan Thomas, Under Milk Wood, 1953 [1995], p. 6)

Introduction

My mother pointed out to me the poignancy of the above line from one of herfavourite plays—a drowned sailor wondering who now milked the cows on a farm

Correspondence Address: Owain Jones, Countryside & Community Research Institute, University ofGloucestershire, Oxstalls Lane, Longlevens, Gloucester GL2 9HW, UK. Email: ojones@glos.ac.uk

Landscape Research, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.784246

� 2013 Landscape Research Group Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

where he had once worked. Fictional—yes, but a powerful evocation of how place,employment and practice with animals can forge into a sense of identity and sense oflandscape. We also were a Welsh farming family and well knew of the power ofanimals in emotional as well as other, more practical terms.

On closer inspection Dylan Thomas’s famous ‘play for voices’—a paean for a smallrural community in Wales (UK)—is quietly traced through with many animalpresences—pets, farm animals, wildlife.

“Time passes. Listen. Time passes.

An owl flies home past Bethesda, to a chapel in an oak… .

and the dawn inches up.” (Thomas, 1953 [1995], p. 22)

And this is just one of very many artistic/literary evocations of UK rural landscape andlife which I could point to where animals are interconnected into ongoing practices ofcollective and individual identities in ways which evoke emotion and affect. Otherexamples, and definitions of these terms, feature below.

On our farm the animals were units of production (apart from the pets), but alsooften characters with whom relationships were forged. And the spatial boundariesbetween house, fields and farmyard were often blurred with piglets and lambs beingkept in the kitchen by the Aga (cooker) in winter to keep them warm, and where housedogs and cats, and farm dogs and cats, mingled with family life in complex ways. Myfamily community, as a child and now as a parent (in a different rural landscape), hasalways been a more-than-human collective in place/landscape.

This paper develops discussions of the animalities of rural landscapes through fourinterconnecting stages. First, it briefly sets out a notion of landscape as ‘meshwork’after Ingold (2011). Following that, it traces out hitherto under-represented aspects ofanimal presences in UK rural landscapes by drawing upon a range of sources toillustrate the richness and density of animal presences landscapes and lived identities(individual and collective) therein. It explores how this richness is both reflected in, andgenerated by, various renditions of popular culture (e.g. television, film, art, literature),and suggests that academic rural studies have paid much less attention to this richness.Finally, and most substantially, it suggests that much of the richness and significance ofanimal presences fold into local (rural) places, landscapes and individual and collectivelives (identities) through affect/emotive registers. These are considered through ideas oftouch, intercorporality, passion, love, power, and what I call ecologies of affectivedwelling, which can be revealed through visual methodologies and can also be revealedby disruption to routine meshworks through such processes as disease outbreaks.

This paper speaks to the meetings—the interspecies entanglements—between humansand non-humans (Haraway, 2008) that are always located in landscapes, physically,culturally and politically. And there is also much here that chimes with the UKlandscape/animal geographies which assemble vivid, detailed accounts of human–animal encounters which help shape places/landscapes, such as the Norfolk Broads(Matless, 2000; Matless et al., 2005) and the herded Scottish Highlands (Lorimer,2006), where human–non-human ecologies of material, practice, exchange and memorycreate distinctive meshworks which are the patterns of landscape (Harrison et al.,

2 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

2004). In effect this paper is seeking to develop a greater interplay between animalgeographies (Philo, 1995, 1998; Philo & Wilbert, 2000; Wolch & Emel, 1995 , 1998;Wolch et al., 2003) generally, and also non-human rural geographies/studies (Jones,2003, 2006; Milbourne, 2003; Yarwood & Evans, 2000), with what can be termed theaffective/emotive turn (Clough & Halley, 2007; Davidson et al., 2005; Pile, 2009;Stewart, 2007; Thrift, 2008; Woodward & Lea, 2010) as I feel this is a means ofaddressing the rich peformative co-construction of lived landscapes.

A Note on ‘Landscape’

Landscapes are (taken to be) complex outplays of intersecting flows of material andagency, where the human and non-human (materials, technologies, plants, animals)combine and re-combine in and through series of registers in cycles of comings andgoings. Animals (of all kinds, e.g. insects, mammals, birds) play their full part which insome instances, can become culturally, politically, ecologically, and economicallycentral to the ongoing production of landscape.

Ingold’s (2011) notion of meshwork captures this living complexity of becoming-landscape. Animals are always at work in landscapes, but they are often overlookedamidst a wider blindness to the agencies of nature. Meshworks can generate culturalforms and identities, and imaginaries of UK rural landscapes are examples of this.Rurality and ideas of idyll are powerful cultural discourses (Bunce, 1994) with animalsat their heart. In actuality these meta-constructions are made of many regional and locallandscapes and lives therein (which might share some thematics). But importantly weneed to go beyond the cultural notion of landscape and bring in not only the animalsbut their agency and the rich affective/emotional associations they are enmeshed in(Philo, 2005).

Wild (‘native’ and ‘alien’), companion and domestic animals are players in theconstruction of material–ecological landscapes, and also the imaginative and economic,in interconnecting and contesting and contested ways (both between human agency andnon-human agency) through such means as changing meshworks of food production/consumption, tourist landscapes, conservation and biodiversity management in theclimate change era, animal rights/welfare, and rural lifestyle transformations. Carolan(2008) calls for embodied knowledges of the countryside. We need to keep in mindthat embodied practices of all landscapes are by humans and animals, and that they are,to a significant degree, conducted through relational, emotional/affective registers.

Animality and (UK) Rural Landscapes

Animals embody nature in (rural) landscapes and co-construct facets of landscapesthrough their agencies. The history of Britain (and rural and urban Britain after theindustrial revolution) is, in part, a history of animals as economic, ecological andcultural vectors. A range of scholars (Ridley, 1998; Tapper, 1988; Tovey, 2003), feelthat understanding animal presences in rural landscapes is vital to understanding ruralityitself. Others have pointed to the centrality of animals (and other elements of nature) inpractices of rural family life (Scruton, 2004). Thrift (2003) talks of nature withinrurality as a set of ‘‘planes of affect attuned to different body parts (and senses)’’

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

(p. 319), and he itemises ‘‘trees, grass, sky, river’’ as such facets of nature, curiouslyignoring animals in this account of ‘‘re-enchantment’’, and rural located, alternativebiopolitics. More recently, Phillips et al. (2008) have reported findings on the affectiveimportance of animals and other forms of nature in gentrified rural landscapes. In myhome village of ‘Allswell’ the practice of the ‘animal church service’ where membersof the community bring their animals to be celebrated and blessed, speaks to thecentrality of a range of pets, working and companion animals to individual, family andcommunity life (Figure 1).

