ReadingAnimals

I was delighted when I stumbled across the book “Aftershock” by pattrice jones and have tried to thank her for the book in email, though I doubt its value to me was adequately conveyed.

I first began to read Aftershock after a year or so of trying to incorporate
traumatology into my work as an ethologist. What does that mean exactly? For me it meant trying to better understand the effects of trauma for individual animals and animal cultures and trying to use that knowledge to support trauma recovery for animals.

At that same time, I had begun to question the role of trauma in my own life, specifically as it pertained to my work as an animal advocate, but just barely. In part that was because I had not been ready. Further, even the merest hint at it was met with resistance from some of those around me. It was nothing compared to what the animals endured. It was just permission to burn out. Thus, I was arrogant.

That pattrice knew such resistance was common and knew how that resistance would feel was a relief and all the encouragement I needed to dive into the text head-long.

Reflections on Aftershock

I have followed the author’s convention of non-capitalization of her own name. It felt awkward to write about this particular author of this particular text in an impersonal way - the conventional way of science - using the last name or generic terms like “the author” because I felt connected to the text. Less it be interpreted as arrogance, I want to say explicitly that any reference to pattrice jones by her first name comes from that sense of connection and the a sense of shared experience through activism as highlighted in Aftershock.

The Text

The text is divided into three parts, each associated with a way of thinking about the earth itself: geography, geology and ecology and the reader is given a map to the book in the form of a user’s guide. The guide suggested how different readers might navigate the text but was not proscriptive. The author made a special note to readers that the book does not draw from sources based on the use of non-consenting research subjects - human or nonhuman animals.

I have done my best to only make statements that I believe to be backed up by ethical research on consenting human subjects. I regret that our pool of general knowledge is tainted by unethical methods of some past and present researchers.”

Part 2 coming soon! Watch for it.