1 Introduction
The narratives about insects have traditionally been situated within the realm of the âinsect world,â a concept referring to entomological âworld-making.â This notion encompasses the scales, perspectives, and cognitive frameworks associated with insects.1 The notion of the insect world functions as a spatial metaphor for our understanding of insects, highlighting that it differs from âour worldâ in terms of temporal and spatial parameters, rendering humans incongruous within it; as Adam Dodd has argued â[w]ithin the insect world, humans enjoy no ontological propriety.â2 To bridge this scalar gap and make the insect world perceptible within human epistemologies, technology is essential. In wildlife documentaries about insects, the significance of technology is underscored in the visualization of the insect world, while micro and macro cinematography are widely used to visualize minute creatures and their habitats. Wildlife documentaries serve as illustrations of scientific facts and popularizing natural history, balancing science and storytelling. Broadcaster and naturalist David Attenborough3 has noted that, when they started making Life in the Undergrowth (2005) in the early 2000s, invertebrates were âlargely unexposedâ in wildlife documentaries, while bigger animals tended to receive more visual presence in films. Insects seem to be marginalized when it comes to other animals we find more approachable, animals that we can look in the eye and have âthe encounter valueâ4 with. Jamie Lorimer5 notes that insects are
I approach these documentaries through viewing, understanding it as a form of encounter.6 I understand moving images not only as representations, but also as affective assemblages that involve the agencies of insects, humans, technology, aesthetics, and the viewer. I question what kind of relatings are brought forth while encountering the insect world in these documentaries. I explore this by employing two different but also intertwined analytical frameworks within documentary films. On the one hand, I delve into the visuality and aesthetics of the films, while on the other hand, I examine their narrative and scientific approach to insects. Both frameworks bring forth engagement and knowledge that encourage the viewer to engage with the insect world. I explore this in the context of wildlife mode and documentary films, which bring forth the relations between visuality, knowledge, and technology. Donna Haraway7 notes that technologies are not just mediators but rather organic partners in world-making encounters. As Belinda Smaill8 argues, the documentary generates an anticipation that the viewer will be âa subject of knowledge, offered access to a world that is knowable and testable, fulfilling a
Care, as understood by Joan Tronto and Berenice Fisher,11 is âeverything that we do to maintain, continue and repair âour worldâ so that we can live in it as well as possible. That world includes our bodies, our selves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life sustaining web.â Bellacasa also emphasizes the material world and interdependencies between humans and nonhumans as a âmatter of care.â She understands âcare as a concrete work of maintenance, with ethical and affective implications, and as a vital politics in interdependent worlds.â12 The notion of âmatters of careâ serves as a concept to think with, as Bellacasa argues. Instead of merely revealing facts, it proposes that we engage with them and foster more caring relationships. Therefore, it is not primarily about explaining how things are constructed; rather, it focuses on our involvement in their potential becomings.13
I examine care and the insect worlds in the context of wildlife mode, which is more diverse than the tradition of âblue chip,â which is known to exclude the animal world from any human or cultural influence. These traditional wildlife modes of âblue chipâ documentaries are characterized by their high production
Nevertheless, this traditional wildlife mode potentially oversimplifies the intricate and nuanced relationship between humans and nonhumans. It overlooks the fact that these two entities share a continuum while acknowledging that the worlds of animals are intertwined with an ecological context that also encompasses human worlds.16
In the first section, I examine natural historical knowledge, the figure of David Attenborough in the narrative of the insect world, and nonhuman charisma. In the following section, I explore macro cinematography and insects as mediators between caring ecological connections, knowledge, and the viewer. In the final section, I examine care in narratives and visuality of Alien Empire, along with how the human and insect worlds merge in the documentary series.
