Elan Abrell’s ethnography explores U.S. animal sanctuaries, animal rights, and animal autonomy. I found his ethnography interesting because it expands the traditional definition of anthropology is the study of what makes us human to the study of what makes living creatures have rights and/or autonomy. Abrell applies human-centered concepts such as property and wellbeing to the animals he observed during his fieldwork. I found the concept of bestia sacer, or categorizing animals as property, the most interesting. Most sanctuaries want the animals they take care of to live happily and independently. However, the irony is those same sanctuaries take animals as property to care for them. People often see sanctuaries as an ethical alternative to zoos. However, Abrell’s exploration of sanctuaries as facilitators of bestia sacer complicate that argument. Some sanctuary animals that Abrell observed were able to claim autonomy. For example, Maui, a female cockatoo, was able to assert who she wanted to take care of her and when she needed care. Her caregivers accommodate her demands. Despite her captivity, Maui was still able to claim autonomy.
I thought Abrell’s mixed use of focused third-person POV from caretakers’ perspectives and his first-person perspective as a volunteer at sanctuaries and shelters was effective. His mixing of these POVs allowed me to see how he as a volunteer perceived animal autonomy vs. captivity and how animal caretakers perceived that balance. My question for him is how did he select the two sites he conducted his fieldwork. Did he select them because of a pre-existing relationship with them, because of convenience, because of location, etc.? His site selection influences the narrative he tells in his ethnography.