Vol. 6 No. 2 (2021): Trabajo animal, trabajo humano
Dossier

Anthropological approach to human and cattle work in dairy farming of Uruguay. : Evidence for a homology relationship.

pdf (Español (España))
  • Javier Taks
Javier Taks
Universidad de la República
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v6i2.995

Published 2021-12-20

Keywords

  • lechería,
  • trabajo animal,
  • confianza,
  • reificación,
  • Uruguay
  • dairy farming,
  • animal work,
  • trust,
  • reification,
  • Uruguay
  • pécuaria leitera,
  • trabalho animal,
  • confianca,
  • reificacao,
  • Uruguai

How to Cite

Taks, J. (2021). Anthropological approach to human and cattle work in dairy farming of Uruguay. : Evidence for a homology relationship. Uruguayan Review of Anthropology and Ethnography On Line: ISSN 2393-6886, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.29112/ruae.v6i2.995

Copyright (c) 2021 Javier Taks

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This article is based on an ethnography with family dairy farmers and wage workers in capitalist dairy farms (tamberos) and their dairy cows, in Villa del Rosario, province of Lavalleja, Uruguay. In the article I will explore how dairy farmers and their cows mutually affect each other for market-oriented milk production. I attempt to show the homology between the social relations of production between human persons (based on kinship or wage labor) and the socialized relations of production between humans and non-humans. To run the dairy farm, the principles of trust and domination guide not only the relations between dairy farmers and their milking cows but also the relations between people. The article points out the particularity of pasture based dairy farming in the debate about human-animal relations in industrial agricultura; describes the milking routine and the necessary cows’ intention for milk ejection; it addresses the mediation of cows in human labor and, finally, it discusses the problem of the scale of production in the potential alienation between dairy farmers and dairy cows. One of the main conclusions is that the current tendency to reification of cows and people, a step beyond the principle of domination, comes into tension with the daily need for trust, recognizing the importance of the autonomy of others, human and not-humans beings to carry on with dairy farming. Doing the tambo still means living and resolving this ambivalence between domination and trust, in order to survive the actual process of social differentiation.

pdf (Español (España))