Here I draw upon a number of portrayals of rural landscapes in literature and popularculture. These include photographic reportage in books such as Liberty and Livelihood:A Portrait of Life in Rural Britain (Eede & Mollett, 2003); Silence at Ramscliffe: Footand Mouth in Devon (Chapman & Crowden, 2005); literary and poetic accounts ofanimals in landscape (Baker, 2005; Hughes, 1985; Hughes & Lloyd, 1984; Sebald,1998); documentary films such as The Lie of the Land (2007, dir: Molly Dineen) andSleep Furiously (2008, dir: Gideon Koppel); and what has become known as ‘WellyTelly’ (see BBC Television, 2012), prime-time television programmes which have arural/agricultural landscape focus to them, for example, Dorset Days: A Year in the Lifeof Longhorn Jim (BBC 4 2011) and Lambing Live (BBC2 2011 and 2012). These texts,films and programmes fill the page or screen respectively with rural-landscapes-with-animals, and with people working, watching and living with animals.

Disruption to settled practices—settled meshworks—often brings them into the light(this is considered in detail in the last section). In the wake of the devastating 2001 UKfoot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak, and amidst the political furore of the banningof hunting with hounds in the UK, the book Liberty and Livelihood: A Portrait of Lifein Rural Britain (Eede & Mollett, 2003) was published. Produced in association withthe Countryside Alliance (a UK rural lobby group), it is, as the title indicates, intendedto show what rural Britain is really all about to a supposedly uncaring, misguided, andeven hostile urban-focused society and government. It comprises 37 short articlespenned by an array of rural-friendly ‘great and the good’ which are fulsomelyillustrated with black and white and colour photographs. Although it has something ofthe deeply conservative air that comes with the Countryside Alliance, it contains some

Figure 1. Animal blessing service, ‘Allswell’, south-west England (photo by author).

4 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

very thoughtful commentaries from such notable writers as Simon Schama and JeanetteWinterson. What is very striking about this book is the extent to which animals featurein it. Animals (in many differing roles and relationships) appear on just about everypage and in every essay (this animal content is examined in detail below). But thebooks show that rural life is in effect life with animals in landscape/place/identity.

Molly Dineen’s 2007 film The Lie of the Land comes from a very different politicalsensibility, but it ends up covering a similar set of issues, and producing many similarimages of people in close physical and emotional proximity to a range of animals in arange of ways. Chapman and Crowden’s Silence at Ramscliff: Foot and Mouth inDevon (2005) is a black and white photographic essay and series of poems about theculling of a herd of milking cows on a single farm in Devon in 2001 in the FMDoutbreak. It portrays the loss of the milking herd as the loss of the heart of a wholeway of family and individual life set in a local landscape. Another documentary film ofrural life, Sleep Furiously (2008, dir: Koppel), is a more poetic portrait of a rural Welshcommunity, often presented in poignantly beautiful shots of landscapes in whichanimals, again, are key figures.

In all these portraits of rural life and landscape, animals are shown up-close, and askey symbolic, material, emotional, and ecological ‘components’ of the rural. This focuson the rural in popular culture and the animal therein has emerged at this time becausethe makeup of it is changing and under pressure through series of interlinking shifts inagricultural, economic, social (class) and ecological formations.

First, as the shape of UK agri-economics continues to change in the light of theglobalised food commodities nexus and the decoupling of EU subsidies, the presencesof domestic (farm) animals in rural landscapes and economies are changingsignificantly. For example, the destocking of some upland areas and the decline ofsmall milking herds and growth of mega-herds. On one hand, new technologies such asrobotic milking systems are changing, yet again, the nature and frequency of contactbetween people and animals, whilst on the other, the rise of ‘hobby farming’, highquality ‘alternative agricultural’ food networks, and ‘tourist farms’ are bringing peopleinto new types of intimate relationships with various types of animals. Second, thefall-out of the UK hunting with hounds ban is still being felt in terms of changinghuman–animal mixings in rural space. This was a significant theme of Dineen’s filmwhich focused on hunters, riders, farmers and hunt workers whose interactions withanimals (horses, fox hounds, terriers, farm animals, wild animals) were changed by theban and its fallout.

Third, wild populations of some fauna continue to decline markedly (particularlysome wild bird species) whilst reintroductions or recoveries of others (managed orotherwise) are underway. There is concern about invasive species threats to (iconic)rural fauna (e.g. ‘alien’ grey squirrels displacing ‘native’ red squirrels in large parts ofthe UK). All this is now significantly exacerbated by concerns over climate change andthe management of landscape/habitat to create migration routes for fauna (and flora).Fourth, the numbers and types of companion and recreational animals are on the rise(e.g. recreational horse riding; Scruton, 2000), often in conjunction with counter-urbanisation and urban middle-class ‘capture’ of the rural dream. Fifth, there is growinginterest in the therapeutic and well-being benefits to be gained through interactions withanimals in both rural and urban settings. It is clear that these benefits are mostlytransmitted and received through affective rather than rational registers.

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Affective Registers

As indicated above, animal presences in rural landscapes have attracted some academicattention in recent years. But what has attracted less attention is how human–animalinteractions are often articulated through affective/emotional registers. These interlinkedterms are discussed in detail below. At this juncture I clarify that emotions are taken tobe important (but not exclusive) facets of affect, so where ‘affect’ is used alone, itstands for both throughout this paper, but the terms will combine and interchange onoccasions.

