Party Animals: Constructions and Uses of Animality in Politics

Ethnologie française — Call for Papers
Party Animals: Constructions and Uses of Animality in Politics
This thematic section aims to examine the role of animals within the specific political spectrum of conservative, conservational and/or conservationist ecological politics. While the political uses of rurality and landscape have been examined in a number of studies (see, for example, Nairn, 1997; Strang, 2006; Forchtner and Kølvraa, 2015), the place of animals as a discursive formation has received comparatively little attention. This thematic section seeks to address this significant blind spot through ethnographic inquiry.
Over the past few years, anthropology and the other social sciences have witnessed growing interest in the empirical investigation of social and cultural formations often described as populist (Laclau 2005; Mouffe 1996), simultaneously rural (Van der Ploeg, 2020; Franquesa and Mamonova, 2020) and environmental (Rajković, 2020), and sometimes associated with the emergence of authoritarian forms of politics across the globe (Edelman, 2019). This body of research has documented widespread connections between discursive appeals to the supposedly immutable character of landscapes, the ideologically ambivalent practices of territorial reappropriation (Apostoli Cappello, 2022; 2026; 2026b), and conservative political projects (Stacul, 2015; Orlandi, forthcoming a). Other studies have highlighted the significant role of ecological concerns even in social contexts that might, at first sight, appear ill-suited to the development of such attitudes (Dalla Bernardina, 2026). These emerging research perspectives invite us to investigate empirically how, in a context of major ecological disruption, the supposedly immutable order of ecosystems can become a political resource through which conservative movements consolidate their positions and legitimise their agendas.
Within these perspectives, however, animals have often remained in the background. We suggest that this blind spot may stem from the disciplinary and sub-disciplinary divisions through which the anthropology of politics, environmental anthropology, and antispeciesist or multispecies approaches have tended to investigate different aspects of social reality. With a few exceptions (Rippa, 2021; Armiero, Biasillo and Graf von Hardenberg, 2022), these fields have largely developed along separate lines, thereby overlooking the intersections between representations of animality and territorial policies inspired by ecological-conservationist and/or sovereignist agendas.
In tracing the history of animals within the discipline, White and Candea (2018) identify three broad phases in the anthropological study of non-human animals and their place in human societies. Initially approached as symbolic resources through which to understand social dynamics, spatial practices, and collective narratives, animals subsequently came to be understood as material resources managed within changing socio-ecological relations, as well as cognitive resources (Bloch, 1998). Against this background, more recent perspectives have sought to move beyond the nature–culture divide by inviting anthropologists to take animals and their own ways of being in the world seriously (Kirksey and Helmreich, 2010; Morizot, 2020). Multispecies anthropology has encouraged numerous scholars and research approaches to investigate the relations of power, care, and violence that shape how humans tame animals, both symbolically and materially (White and Candea, 2018: 10; Bonifacio, 2023). This work has also drawn attention to the ways in which animality itself is “put to work” in agricultural and rural contexts (Mouret and Lainé, 2023), as well as in religious and ritual practices (Dittmar and Manceron, 2025).
Against this background, this thematic section seeks to understand and address the reasons for the limited dialogue between studies of rural sovereignisms in political sociology and anthropology, on the one hand, and multispecies approaches, on the other. It aims to document empirically how animality is articulated within conservative, conservational and/or conservationist agendas and policies. In doing so, it seeks to move beyond existing debates on rural populism and conservative ecologisms, which have so far focused primarily on agricultural worlds and the social roots of environmentalist visions. Instead, it asks who brings animals into political arenas, where, how, when, and why.
We therefore invite anthropologists and ethnographers to submit proposals based on empirical research into the ways in which animals enter politics, both as discursive formations and as subjects of management practices within specific social and political configurations. Contributions may explore a range of political perspectives on the anthropology of animality, including the following:
• Local contestations in which animal presence is at stake, whether framed discursively or expressed through practical struggles. Such conflicts often revolve around the tension between, on the one hand, ecological transitions imposed by bureaucrats and supralocal institutions and, on the other, the needs of human or more-than-human communities. In Sardinia, for example, opposition to offshore wind farms invokes the protection of tuna, thereby bringing to the fore a hierarchy of legitimate languages within the political arena (Apostoli Cappello, 2026; 2026b).
• Political narratives and “rumours” that stage or anticipate conflicts between social groups around competing visions of how animal populations should be managed, including through natalism, conservation, consumption, or culling (Campion-Vincent, 2002; Stépanoff, 2021). For instance, policies aimed at protecting large carnivores may be interpreted as expressions of the will of urban groups, imposed at the expense of rural populations and their ways of life (Orlandi, forthcoming b).
