Emotion Space and Society 审稿状态变化-刊鹿论文编译

Transgressing boundaries of grievability : Ambiguous emotions at pet cemeteries

Abstract:

Companion animals are striking in their ambiguity. Bred on an industrial scale, bought, sold and sometimes abandoned, they are also seen as beloved family members and friends. They belong to the cultural realm, mostly live in the home, have individual names and, instead of being eaten, receive caring attention from humans (Howell, 2018). They participate in their owners’ everyday lives and various joint activities. Nevertheless, they also belong to the realm of nature, the non-human world whose ontology and epistemology have been defined for centuries by the scientific discourses of biology. Companion animals are liminal creatures: they pass between and blur binary opposites such as nature and culture, object and subject, and commodity and companion (Sanders, 1995). As Brandes (2009, 100) argues, however, “it is in the domain of death [...] that the human–animal bond often manifests itself most overtly.” It is when we lose a pet that we understand how the creature has made us who we are (Redmalm, 2015; Schuurman, 2017). Dell’Aversano (2010, 104) points out that “animals make the presence of death much more intensely and frequently perceptible”. Living with companion animals brings a heightened sense of the fragility of life. Yet, bereaved pet owners are often wary about expressing their grief in fear of social sanctions – of being dismissed as overly sentimental, or of anthropomorphizing their pets (Woods, 2000; Morley and Fook, 2005). According to Butler (2009), publicly grieving beings for which grief is not normally expressed openly makes it possible to redefine the limits of grievability and grant these beings humanity . By extension, grief for non-human animals can challenge and modify the normative frameworks that define which lives matter (Redmalm, 2015). The present study focuses on public performance of grief for nonhuman animals in pet cemeteries – spaces that are devoted to the mourning of animal death. Our interest is in what it means to grieve an ambiguous being, or a liminal creature. Drawing on photographic material, we explore the visible traces of mourning in pet cemeteries in Scandinavia (Finland and Sweden), where cats, dogs, guinea pigs, hamsters, birds, rabbits, horses and other animals lie buried. We use these traces, the ‘emotional sedimentation’ (Hallam and Hockey, 2001), to theorize the implication of pet cemeteries as spaces for the negotiation of grievability and for working the boundary between humans and animals. Pet cemeteries are growing in popularity; however, previous studies on pet cemeteries have been sparse, and viewpoints have been mostly historical (Brandes, 2009; Howell, 2002; Kean, 2013; Thorsen, 2001), although a few studies focus on contemporary pet cemeteries (Chalfen, 2003; Witt, 2003; Pręgowski, 2016). Many of the latter are rather descriptive in style, and what is lacking is a more thorough theoretical consideration of what it means that some animals are buried in specific spaces devoted to animal death. Thus, as Kean (2013) suggests, pet cemeteries might be viewed as places worth thinking of more carefully. Pet cemeteries are ‘good to think with’ (cf. Fudge, 2008) because public expressions of grief for beings existing at the limits of grievability can shed light on the normative framework that allows for some lives to be grieved, while other lives are automatically rendered ungrievable – such as wild animals as well as animals in the food and clothing industry. Theoretically, the paper derives from both death studies and the growing field of animal geographies. Emerging in the mid-nineties (Wolch and Emel, 1995), the new animal geographies “allow us a privileged viewpoint on the nature of culture and the culture of nature” (Howell, 2002, 6). The field has gained increasing attention (see Buller, 2014), with several volumes published (e.g. Urbanik, 2012; Gillespie and Collard, 2015; Nyman and Schuurman, 2016a; Wilcox and Rutherford, 2018; Bull et al., 2018). Recent work has focused on human–animal encounters as spatially situated (Buller, 2014), highlighting the fact that the site of the encounter, the space where it takes place, influences the ways in which animals are understood and appreciated. Attention has been paid to the embodiment of human–animal relationality and, especially, the agency of animals as they co-produce space with – or without – humans (Bull and Holmberg, 2018). Informed by work conducted within studies of the geography of death (Hallam and Hockey, 2001; Desmond, 2016; Maddrell, 2016; Maddrell and Sidaway, 2010; Stevenson et al., 2016), we approach pet cemeteries as deathscapes : material and metaphorical places and spaces that are “associated with death and for the dead” and that are