People engage with animals through a range of affective exchanges which includeemotions (passions), embodied practices (e.g. touch, senses, habit, memory, movement)and all the materialised (technologicalised), relational perfomativity of everyday life.Affects are inherently relational, and about exchange between and through bodies(McCormack, 2007). They are about how bodies function moment by moment andinteract with each other and with(in) the environment. It is important to realise thatthese affective registers lie largely outside the realms of language, thought, rationalityand reflexive consciousness. The social sciences which operate in and throughrepresentations, constructed in and of language and reflexive thought, thus struggle to‘see’ and work with affective life. This is, in part, Thrift’s (2008) justification for non-representational theory which attempts to extend social science work into the affectivespectrum. It is important to note that ecofeminist thinkers such as Plumwood (2002)have long argued that we need to re-enter realms of feeling in order to build effectiveknowledge of human–nature/animal relations.

The emphasis on affect/emotion is not to deny the power and importance ofrationality, and cultural and economic dynamics within human–animal relations. Theseclearly shape human–animal interactions and their related spatial/ethical patterns, butaffects and emotions will always be co-present forces, and are processes through whichthe other dynamics are channelled or practised. The ‘affective turn’ (Anderson &Harrison, 2010; Clough & Halley, 2007; Pile, 2009; Stewart, 2007; Thrift, 2008;Woodward & Lea, 2010) has generated profound challenges to the social sciences andrelated disciplines in terms of what the social is and how it can be engaged withthrough ontology, epistemology and methodology (Law, 2004).

Affective registers are the bodily systems and processes which make life and whichrun pre, within and beyond reflexive consciousness, and through which we live thebulk of our lives as beings-in-environment on a moment to moment basis. Memoryfunctions, emotions, motor movements (e.g. balance), sense/response systems are keybut not exclusive parts of affect. As key scientific work (e.g. Damasio, 1999, 2003) hasshown, our conscious, reflexive, rational, language using self (the focus of most socialscience) is underpinned, enframed and coloured moment to moment by these processes.These insights into the biological (Thrift, 2008), bodily, basis of individual andcollective social life challenge the Cartesian settlements of identity and agency, and thekey dualisms of modernism—mind/body, nature/culture, subject/object. Affective life isvery much about embodiment, relationality, and materiality as it seeks to deal with theself as a performative entity always in specific space-time circumstances of the now(and remembrances of past experience).

This is how Stewart (2007) describes the affective/performative view of the social asarticulated in everyday life:

6 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

To attend to ordinary affects is to trace how the potency of forces lies in their imminenceto things that are both flighty and hardwired, shifty and unsteady but palpable too. At onceabstract and concrete, ordinary affects are more directly compelling than ideologies, as wellas more fractious, multiplicitous, and unpredictable than symbolic meanings. They are notthe kind of analytic object that can be laid out on the single, static plane of analysis, andthey don’t lend themselves to a perfect, three-tiered parallelism between analytic subject,concept, and world. They are instead, a problem or question of emergence in disparatescenes and implement strict forms and registers; a tangle of potential connections. (p. 4)

Thus far, significant proclamations of the affectiveness of life have been set in urbansocial contexts (e.g. Thrift, 2004). However, as I have argued with Little (Little andJones, 2006) affective processes are obviously no less important and active in ruralspace and rural lives and in more-than-human, indeed, more-than-social lives. In ruralsettings affective processes will take on very particular and significant forms. This willbe particularly so for practices which are particularly embodied, such as engagementswith nature, community and ‘rural materiality’, and also, as I am focusing on here,engagements between humans and animals in rural landscapes.

Strange Exchanges in Rural Landscapes

Whenever they paused on their branch, I can look into the eyes of the flycatchers and tryto read something of their lives. (Dee, 2010, p. 214)

Affective exchange operates at multiple levels of sense, movement, touch, theunconscious, the body. Between the body and the material is a rich dialogue, betweensensing bodies the dialogue is richer still. It helps to think of meeting animals as‘strange persons’ in this respect (Ingold, 2000; Whatmore, 2002), this opens up thepossibility of thinking of animals not as (just as) units of species, or commodities, orsocial constructions, or Descartes’ automata, but rather as unique individuals inparticular encounters articulated through their own embodied, spatial narratives. Sebald(1998) is a striking writer of landscape who narrates meetings with animals inlandscape in ways which illustrate the value of attention to embodied, sensory, affectiveregisters:

Beyond a low electric fence lay a herd of almost a hundred head of swine […]. I climbedover the wire and approached one of the ponderous, immobile, sleeping animals. As I benttowards it, it opened a small eye fringed with light lashes and gave me an enquiring look.I ran my hand across its dusty back, and it trembled at this unwonted touch; I stroked itssnout and face, and chucked it in the hollow behind one ear, till at length it sighed likeone enduring endless suffering. When I stood up, it closed its eye once more with anexpression of profound submissiveness. (Sebald, 1998, p. 66)

It must have been cowering there as I approached, heart pounding as it waited, until it wasalmost too late to get away with its life. In that very fraction of a second when itsparalysed state turned into panic and flight, its fear cut right through me. I still see whatoccurred in that tremulous moment with undiminished clarity. I see the edge of the greytarmac and every individual blade of grass, I see the hare leaping out of its hiding place,with its ears laid back and a curiously human expression on its face that was rigid with

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

terror and strangely divided; and its eyes, turning to look back as it fled and almostpopping out of its head with fright, I see myself become one with it. (pp. 234–235)

Another example is the work of Ted Hughes, a prose writer and poet famous for hisattention to the liveliness of animals in their settings. His beautiful children’s book, Whatis the Truth? A Farmyard Fable for the Young (Hughes & Lloyd, 1984) contains a seriesof poems and short prose pieces focusing upon each type of animal (both wild anddomestic) to be found on a small traditional UK farm, such as the foal, the owl, thebadger, the flea, the cat, the dog, the swallow, the rook, the rat, the pig, the horse. Inexquisite and precise poetic imagery they are met by the human eye/heart. A new bornfoal: ‘‘suddenly he is here—a warm heap / Of ashes and embers, fondled by smalldraughts’’. Economic and welfare issues are not ignored, but, as with Hughes’s otheranimal/nature poems, they are subsidiary to meeting animals as living beings inlandscape.

