Det biosociale som dialog: Betydningen af den biosociale dynamik og de fælles forbindelser mellem grisen, dyrlægen og antropologen
Published 2025-12-08
Keywords
- biosocial dialog,
- antropolog,
- dyrlæge,
- grise
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2025 inger inger Anneberg, Hanne Kongsted

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Abstract
Abstract English
The concept of "the biosocial" invites for a dialogue on how we work in the world with a background in different scientific practices - and how our work and ourselves with the pig as a common focal point are influenced by each other's expertise. Our aim in this article is through dialogue about the different understandings of the sciences of other species (here with examples from the pig) to explore the complexity of interacting and being dependent on each other both as humans and as pigs. We have taken the wish for dialogue across disciplines seriously and used dialogue as a method to unfold relations in the biosocial field. The dialogue is our ethnographic data. We have had dialogue and cooperation areas for several years but never, until now, seen it as a method that can be used to investigate biosocial relations between species and how we come to be because of each other. In the article, the article's authors, a veterinarian and an anthropologist, employed at the same institute for veterinary and livestock science, challenged each other to examine through conversation what we have learned from each other in practice through joint research projects where the pig has been at the center. We talk about how we have approached each other's domains, the natural sciences versus the humanities, and how we find it important and challenging not to continue to keep the domains sharply separated. We thus agitate to "stay in the trouble", as Donna Haraway encourages when she wants to disrupt our thought patterns and create unrest in our understanding of the state of the planet. The tradition of separating the biosocial is also about money and applications, and interdisciplinary cooperation is probably prioritized in theory, but not always in practice when it comes to getting research funding. We insist on examining how our separate scientific domains have become connected over time, and we look at whether the threads are currently strong or tenuous.
References
- Litteratur
- Anneberg, I., Bubandt, N. (2016). Dyrevelfærdsstaten. Grisens krop, velfærdens historie og selve livets politik i Danmark. Tidsskriftet Antropologi nr. 475, 2016. DOI:10.7146/ta.v0i73.107079
- Haraway, Donna, J.( 2021). At blive i besværet - Om at skabe slægt i chthulucæn. Forlaget Mindspace
- Holloway, L. (2007). Subjecting cows to robots: farming technologies and the making of animal subjects [Article]. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space, 25(6), 1041-1060. https://doi.org/10.1068/d77j
- Højlund, S. (2016). Smag. Tænkepause nr. 40. Aarhus Universitetsforlag
- Latour, B. (1993) We have never Been Modern, New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
- Law, J., Singleton, V. (2013). ANT and politics: working in and on the world. Qualitative Sociology. DOI:10.1007/s11133-013-9263-7
- Mol, A. ( 2021). Eating in Theory. Duke University Press.
- Palsson, G.(2016). Nature, Culture and Society: Anthropological perspectives on life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Seeberg, J., Roepstorff A., Meinert L. ( 2020). Biosocial Worlds: Anthropology of health environments beyond determinism. UCL Press.