2 Life in the Undergrowth and the Figure of Natural History
BBCâs series Life in the Undergrowth starts with David Attenboroughâs voice-over introducing the insect world for viewers: âAn eye from a different world. We donât often see a snail that way. And thatâs because weâve only recently had the tiny lenses and electronic cameras that we need to explore this miniature world. But when we meet its inhabitants face to face, we suddenly realize that their behavior can be just as meaningful to us as the behavior of many animals more our own size.â Here, the insect world is depicted as a âdifferent world,â one in which we gain perceptual access through technology that enables us to have meaningful encounters with miniature creatures. Life in the Undergrowth is a presenter-led series narrated by David Attenborough. He is not only an authoritative voice-over, taking the viewer into the insect world with him, but he is very much involved in the images as a presenter while depicting scales next to insects. Life in the Undergrowth has a strong natural history and evolutionist
In the scene with a springtail, Attenborough lies on the ground, pointing at soil with a needle. In the next shot, there is a springtail next to a point of a needle appearing bigger than the minute insect. Attenboroughâs voice tells that there are numerous species living on land, but they are so tiny â a half a millimeter long â that we seldom see them. In the framing, the springtail seems to wash itself, while Attenborough describes its body as âthe size of a full stop,â and that âdrying out is a very real problem for them.â The springtail jumps while the pin of the needle is next to it, and again, the voice-over describes that âit is like human jumping over the Eiffel tower.â This kind of macro cinematography takes the viewerâs perception to a creature that is magnified that enables observation, making it visible, while the voice-over is giving familiar analogy to human âworldâ like a full stop or jumping over the Eiffel tower to give scales. With these analogies, the insectâs abilities are compared with those of the bigger animals, here humans, to not only make observations but also new understandings between familiar and difference, while the ecological problem âdrying outâ is brought up. However, this kind of descriptive and observational
The material environment and animals adjust and affect the technology used, as Attenborough has noted in his memoirs. While filming Life in the Undergrowth, the film crew had to use technical refinement and slow-motion to shoot, for example, antsâ movements that would otherwise be too fast to perceive. Attenborough explains that, because of technology, they began to see ants as individuals with their own personalities and behaviors.21 He was affected by ants and their charisma. It seems like something changed in the way he perceived them, and he formed a caring relationship with the ants. In this context, perceiving ants as individuals is against natural history specimen logic that depicts individuals as specimens of the species. As Bellacasa argues, caring is fundamentally relational, involving an engagement that assumes responsibility for our interactions and their impact on others. Caring approaches encompass the process of establishing relationships that exhibit attentiveness to the needs of others.22 If we pay attention to the practice of how Attenborough is present in frames with insects, we get a kind of encounter other than observational natural history as argued by Jeffries. In these sequences where Attenborough is visible, the human body serves as a sort of reference point
Although in the beginning of Life in the Undergrowth, the world of insects is portrayed as âa different world,â throughout the series, the difference lies in the scales depicted between Attenborough and the insects present in the same scenes. Attenboroughâs role as a naturalist figure can be perceived as too large in relation to the scales of the insects, which themselves are understood within the context of natural history knowledge and observation. The voice-over reminds the viewers that if insects would disappear, â[t]he landâs ecosystems would collapse. The soil would lose its fertility. Many of the plants would no longer be pollinated. Lots of animals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals would have nothing to eat. [â¦] These small creatures are within a few inches of our feet, wherever we go on land â but often, theyâre disregarded. We would do very well to remember them.â However, even though focusing on the âsafe
3 Microcosmos and Aesthetics of the Microscopic World
Microcosmos is a full-length French documentary made for a big screen and screened at the Cannes Film Festivals. It does not have a voice-over narration, except just at the beginning and end of the film, which is atypical for a wildlife documentary, and the film does not have the same kind of natural historical discourse as Life in the Undergrowth. The only voice-over narration in the beginning and very end of the documentary takes the viewer into an insect world: âA meadow in early morning somewhere on earth. Hidden here is the world as vast as our own where weeds are like impenetrable jungles, stones are mountains, and even the smallest pond becomes an ocean. Time passes differently here, an hour is like a day, a day is like a season, and the passing of a season is a lifetime. But to observe this world we must fall silent now and listen its murmurs.â This emphasizes the abundant diversity and complexity of life that exists within this hidden realm, one only accessible to the viewer by being quiet. After the introduction, there is no voice-over narration, and the viewer engages with the insect world through images and sounds on and off screen.