Different kinds of intimate attention to affective animal presences in rural landscapescan be found in the canon of nature writing and ‘new nature writing’ that is sodistinctive in UK culture (Cowley, 2008): for example, J. A. Baker’s The Peregrine,Mark Cocker’s Crow Country, Tim Dee’s The Running Sky and Kathleen Jamie’sSightlines. All these books chart self-confessed obsessive pursuits, observations andrecordings of avian (and other) geographies in UK (and other) landscapes. These areoften couched in deeply emotive terms, and self and identity become entangled betweenperson, place and creature(s). Baker recounts how moments of encounter with hisanimal muse become central to his very sense of self in landscape:

By half past three I had given up searching for the peregrine and was sitting glumly on agate near the dead oak. When he suddenly flew past me, I was lifted to joy on the surge ofhis wings. There was a zestful buoyancy, a lilting eagerness in his rushing-past, boring,dipping, swaying, curving flight. He perched in a tree to the east and looked back at me. Ifelt I had been found. (Baker, 2005 [1967], p. 143, emphasis added)

Here the encounter with the animal has become central to the practice of this particularrural identity-in-landscape. This is also dealing with the ‘otherness’ of animals andpaying close attention to their ways of embodied dwelling (Ingold, 2000).

Wolch et al. (2003, p. 184) claim that:

intellectual currents within the academy have blurred the boundaries between humans andanimals, and encouraged recognition of human–animal bonds at multiple levels of analysisand spatial scales.

Clearly, in the word ‘‘bonds’’ there is great complexity, but the term resonates withaffective and emotional exchange. The idea of ‘non-human’ (rural) geography (Jones,2006) sees the rural as not formed and practised by human presences, actions andagencies alone. Rather, it is woven out of myriad connections between the disparatebeings, processes and materialities of the world. On these grounds, Murdoch argues thatthe concept of hybridity, which is as yet ‘‘not in common usage’’ in rural studies, doeshave ‘‘the potential to capture the socio-natural complexity of the countryside moreeasily than traditional modes of representation’’ (2003a, p. 264). Murdoch adds:

8 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

in short, while any particular vision of the countryside will continue to focus upon socialforms, natural entities or even hybrid objects, it will also need to be aware of theinterrelationships that exist between these realms if it is to capture the full range ofprocesses currently running through rural areas. (2003a, p. 280, emphasis added)

If we are to ‘‘capture the full range of processes’’, then considering animal presencesand the affective/emotional dimensions of engagement with them is vital. Practices ofrural landscapes and the corresponding interrelationships between people, animals,plants, materials and technologies will carry affective/emotional charges, and oftenthese will not be marginal but central forces, as, for example, the pro- and anti-huntingdebate demonstrates. Passions run high. If Actor Network Theory, an approach oftenused to successfully trace hybridity, misses the ‘‘sizzle of the event’’ (Bingham &Thrift, 2000, p. 299), that ‘‘sizzle’’ is largely affective-emotional.

Identity, Practice and Inter-corporality

To open up affective registers we have to pay attention to specifics—to situatednarratives and relationalities—the intimate everyday encounters and the ways these arearticulated through bodies, materials, processes and so on. The pictures in Eede &Mollett (2003) offer snapshots of this by portraying various forms of non-human–human intercorporality and exchange in particular settings.

Of the 266 or so pictures in the book, 125 are images which directly include animalsin some way or another; a further 20 show animal related activities (e.g. a farriershaping a horseshoe and pictures of angling), and more still allude to animal politics.There are pictures of farm animals, wildlife, companion animals, working animals,scenes of hunting, shooting and fishing, and references to animals as food, and of theprotests held in London about the banning of hunting. There are quintessential pastorallandscapes of rolling, be-hedged hills with grazing animals. There are close-up picturesof wild birds and insects. There is a visceral quality to many pictures with the framesimply filled with the animal body (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Sleeping pig (Eede and Mollett, 2003, p. 23. � Pauline Rook).

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Identity

Many of the images are portraiture rather than reportage and show ‘people withanimals’ which are, in effect, statements of identity (Figures 2 and 3).

People live their lives in partnerships with animals and form individual and collectiveidentity through those partnerships.

Practice and Intercorporality

Of particular note is the high frequency of pictures of practice and craft and intimateinter-corporality. For example, farriers at work (Figure 4), farm workers handlinganimals (Figure 5), farmers’ wives feeding lambs, children hugging companion animals,riders on horses, hunters holding recently killed prey. There is an affective richness tosuch inter-corporal practice drawn from the agencies of the animals involved and therepeated habits of encounter.

Figure 3. Ferret man (Eede and Mollett, 2003, p. 141. � Becky Griffiths).

10 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Figure 4. Practice—intercorporality; farrier shoeing a horse (Eede and Mollett, 2003, p. 35. �Marilyn Hardman).

Figure 5. Practice—intercorporality; shearing sheep (Eede and Mollett, 2003, p. 13. � RoseHubbard).

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Horse riding also features prominently in Eede and Mollett. This taken-for-granted,but on reflexion, rather extraordinary example of affective intercorporality betweenhumans and animals is a particular feature of rural life in the UK and beyond, and hasbeen the focus of attention for this very reason (Scruton, 2000). Both Game (2001) andProbyn (1996) discuss what can be taken as the relational ontologies and affectiverichness of horse riding, in which the division of the human/social from the animalother begins to dissolve. Game (2002, p. 1) asserts that ‘‘through interconnectedness,through our participation in the life of the world humans are always forever mixed[with animals]’’. This seems so in particularly significant ways in rural landscapes.

Passions and Animal Production, Life and Death

In his call for geography to expand its response to the “animal question”, Murdoch(2003b) suggests that addressing feelings, passions and emotions is a key requirement.Quoting Hacking (2000), he argues that it is time ‘‘to own up to the messiness of ourpassions’’ in our relationship with animals, and that means linking ‘‘carefully reasonedtheories and descriptions to deeply held sympathies, commitments and affiliations’’ (p.289).