Author Listing： Nora Schuurman;David Redmalm

Volume： 31

Pages： 32-40

DOI： 10.1016/J.EMOSPA.2019.03.006

Language： English

Journal： Emotion, Space and Society

Emotion Space and Society

EMOT SPACE SOC

影响因子：1.7

是否综述期刊：否

是否OA：否

是否预警：不在预警名单内

发行时间：-

ISSN：1755-4586

发刊频率：-

收录数据库：Scopus收录

出版国家/地区：-

出版社：Elsevier

期刊介绍

年发文量	36
国人发稿量	4
国人发文占比	10.71%
自引率	10.5%
平均录取率	-
平均审稿周期	-
版面费	US$2970
偏重研究方向	Multiple-
期刊官网	https://www.journals.elsevier.com/emotion-space-and-society
投稿链接	-

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比	OA被引用占比	撤稿占比	出版后修正文章占比
100.00%	19.17%	0.00%	1.82%

预警情况查看说明

时间	预警情况
2024年02月发布的2024版	不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版	不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版	不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版	不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级：Q2区

版本	按学科	分区
WOS期刊SCI分区 WOS期刊SCI分区是指SCI官方（Web of Science）为每个学科内的期刊按照IF数值排序，将期刊按照四等分的方法划分的Q1-Q4等级，Q1代表质量最高，即常说的1区期刊。（2021-2022年最新版）
	GEOGRAPHY	Q2
	SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY	Q1

关于2019年中科院分区升级版（试行）

分区表升级版（试行）旨在解决期刊学科体系划分与学科发展以及融合趋势的不相容问题。由于学科交叉在当代科研活动的趋势愈发显著，学科体系构建容易引发争议。为了打破学科体系给期刊评价带来的桎梏，“升级版方案”首先构建了论文层级的主题体系，然后分别计算每篇论文在所属主题的影响力，最后汇总各期刊每篇论文分值，得到“期刊超越指数”，作为分区依据。

分区表升级版（试行）的优势：一是论文层级的主题体系既能体现学科交叉特点，又可以精准揭示期刊载文的多学科性；二是采用“期刊超越指数”替代影响因子指标，解决了影响因子数学性质缺陷对评价结果的干扰。整体而言，分区表升级版（试行）突破了期刊评价中学科体系构建、评价指标选择等瓶颈问题，能够更为全面地揭示学术期刊的影响力，为科研评价“去四唯”提供解决思路。相关研究成果经过国际同行的认可，已经发表在科学计量学领域国际重要期刊。

《2019年中国科学院文献情报中心期刊分区表升级版（试行）》首次将社会科学引文数据库（SSCI）期刊纳入到分区评估中。升级版分区表（试行）设置了包括自然科学和社会科学在内的18个大类学科。基础版和升级版（试行）将过渡共存三年时间，推测在此期间各大高校和科研院所仍可能会以基础版为考核参考标准。提示：中科院分区官方微信公众号“fenqubiao”仅提供基础版数据查询，暂无升级版数据，请注意区分。

中科院分区查看说明

版本	大类学科	小类学科	Top期刊	综述期刊
	法学 3区	GEOGRAPHY 地理学 3区 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY 社会科学：跨领域 3区	否	否
2021年12月升级版	法学 3区	GEOGRAPHY 地理学 4区 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY 社会科学：跨领域 3区	否	否
2020年12月旧的升级版	法学 3区	GEOGRAPHY 地理学 3区 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY 社会科学：跨领域 2区	否	否
2022年12月最新升级版	社会学 2区	GEOGRAPHY 地理学 3区 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY 社会科学：跨领域 2区	否	否