Claude Nuridsany and Marie Pérennou, the directors of Microcosmos, express their dissatisfaction with the conventional portrayal of the animal world in wildlife films, believing that such portrayals often exhibit a bias toward natural science.25 In their interview, the directors explained that the emotional connection they felt when observing animals in real life was lacking in many wildlife documentaries. Their intention was to introduce viewers to an âunknown world.â To achieve this, they had to develop new filming techniques and sought the assistance of robot engineers to create specialized equipment
Unlike a traditional laboratory setting for filming that isolates insects, Microcosmos presents insects in relation to their habitats, highlighting their agency and the interconnectedness of their life worlds. Microcosmos brings forth affective engagement with specific insects through macro cinematography and close-ups, as well as with an ecological connection in which the insects intertwine as agents in their habitat. The moving image has the capacity to affect through its tactile nature, promoting a sense of closeness between viewers and nonhuman life, rather than reaffirming a hierarchical relation.31 For example, in a scene of a snail drinking from a puddle, we see the snail and its movement across soil covered in moss. When the snailâs mouth touches water, surface tension expands the water, which appears like a different substance while the snail touches it. This depiction of water defies our usual perception of it on a human scale. The snail is not portrayed as a separate or isolated object as a specimen, but rather, the framing emphasizes the snailâs
In Microcosmos, the use of macro cinematography takes the viewerâs perception of the world of insects and small creatures. The technique bridges the distance between human perception and the minute details of insects, allowing viewers to engage with their behaviors and interactions that would otherwise go unnoticed. The camera brings the viewer into a sense of proximity to the microcosmic realm, fostering an observational intimacy with insects. Gaycken argues that in the micro- and macroscopic images in cinema, the camera, through its observational capabilities, provides viewers with a feeling of being intimately connected to the world on film. This closeness goes beyond magnification: it encompasses observational proximity that promises deeper comprehension.34 In a scene about a mosquitoâs metamorphose, an insect emerges from a still surface of water. The visuals do not rely on scientific bias, but the focus is on the poetic connection between the insectâs body and its environment, while the water takes on a tactile quality. Human perception is decentered, while the insect rising from water is not recognizable at first, and without voice-over explanation, the viewer is left without a pregiven relationship, although at the end of the scene, when the mosquito spreads its wings, it takes a shape that is familiar, giving the viewer the pleasure of recognition. Haraway emphasizes curiosity and knowing more as part of caring about: â[c]aring means becoming subject to the unsettling obligation of curiosity, which requires knowing more at the end of the day than at the beginningâ.35 The scene brings forth an event that often goes unnoted, and the film builds an encounter that does not carry previous preconceptions of the viewer
4 Alien Empire and Staying with the Trouble on the Shared Planet
Alien Empire differs from Microcosmos and Life in the Undergrowth in its depictions of human â insect relations. The two later documentaries introduced an âinsect worldâ that is based on scalar difference, like Dodd36 has noted, using it as a metaphor to understand insects and highlighting its distinction from âhuman world,â rendering humans incongruous within it. However, Alien Empire does not visually differentiate insects and human worlds but instead focuses on the interaction and conflicts that invertebrates and human primates may cause to each other. Alien Empire is a wildlife documentary produced by BBC natural history unit, and it has voice-over narration given by actor John Shrapnel. Here, I focus on insect â human relationships depicted in Alien Empire. Even though there are traditional entomological and anatomical descriptions of insects and micro and macro cinematography, there are also sequences that have a broader approach to insect â human relationships like the use of pesticides, health and economic issues, and cultural approaches like eating insects, focusing on insectsâ ambiguous relationship with humans.