Mabey (2003) argues that:

The overriding relationship with nature […] is through our emotions. It is through feelingsand imaginations that we experience kinship and connectedness, the pain of separation andextinction, the renewal of spring and birth, not through the detachment of scientificaccounts. (2003, p. 6)

A number of the images in Eede & Mollett (2003) seem to portray love of animals andare certainly charged with a range of passions. One of the centrepiece pictures is of aman kissing a cow that has just given birth to a calf. Around them a flock of free-rangechickens throng (Figure 6). There are also pictures of people lovingly holdingcompanion animals, feeding lambs, holding a newborn piglet, and more besides.

Milton (2002) argues that emotions should not be seen as the opposite to, or inopposition to, the rational in environmental debates. They are both based upon a similarset of cognitive functions, but these are in differing combinations and relations. Thesebonds with nature are not confined to questions of conservation (or otherwise). Theyare very deeply entangled in imaginations and practices of landscape in many ways asglimpsed in a number of the sources referred to already.

We need to link these explicitly emotional engagements with nature/animals to theemerging fields of affective (rural) landscape studies in order to map out a theoreticalterrain where ‘non-human’, animal, rural-animal and emotional geographies canusefully combine to bring insights into the complex emotional/affective dynamicsgenerated by animal presences in rural landscapes.

Of course, passions are complicated, messy and contradictory. Love is not alwayspresent and/or not the sole emotion at work when people are with animals. Work suchas that of Holloway (2001, 2002) investigates the differences between ‘hobby’ farmersand ‘commercial’ farmers in their relationships to their livestock and animal relatedagricultural practices, and begins to address the uneven emotional terrains therein.

12 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Wilkie (2005) and Convery et al. (2005) extend ideas of the emotionalities of human–animal interactions into other common, everyday rural spaces of production, whichbecome places of individual and collective identity and well-being (or otherwise),unpacking how human–animal relations are embedded in particular places and playedout across specific spaces. Such work begins to explore the emotional/affectivespatialities of animal–human encounters in ways that incorporate, yet move beyond,rational, representative realms, and into performative, embodied, realms of affectivepractice. They consider problematic and contradictory constructions of rurality andfarming in relation to animals. These considerations also link to, and further develop,ideas of the (un)ethical spatialities of human–animal encounters (Jones, 2000; Lynn,1998a, 1998b; Proctor, 1998 ).

Not surprisingly, Eede & Mollett (2003) offer a large number of pictures showingscenes associated with various forms of hunting. The sort of scenes that would attractthe opprobrium of organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports and the RoyalSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I am not seeking to comment onthese arguments either way in this paper. What I am pointing out is that without anengagement with affective/emotional registers through which these sports, and protestsabout them, are practised, we will be missing out on much of their power and cadencesthrough which they work.

Ecologies of Affective Dwelling…

The narratives, pictures, and moving images from film, depict elements which, whenbought together, show ongoing ecologies of place which resonate of dwelling (Jones,

Figure 6. Passions. Farmer kissing cow just after it has calved (Eede and Mollett, 2003, pp. 50–51. � Martin Elliot).

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

2009), taskscape (Ingold, 2000), and rich affective life. These centre on everydaypractice and exchange which include movement, sounds, smells, tasks, animals,technologies, weather and so on (Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7. Ecology of place—sound movement (Eede and Mollett, 2003, p. 36. � Pete Gelly).

Figures 8. Ecologies of place, technology, human and non–human interactions (Eede and Mollett,2003, p. 27. � Thomas Claxton).

14 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Animals also play their part in what could be termed accounts of dwelling—that is,accounts which stress feelings of belonging and home in landscape. This is evident isTed Hughes’s ‘animal poems’, for example, the poem ‘Swifts’, where the annual returnof swifts to the landscape means (to Hughes):

... the globe’s still working, the Creation’s

Still waking refreshed, our summer’s

Still as to come - (Hughes, 1985, p. 33)

Animals locate people in place and time. This is also evident in Henry Williamson’s(1948) account Life in a Devon Village, where he discusses the birds that nest in thethatch of the house which ‘‘he loved to think of them living there so close to my life’’(p. 32) including the owls that he could hear above him at night, ‘‘their secret andmysterious life was the medium by which I could live and have my being in the worldof truth’’ (1948, p. 30).

... and their Disruption

These meshworks of politics, culture, economy and affective registers were veryevident in one major impetus for this work—the trauma of the 2001 UK foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (Bennett et al., 2002; Chapman & Crowden, 2005; Converyet al., 2005). That event did much to expose the number and importance of animals inaffected parts of the UK countryside, and also to unsettle the taken-for-granted waysthey were embedded in the rural fabric, not only in terms of economy but also in termsof constructions/practices of individual and collective everyday life in communities andlandscapes.

During the crisis well over six million animals were slaughtered. Some farms,communities and landscapes were emptied of domestic animal presences, while otherswere stuck with animals in peculiar patterns because of animal movement restrictions.The ecologies of farmsteads and landscapes were unsettled. Clearly, animal slaughter ona huge scale goes on everyday in the UK, but the outbreak brought a different kind ofslaughter into the headlines and onto television screens, notably images of yards filledwith ‘culled out’ animals, and of large machines pushing animal bodies into huge pyresfor burning (Figure 9). It was a moment when relationships with animals weredisrupted, exposed, made raw.

A series of images and poems about the culling of one herd on a farm in Devonform the entire, deliberately emotionally charged, content of Chapman & Crowden(2005), and this echoes many other very emotive depictions of the outbreak given inthe media and other arenas. This was, in one sense, an emotional/affective crisis forthose concerned as well as an economic/livelihood one. The temporal, spatialroutines—the geographies—of farm animal life and death and human engagement withthem, were destabilised and exposed. Not only were unregarded spaces and practices ofproduction, such as the long distance trading of live animals, opened up to scrutiny, butthe emotional/ethical messiness of our collective relationships with these animals wasbrutally laid bare, and the role of animals not only in rural economies but also in

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

constructions of individual, collective, place and rural landscape identities andimaginations were highlighted.

Chapman & Crowden (2005) (Figure 10) is about the ‘silence’ that surges in whenthe intimate, rich intercorporality of everyday affective practices of working with a herdof cows are brought to a sudden, violent halt, and the farm subjected to enforcedisolation, then a cull of all stock, then cleaning. This brings out how the relationshipsbetween farmer and livestock are acted out in precisely articulated, intimate, emplaced,and embodied practices, with affective (sensory) registers playing key roles. The farm

Figure 9. FMD cull pyre (cattle) (Eede and Mollett, 2003, pp. 52–53. � Martin Elliot).