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Adam, B. (1998). Timescapes of modernity. Londres: Routledge.
  2. Asociación Rural del Uruguay (ARU) (1996). 125 años de historia. Montevideo: El País.
  3. Barnard, C. S., Halley, R. J., y Scott, A. H. (1970). Milk production. Londres: Iliffe Books.
  4. Barrán, J. P. y Nahum, B. (1977). Historia rural del Uruguay moderno. Tomo vi: La civilización ganadera bajo
  5. Batlle 1905-1914. Montevideo: Ediciones de la Banda Oriental.
  6. Bateson, G. (1998). Pasos hacia una ecología de la mente. Buenos Aires: Lohlé-Lumen.
  7. Bellamy Foster, J. (2000). Marx’s Ecology. Nueva York: Monthly Review Press.
  8. Blanchette, A. (2020). Porkopolis. Durham-Londres: Duke University Press.
  9. Boerger, A. (1928). Observaciones sobre agricultura. Quince años de trabajos fitotécnicos en el Uruguay.
  10. Montevideo: Imprenta Nacional.
  11. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. Nueva
  12. York: Monthly Review Press.
  13. Carman, M. (2011). Las trampas de la naturaleza. Medio ambiente y segregación en Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires:
  14. Fondo de Cultura Económica-Clacso
  15. Clutton-Brock, J. (1994). The unnatural world. En A. Manning y J. Serpell (Comps.), Animals and Human
  16. Society: Changing perspectives. Londres: Routledge.
  17. Descola, P. (1994). Pourquoi les Indiens d’Amazonie n’ont-ils pas domestiqué le pécari? Généalogie des objets et
  18. anthropologie de l’objectivation. En B. Latour y L. Lemonnier (Comps.), De la préhistoire aux missiles
  19. balistiques. Paris: Editions La Découverte.
  20. Ellen, R. (1999). Categories of animality and canine abuse – Exploring contradictions in Nuaulu social relationships
  21. with dogs. Anthropos, 94(1-3), 57-68.
  22. Facultad de Veterinaria (1997). Primer curso de educación a distancia sobre producción lechera. Montevideo:
  23. Facultad de Veterinaria-Escuela de Bibliotecología, Universidad de la República.
  24. González, Y. (1994). Los olvidados de la tierra. Montevideo: Nordan.
  25. Goodwin, B. (1988). Organisms and minds: the dialectics of the animal-human interface in biology. En T. Ingold
  26. (Comp.), What is an animal? Londres: Unwin Hyman.
  27. Hansen, P. (2018). Fuzzy Bounds: Doing Ethnography at the Limits of the Network and Animal Metaphor.
  28. Humanimalia, 10(1), 183-212.
  29. Haraway, D. (2017). Manifiesto de las especies de compañía. Perros, gentes y otredad significativa. Córdoba:
  30. Bocavulvaria ediciones.
  31. Harris, D. (1996). Domesticatory relationships of people, plants and animals. En R. Ellen y K. Fukui (Comps.),
  32. Redefining Nature. Oxford: Berg.
  33. Hutchinson, S. (1996). Nuer dilemmas. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  34. Ingold, T. (1980). Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Ingold, T. (1988). Introduction. En T. Ingold (Comp.), What is an animal? Londres: Unwin Hyman.
  36. Ingold, T. (1994). From trust to domination: an alternative history of human-animal relations. En: A. Manning
  37. y J. Serpell (Comps.), Animals and Human Society: Changing perspectives. Londres: Routledge.
  38. Ingold, T. (Comp.) (1996). Key debates in anthropology. Londres: Routledge.
  39. Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Londres: Routledge.
  40. Ingold, T. (2011). Being alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Londres: Routledge.
  41. Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social: una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Buenos Aires: Manantial.
  42. Maehle, A-H. (1994). Cruelty and Kindness to the “Brute Creation”. Stability and change in the ethics of the
  43. man-animal relationship, 1600-1850. En A. Manning y J. Serpell (Comps.), Animals and Human
  44. Society. Londres: Routledge.
  45. Marx, K. (1987). El Capital. Tomo I, Vol. 2. Ciudad de México: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
  46. Martínez Álvarez, B. (2019). The Moral Price of Milk: Food Values and the Intersection of Moralities and
  47. Economies in Dairy Family Farms in Galicia. En V. Siniscalchi y K. Harper (Comps.), Food values
  48. in Europe. Londres: Bloomsbury Academic.
  49. McKeenan, C. P. (1970). De pasto a leche. Montevideo: Hemisferio Sur.
  50. McTavish, C. (2015). Making milking bodies in the Manawatu. Assembling “good cow” – “good farmer” relationships
  51. in productionist diary farming (Tesis de maestría). Massey University [mimeo]. Recuperado de
  52. mro-ns.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/7262/02_whole.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y>.
  53. Montero, A. (1909). Manual de ganadería y agricultura. Montevideo: Barreiro y Ramos.
  54. Noske, B. (1989). Humans and other animals. Londres: Pluto Press.
  55. Pálsson, G. (1990). The idea of fish: land and sea in the Icelandic world-view. En R. Willis (Comps.), Signifying
  56. animals. Londres: Unwyn Hyman.
  57. Polanyi, K. (1947/1989). La gran transformación. Madrid: De la Piqueta.
  58. Porcher, J. (2017). The Ethics of Animal Labor. A Collaborative Utopia. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
  59. Real Academia Española (RAE) y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (ASALE)
  60. (2020). Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Recuperado de <https://dle.rae.
  61. es/?w=diccionario>.
  62. Reed, E. (1988). The affordances of the animate environment: social science from the ecological point of view. En
  63. T. Ingold (Comp.), What is an animal? Londres: Unwin Hyman.
  64. Rival, L. (1996). Blowpipes and spears: the social significance of Huaorani technological choices. En P. Descola
  65. y G. Pálsson (Comps.), Nature and society. Londres: Routledge.
  66. Rose, S. (1998). Lifelines. Biology beyond determinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  67. Strathern, M. (2011). What is a parent? HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 1(1), 245-278. Recuperado de
  68. <https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.14318/hau1.1.011>.
  69. Tapper, R. (1988). Animality, humanity, morality, society. En T. Ingold (Comp.), What is an animal? Londres:
  70. Unwin Hyman.
  71. Taks, J. (2001). Environment, technology and alienation. An anthropological study among modern dairy farmers in
  72. Uruguay (Tesis doctoral.). Manchester: University of Manchester [mimeo].
  73. Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial formations. Londres: Sage.
  74. Williams, R. (1988). Keywords. Londres: Fontana Press.