• Social movements and cultural policies that promote indigenous species in response to the perceived threat posed by invasive species, as well as actors who turn animal protection into a marker of identity around which to construct programmes aimed at excluding other segments of society. This theme also encompasses ethnographic investigations of animal-care practices as processes of political subjectivation (see, for example, Ahuja, 2019).
• Ethical and methodological reflections on the positions researchers should adopt when “those we do not like” (Avanza, 2008) appear to share or converge with our own ethical commitments towards animality.
We welcome contributions grounded in ethnographic research and anthropological perspectives that examine the place of animality in territorial conflicts, understood as disputes over the management and use of territories. At the same time, contributions may illuminate the various strategies through which animals are discursively appropriated and mobilised as resources for positioning oneself in public debate. Taken together, the ethnographies presented in this thematic section will explore the boundaries within which animal symbols can be manipulated, examining the possibilities and limits of the political uses of animality.
Contributions should also offer a comparative perspective on the specific features of the place of animals in ecological-conservationist, conservative and/or conservational politics and, more broadly, in political projects that claim to manage territory through ideologically and identity-based frameworks that are themselves politically ambivalent (Apostoli Cappello, 2022). In this way, the contributions will contribute to an anthropology of the political uses of animality, bringing perspectives associated with the “ontological turn” and multispecies ethnography into dialogue with analyses of political subjectivities, social movements, and the social and cultural embeddedness of situated political narratives.
Editors:
• Elena Apostoli Cappello (Ecampus University, Milan / associate researcher of LAP, EHESS, Paris / SAHSA, ULB, Brussels)
• Gabriele Orlandi (University of Aosta Valley / IDEAS, CNRS, Aix-Marseille University)
Timetable
• Proposals should include a title and an abstract of 5,000 to 6,000 characters, in French or English, and must be submitted by 6 December 2026 to the coordinators of this thematic issue : Elena Apostoli Cappello (elena.apostoli.cappello@ulb.be) and Gabriele Orlandi (gabriele.orlandi@univ-amu.fr).
Each proposal should outline the main argument and the empirical materials to be examined, and must be accompanied by a short biobibliographical note on the author.
• Full manuscripts for selected proposals (35,000 to 70,000 characters maximum, including spaces and bibliography) are due by 15 April 2027.
• Publication of this issue of Ethnologie française is scheduled for early 2028.
Bibliographic references
Ahuja Juhi, 2019, “Protecting holy cows: Hindu vigilantism against Muslims in India”, in Tore Bjørgo and Miroslav Mareš (eds.), Vigilantism against migrants and minorities, London; New York, Routledge, pp. 55–68.
Apostoli Cappello Elena, 2026, The Give and Take of Wind: History, Struggle and Renewable Energy in the Mediterranean, Oxford/New York, Berghahn Books.
—, 2026b, “Fishes, red sludge, and wind in the Mediterranean. An ethnography of overturnings in the EU energy transition”, Ethnography (online first: first published online 25 June 2026). https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381261452963
—, 2022, "“Polysémie, émancipation et nostalgie dans deux processus de politisation de la terre en Italie du Nord" ["” [“Polysemy, emancipation and nostalgia in two processes of the politicisation of land in Northern Italy"],”], Ethnologie française, 2022, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 487–503.
Armiero Marco, Biasillo Roberta and Graf von Hardenberg Wilko, 2022, An Environmental History of Italian Fascism, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Avanza Martina, 2008, "“Comment faire de l'ethnographie quand on n'aime pas « ses indigènes » ? Une enquête au sein d'un mouvement xénophobe" ["” [“How to do ethnography when one does not like 'one's natives'? An inquiry within a xenophobic movement"],”], in Didier Fassin and Alban Bensa (eds.), Les politiques de l'enquête : épreuves ethnographiques, Paris, La Découverte.
Campion-Vincent Véronique, 2002, "“Les réactions au retour du loup en France. Une tentative d'analyse prenant les 'rumeurs' au sérieux" ["” [“Reactions to the return of the wolf in France. An attempt at analysis taking 'rumours' seriously"],”], Le monde alpin et rhodanien, 2002.
Bloch Maurice E., 1998, How we think they think: Anthropological approaches to cognition, memory, and literacy, London, Routledge.