Figure 10. A vet comforting a calf prior to its death in the Ramscliffe Farm cull (Chapman andCrowden, 2005, pp. 66–67. � Chris Chapman).

16 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

becomes understood as a space, or taskscape (Ingold, 2000), made up of micro-spacesand micro-practices, as in, for example, the way the gates in the yard have differingfunctions in differing routines. The culling of the herd shatters that taskscape and thefollowing jarring stillnesses, silences, lack of smells, and other things, brings homewhat was in place—but unregarded—before the cull took place (Figures 11 and 12).

For example, after culling, the farmers’ hands slowly become unfamiliarly clean ofthe grime and marks of work. The organic traces of the herd (e.g. smells, dried manure)in the yard and sheds, are hosed, scraped and disinfected away. The farm smellsdifferently, and is empty and silent, leaving the senses poignantly aware of the loss of

Figure 11. Taskscape before cull (Eede and Mollett, 2003, p. 29. � Becky Griffiths).

Figure 12. Taskscape post-cull: silent, scrubbed-clean taskscape of the parlour at Ramscliffe Farm(Chapman and Crowden, 2005, p. 90. � Chris Chapman).

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

what before was affectively registered and lived day by day. But other visual traces,such as scratches and dents in the farm fabric remain as testament to the lost taskscape.The ecology of place, in terms of relational embodiment, involving movement, habit,senses, memory, is, in its disruption, made clear.

Wrennall’s (2002) account of a cull on another farm also pays attention to thedwelling of the animals on the farm as well as of the human occupants and how thecows are co-constitutive of the farm dwelling. She recounts how, after the cull, otheranimals, such as the farm dogs, seemed as lost and disoriented as the farmersthemselves. She also points to the ‘wild’ dwellings of the farm which were alsodisrupted and which for the most part remained an unregarded aspect of the FMDoutbreak. The swallows, which returned to the cowsheds each early summer, that yearmoved on from the newly disinfected and hosed roof beams which normally wouldhave held nests from the previous year. They, and other birds, found less insect foodaround the yard as the wild ecologies which rested upon the presence of the cowsbroke down. Such witnessing points not only to the ecology of place but the ecology ofaffective emotions in places.

Farms ‘culled out’ could not be instantly restored as a living place of dwelling andidentity by restocking with new animals. Wrennall’s account of putting the new herdthrough the milking parlour for the first time echoes reports from other farms who wentthrough the same thing. Ordinarily, new animals added to an existing herd would besocialised into the spaces and rhythms of the farm and relationships with humans bythe collective knowledge of the herd. But with all new animals in place, this knowledgewas lost, and the farm, its processes and human presences were strange and fearful forthe new animals. Milking the new herd, without the familiar affectiveinterconnectivities, was at first a hard, time-consuming struggle for the farm workers,trying to re-establish routine and contact between themselves and the animals. Suchvaluable insights that these accounts give us, albeit generated by such an awful event,show the complexity and nuance of animal presences in rural landscapes and ruralpractices.

Conclusions

I have sought to explore and illustrate ways in which rich, varying types of animalityplay a key part in material and non-material constructions of (rural) landscapes. I havefurther suggested that much of the traffic and import of these presences of animals inlandscape is articulated within and through affective and emotional registers. Theseregisters can include haptic and sensory exchanges, and intercorporal practice which areembroiled in a range of passions, senses of place and identity, political, economic andcultural processes. Ecologies of affective dwelling exist in which both animals andhumans are embedded. Sometimes the meshworks of these ecologies involve bittercontestations and/or can be exposed through disruption as in the UK FMD outbreak.

I have drawn upon autoethnographic accounts and a diverse range of literary, film andmedia sources to illustrate my argument. I have touched upon a series of theoreticalperspectives: (performative) dwelling (Ingold, 2000; Jones, 2009; Wylie, 2003),passionate ecologies of place (Game & Metcalfe, 1995; Thrift, 1999), overtlyperformative/affective approaches (McCormack, 2007; Pile, 2009), which might be

18 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

deployed more fully to investigate affective life in landscape in conjunctions withadapted ethnographic and ethology methods. Collectively, these cluster around a set ofregisters which are inter-relational, inter-material, inter-practice, inter-body.

These approaches are very much focused on the intimate, fine-grained, moment-by-moment interactions involved in relational becoming-in-space of individual humans andnon-humans (Young, 2003). This is where much of the richness—the meaning,expression, agency, emotions and ethics of human–animal interactions—unfold. Stewart(2007) suggests forms of micro-ethnography as a method for addressing affect. There iswork in animal behaviour studies linking notions of animal welfare, animal emotionsand farm practices (e.g. Sandem et al., 2002) where applied ethology studies themovements and expressions of animals in relation to humans in great detail. There isalso the ‘deep ethology’ of Bekoff (2002, 2006), which explores the emotionalconnectivities and parallels between human and non-human life.

Researching affective/emotional registers might be particularly important in terms ofethical questions about human–non-human relations in rural contexts, where animal rightsand animal welfare issues are not only about the large-scale values in politics, culture,legislation and industry standards, but also about the intimate spaces and practices ofeveryday encounters. Human–animal interactions will always carry complex affectiveresonances. These shared encounters may not lead to empathetic relations, but they domean that spaces with animal presences, such as rural landscapes, farm landscapes,agricultural markets, domestic spaces, and so on, are spaces of complex and perhapscontradictory emotional affects. This, as Sabloff (2001) points out, is not something to beignored, but something to be opened up and confronted within knowledge.

The affective/emotional connectivities between beings-in-relational-practices are a key setof forces through which human and non-human well-being (or otherwise) are articulated,and therefore a ground on which re-articulations can be worked at in order to increaserelational well-being through processes of agencies and ethics (Whatmore, 2002). Thinkingon behalf of animals, there are clear links between certain emotions and empathy, animalwelfare and ethics on one hand and other emotions and exploitation, disdain and cruelty onthe other. How these are engendered and practised needs opening up.

