Harm, hunting, fishing, legislation, dehumanization


What discourses render harm to nonhumans a right? In this article we consider the case of Tennessee's Senate Joint Resolution 30, which proposed to grant citizens "the personal right to hunt and fish." To clarify the institutional logics legitimizing such harm, we analyzed the text of the Resolution as well as statements by politicians and others leading up to the passage of the amendment the Resolution would enact. Logics that supported the Resolution were: (1) claims of the economic utility of hunting and fishing; (2) veneration of the past; and (3) claims of future infringement on said activities. Nonhuman targets of harm go unmentioned in these legitimizing discourses.

Off-campus users:

You may need to log in to your campus proxy before being granted access to the full-text above.