Bonifacio Valentina, 2023, “Of feral and obedient cows: Colonization as domestication in the Paraguayan Chaco”, Cultural Anthropology, 2023, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 8–35.
Dalla Bernardina Sergio, 2026, L'invention du chasseur écologiste [The invention of the ecological hunter], Aubervilliers, Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques.
Dittmar Pierre-Olivier and Manceron Vanessa (eds.), 2025, Animal culte, Terrain. Anthropologie et sciences humaines, no. 83.
Edelman Marc, 2019, “Hollowed out Heartland, USA: How capital sacrificed communities and paved the way for authoritarian populism”, Journal of Rural Studies, 2019, no. 82, pp. 505–517.
Forchtner Bernhard and Kølvraa Christoffer, 2015, “The Nature of Nationalism: Populist Radical Right Parties on Countryside and Climate”, Nature and Culture, 1 June 2015, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 199–224.
Kirksey S. Eben and Helmreich Stefan, 2010, “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography”, Cultural Anthropology, 2010, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 545–576.
Laclau Ernesto, 2005, On Populist Reason, London, Verso.
Mamonova Natalia and Franquesa Jaume, 2020, “Right-wing populism in rural Europe”, Sociologia Ruralis, 2020, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 702–709.
Morizot Baptiste, 2020, Manières d'être vivant : enquêtes sur la vie à travers nous [Ways of being alive: inquiries into life through us], Arles, Actes Sud.
Mouffe Chantal, 1996, Deconstruction and Pragmatism, London, Routledge.
Mouret Sébastien and Lainé Nicolas, 2023, "“Nature(s) au travail. Ce que font les études animales et environnementales avec le travail" ["” [“Nature(s) at work. What animal and environmental studies do with labour"],”], Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances, 2023, vol. 17, no. 17-1.
Nairn Tom, 1997, Faces of nationalismNationalism: Janus revisitedRevisited, London, Verso.
Orlandi Gabriele, [forthcoming a], “Liquid Anxieties. Environmental Citizenship, Eco-populism and Memories of Hydropower Management in the Trentino Alps”, Ethnologia Europaea. Journal of European Anthropology, no. 56-2.
Orlandi Gabriele, [forthcoming b], “Whose Mountains? Notes on Autonomy, Dispossession, and the Environmental State in the Trentino Alps”, in Letizia Bindi, Roberta Raffaetà and Lia Zola (eds.), Entanglements with the Wild: Coexistence, Conflict, and Conservation in the Alps and Apennines, London, Berghahn Books.
Rajković Ivan, 2020, “Rivers to the people: Ecopopulist universality in the Balkan mountains”, Society for Cultural Anthropology, 24 March 2020.
Rippa Alessandro, 2021, “Hunting, Rewilding, and Multispecies Entanglements in the Alps”, Ethnos, 2021.
Stépanoff Charles, 2021, L’animal et la mort: chasses, modernité et crise du sauvage, Paris, La Découverte
Stacul Jaro, 2015, “‘A private place’? Changing meanings of the countryside in northern Italy”, in Jeremy MacClancy (ed.), Alternative Countrysides, Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 29–45.
Strang Veronica, 2006, “Substantial Connections: Water and Identity in an English Cultural Landscape”, Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 2006, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 155–177.
Van der Ploeg Jan Douwe, 2020, “Farmers' upheaval, climate crisis and populism”, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 2020, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 589–605.
White Thomas and Candea Matei, 2018, “Animals”, in Felix Stein, Matei Candea, Hildegard Diemberger, Sian Lazar, Joel Robbins, Andrew Sanchez and Rupert Stasch (eds.), Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology, Cambridge.
Biographies of the coordinators
Gabriele Orlandi is a postdoctoral researcher in anthropology at the University of Aosta Valley. His doctoral thesis, conducted at IDEAS (Aix-Marseille University – CNRS), examined the gaps and unintended effects of rural development policies in an Alpine valley. His current research focuses on the role of expert knowledge in environmental controversies and on conflicts over the use of mountain territories in relation to large carnivores, particularly bears and wolves.
Elena Apostoli Cappello is a tenure-track professor at Ecampus University (Milan). In the French-speaking academic community, she is an associate researcher at the LAP (EHESS – CNRS) and an associate scientist at the SAHSA laboratory of the Université Libre de Bruxelles. Her current research examines local contestations of European energy-transition policies in the Mediterranean. Her work highlights the strategic role of local rhetoric in support of traditional tuna fishing, mobilised in opposition to national and supranational public policies.