I have sought to open up a number of conceptual and substantive issues which I feelmerit further development within landscape studies (and rural geography), in particular,that there is a case to be made for deeper mappings of affective/emotional aspects ofrural animal geographies. There are important reasons for developing our ways ofstudying animals and human–animal relations. These revolve around ethical, politicaland philosophical reasons, but also more practical reasons of relational well-being,environmental sustainability, food quality, animal welfare, and so forth. They are alsoimportant for considering animal presences in rural landscapes and thus broaderpractices, constructions, imaginations and interpretations of life therein.

Acknowledgements

Thanks very much to two anonymous referees and the editor who have commentedmost insightfully on previous versions.

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

References

Anderson, B. & Harrison, P. (2010) Taking-Place. Non Representational Theories and Geography (London:Ashgate).

Baker, J. A. (1967 [2005]) The Peregrine (New York: New York Review Books).BBC Television (2012) Welly Telly. The Countryside on Television. Programme details at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011m8wt (accessed 13 April 2012).

Bekoff, M. (2002) Minding Animals: Awareness, Emotions, and Heart (New York: Oxford University Press).Bekoff, M. (2006) Animal passions and beastly virtues: Cognitive ethology as the unifying science forunderstanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals, Human Ecology Review, 13(1), pp. 39–59.

Bennett, K., Carroll, T., Lowe, P. & Phillipson, J. (2002) Coping with Crisis in Cumbria: Consequences ofFoot and Mouth Disease (Newcastle upon Tyne: Centre for Rural Economy).

Bingham, N. & Thrift, N. (2000) Some new instructions for travellers: The geography of Bruno Latour andMichel Serres, in: M. Crang & N. Thrift (Eds) Thinking Space, pp. 281–301 (London: Routledge).

Bunce, S. (1994) The Countryside Ideal: Anglo-American Images of Landscape (London: Routledge).Carolan, M.S. (2008) More-than-representational knowledge/s of the countryside: How we think as bodies,Sociologia Ruralis, 48(4), pp. 408–422.

Chapman, C. & Crowden, J. (2005) Silence at Ramscliffe Farm: Foot and Mouth in Devon (Oxford: BardwellPress).

Clough, P. T. & Halley, J. (2007) The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social (Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress)).

Convery, I., Bailey, C., Mort, M. & Baxter, J. (2005) Death in the wrong place? Emotional geographies of theUK 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic, Journal of Rural Studies, 21(1), pp. 99–109.

Cowley, J. (2008) The new nature writing, in, in: Granta 102: The New Nature Writing, pp. 7–12 (London:Granta Books).

Damasio, A. (1999) The Feeling of What Happens: Body Emotion and the Making Consciousness (London:William Heinemann).

Damasio, A. (2003) Mind over matter, Guardian, Review, 10 May, pp. 4–6.Davidson, J., Bondi, L. & Smith, M. (2005) Emotional Geographies (Farnham: Ashgate).Dee, T. (2010) The Running Sky (London: Vintage Books).Eede, J. & Mollett, W. (2003) Liberty and Livelihood: A Portrait of Life in Rural Britain (London: TravelmanBooks).

Game, A. (2001) Riding: Embodying the centaur, Body and Society, 7(4), pp. 1–12.Game, A. & Metcalfe, A. W. (1996) Passionate Sociology (London: SAGE).Hacking, I. (2000) Our fellow animals, New York Review of Books, June, pp. 20–26.Haraway, D. (2008) When Species Meet (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press).Harrison, S., Pile, S. & Thrift, N. (2004) Patterned Ground: Entanglements of Nature and Culture (London:Reaktion Books).

Holloway, L. (2001) Pets and protein: Placing domestic livestock on hobby-farms in England and Wales, Journalof Rural Studies, 17, pp. 293–307.

Holloway, L. (2002) Smallholding, hobby-farming and commercial farming: Ethical identities and the productionof farming spaces, Environment and Planning A, 34, pp. 2055–2070.

Hughes, T. (1985) Season Songs (London: Faber and Faber).Hughes, T. & Lloyd, R. J. (1984) What is the Truth? A Farmyard Fable for the Young (London: FaberChildren’s Books).

Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment. Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill (London:Routledge).

Ingold, T. (2011) Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description (London: Routledge).Jones, O. (2000) Inhuman geographies: (Un)ethical spaces of human non-human relations, in: C. Philo & C.Wilbert (Eds) Animal Geographies: New Geographies of Human–Animal Relations, pp. 268–291 (London:Routledge).

Jones, O. (2003) ‘The restraint of beasts’: Rurality, animality, actor network theory and dwelling, in: P. Cloke(Ed.) Country Visions, pp. 450–487 (London: Pearson Education).

Jones, O. (2006) Non human rural studies, in: P. Cloke, T. Marsden & P. Mooney (Eds) Handbook of RuralStudies, pp. 185–200 (London: SAGE).

20 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Jones, O. (2009) Dwelling, in: R. Kitchen & N. Thrift (Eds) International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography,vol. 3, pp. 266–272 (London: Elsevier).

Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research (London: Routledge).Little, J. & Jones, O. (2006) Emotional geographies of rurality. Rural Geographies Research Group sponsoredsession: RGS-IBG Annual Conference, London.

Lorimer, H. (2006) Herding memories of humans and animals, Environment and Planning D: Society andSpace, 24(4), pp. 497–518.

Lynn, W. S. (1998a) Animal, ethics and geography, in: J. Wolch & J. Emel (Eds) Animal Geographies: Place,Politics and Identity in the Nature–Culture Borderlands, pp. 280–297 (London: Verso).

Lynn, W. S. (1998) Contested moralities: Animals and moral value in the Dear/Symanski debate, Ethics,Place and Environment, 1(2), pp. 223–244.

McCormack, D. P. (2007) Molecular affects in human geographies, Environment and Planning A, 39,pp. 359–377.

Matless, D. (2000) Versions of animal-human: Broadland, c. 1945–1970, in: C. Philo & C. Wilbert (Eds)Animal Geographies: New Geographies of Human–Animal Relations, pp. 115–140 (London: Routledge).

Matless, D., Merchant, P. & Watkins, C. (2005) Animal landscapes: Otters and wildfowl in England 1945–1970,Transactions of Institute of British Geographers NS, 30, pp. 191–205.

Mabey, R. (2003) Nature’s voyeurs, Guardian, Review, 15 May, pp. 4–6.Milbourne, P. (2003) Hunting ruralities: Nature, society and culture in ‘hunt countries’ of England and Wales,Journal of Rural Studies, 19(2), pp. 157–171.

Milton, K. (2002) Loving Nature: Towards and Ecology of Emotion (London: Routledge).Murdoch, J. (2003a) Co-constructing the countryside: Hybrid networks and the extensive self, in: P. Cloke(Ed.) Country Visions, pp. 263–282 (Harlow: Pearson).

Murdoch, J. (2003b) Editorial: Geography’s circle of concern, Geoforum, 34, pp. 287–289.Phillips, M., Page, S., Saratsib, E., Tanseya, K. & Moore, K. (2008) Diversity, scale and green landscapes inthe gentrification process: Traversing ecological and social science perspectives, Applied Geography, 28,pp. 54–76.

Philo, C. (1995) Animals, geography, and the city: Notes on inclusions and exclusions, Environment andPlanning D: Society and Space, 13, pp. 655–681.

Philo, C. (1998) Animals, geography, and the city: Notes on inclusions and exclusions, in: J. Wolch & J. Emel(Eds) Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature–Culture Borderlands, pp. 51–71(London: Verso).

Philo, C. (2005) Spacing lives and lively spaces: Partial remarks on Sarah Whatmore’s, Hybrid Geographies,Antipode, 37(4), pp. 824–833.

Philo, C. & Wilbert, C. (2000) Animal spaces, beastly places: An introduction, in: C. Philo & C. Wilbert(Eds) Animal Spaces, Beastly Spaces: New Geographies of Human–Animal Relations, pp. 1–34 (London:Routledge).

Pile, S. (2009) Emotions and affect in recent human geography, Transactions of Institute of British GeographersNS, 35, pp. 5–20.

Plumwood, V. (2002) Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason (London: Routledge).Probyn, E. (1996) Outside Belongings (London: Routledge).Proctor, J. D. (1998) Ethics in geography: giving moral form to the geographical imagination, Area, 30(1),pp. 8–18.

Ridley, J. (1998) Animals in the countryside, in: A. Barnett & R. Scruton (Eds) Town and Country, pp. 142–152(London: Jonathan Cape).

Sabloff, A. (2001) Reordering the Natural World. Humans and Animals in the City (London: University ofToronto Press).

Sandem, A. I., Braastad, B. O. & Boe, K. E. (2002) Eye white may indicate emotional state on a frustration-contentedness axis in dairy cows, Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 79(1), pp. 1–10.

Scruton, R. (2000) Ticket to ride. The horse is the touch stone of rural life, The Business, Financial Times,Weekend Magazine, 29 April, p. 6.

Scruton, R. (2004) News from Somewhere: On Settling (London: Continuum Books).Sebald, W. S. (1998) The Rings of Saturn (London: Harvill Press).Stewart, K. (2007) Ordinary Affects (Durham, NC: Duke University Press)).Tapper, R. (1988) Animality, humanity, morality, society, in: T. Ingold (Ed.) What is an Animal?, pp. 47–62(London: Unwin Hyman).

The Animality of UK Rural Landscapes in Affective Registers 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013

Thomas, D. (1953 [1995]) Under Milk Wood (London: Phoenix Books).Thrift, N. (1999) Steps to an ecology of place, in: D. Massey, P. Sarre, & J. Allen (Eds) Human GeographyToday, pp. 295–352 (Oxford: Polity).

Thrift, N. (2003) Still life in nearly present time: The object of nature, in: P. Cloke (Ed.) Country Visions,pp. 308–332 (Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd).

Thrift, N. (2004) Intensities of feeling: Towards a spatial politics of affect, Geografiska Annaler, 86B, pp. 57–78.Thrift, N. (2008) Non-Representational Theory: Space/Politics/Affect (London: Routledge).Tovey, H. (2003) Theorising nature and society in sociology: The invisibility of animals, Sociologia Ruralis,43(3), pp. 198–215.

Whatmore, S. (2002) Hybrid Geographies: Natures, Cultures, Spaces (London: SAGE).Wilkie, R. (2005) The emotional paradox of livestock production, Journal of Rural Studies, 21(2), pp. 213–230.Williamson, H. (1948) Life in a Devon Village (London: Faber).Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (1995) Bringing the animals back in, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space,13, pp. 632–636.

Wolch, J. & Emel, J. (Eds) (1998) Animal Geographies: Place, Politics and Identity in the Nature–CultureBorderlands (London: Verso).

Wolch, J., Emel, J. & Wilbert, C. (2003) Reanimating human geography, in: K. Anderson, M. Domash, S.Pile & N. Thrift (Eds) Handbook of Cultural Geography, pp. 184–206 (London: SAGE).

Woodward, K. & Lea, J. (2010) Geographies of affect, in: S. Smith, R. Pain, S. A. Marston, & J. P. Jones(Eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Geographies, pp. 154–175 (London: SAGE).

Wrennall, S. (2002) Echoes of emotion: Transformations in the ‘place’ of Cumbrian foot and mouth culledfarms. Paper given at the ‘Farming’ session of the ‘Emotional Geographies’ conference, LancasterUniversity, 23–25 September.

Wylie, J. (2003) Landscape, performance and dwelling: A Glastonbury case study, in: P. Cloke (Ed.) CountryVisions, pp. 136–157 (Harlow: Pearson).

Yarwood, R. & Evans, N. (2000) Taking stock of farm animals and rurality, in: C. Philo & C. Wilbert (Eds)Animal Geographies: New Geographies of Human-Animal Relations, pp. 98–114 (London: Routledge).

Young, R. (2003) The Secret Life of Cows (Preston: Farming Books and Videos).

22 O. Jones

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ow

ain

Jone

s] a

t 06:

22 1

3 Ju

ly 2

013