In the beginning of the series, the narration introduces the âinsect worldâ quite differently than in the other two series discussed earlier: âSomewhere on the outer reaches of the galaxy. Thereâs as small planet dominated by an alien life form, creatures too numerous to count, they can survive conditions no other creature can tolerate. Other life forms try to destroy them, but their resilience has been their strength for hundreds of millions of years. They lurk in
Conflict between humans and insects is demonstrated in a montage sequence about cockroaches and people trying to get rid of them. The scene begins with a voice-over narration: âOne of the longest running feuds has been with cockroaches. They contaminate food, carry diseases and generally offend the human sensibilities.â The camera then zooms in on a close-up shot of a cockroachâs head. A montage follows, showing an exterminator walking into a hotel basement, a cockroach scurrying through pipes, and a young boy riding a tricycle in a hallway. These shots reference various film genres, such as horror, thrillers of the 1990s, and film noir. The narration continues, mentioning that humans spend millions of pounds each year trying to combat the cockroach problem with chemicals, and in the pursuit of an insect-free life, humans saturate their homes, fields, rivers, and the world with toxins. However, the narration suggests that chemical engineering may never be the final solution. The scene concludes with the statement that there is still only one guaranteed method of killing a cockroach as the young boy on the tricycle runs over the cockroach in the hallway. The camera captures this moment from a low angle, with a shaky camera following the cockroach. Visually, the sequence connects insects in Western popular culture and broadens the typical visualization of insects in wildlife mode. In its visual suspense, the cockroach sequence makes the viewer take the insectâs side in its escape from the terminator that represents destructive toxins. However, this is a kind of situated caring that is not necessarily applied in encounters outside the filmic event. Lorimer38 emphasizes that different organisms âcan be both awe-some and awe-full.â It is easy to care about insects, even in their strangeness and awkwardness, when they are in âinsect world,â âoutâ in nature like usually visually depicted in wildlife documentaries. However, when they come into
John Berger41 argues that animals are constantly being watched and observed by humans to the point where their ability to observe humans has become insignificant. However, Burt critiques this stand and emphasizes that the act of looking involves not only the act of being observed, but also the reciprocal nature of being looked at. Burt suggests that this dynamic goes beyond straightforward objectification and instead plays an active role in establishing relationships between humans and animals.42 This is connected to Giraud and Hollinâs concept of âspeaking back,â43 in which the caring relationship includes animal agency, and they are not just ones observed â or objects to be cared for. In documentary film, witnessing is one of the key concepts.44 In Alien Empire, this mode of witnessing is given to insects, and they have agency while humans are depicted as one species among any other. It is not only that people observe insects but insects observe people as well, witnessing evolution, like one of the sceneâs voice-over narrates: â[o]nly a few million years ago, they [insects] witnessed a large brained ape climb down from the tree, stand up and invent technology.â Also, the composition and framing in some of the scenes emphasize this shared observation: while insects are in the front of the camera, in the background, there are people out of focus, like children playing or street view from the city. Insects are not depicted as isolated to an âinsect worldâ that does not habituate humans, but instead, both species share habitats and environments. This kind of depiction is very much against the tradition where insects are represented against a blank background where their only purpose is to become observed; indeed, Neri45 argues that this â[s]pecimen logic turns nature into object by decontextualizing select creatures and items â that is,
The last episode, âWar of the Worlds,â introduces conflicts and codependences between insects and people from different cultures, like short sequences about the African tradition of eating insects and organized beetle battles in Thailand. Insects are connected to cultural traditions but also with economic systems, such as silk factories and farming. In a sequence about the US alfalfa industry that heavily relies on leafcutter bees for pollination, the narration stresses that â[l]eafcutter bees are recent partners, humans have destroyed so many wild populations of insects with their chemical sprays, they are now having to forge new relationships.â Once the bees complete their tasks in one field, they are transported to the next. These scenes highlight the intricate and mutually beneficial relationships between humans and various insect species while stressing the troubles of human â insect relationships. Besides the economic benefits insects produce, the sequences shed light on how human â insect care is reciprocity: insects can perform care for us and with us. Bellacasa argues that even if human â nonhuman relationships inherently involve care, our caring actions can also lead to disconnections. It is impossible to care for everything because not everything holds the same importance in the world. Just as life and death are inseparable, caring and disconnecting are intertwined.46 Here, the use of pesticides to take care of crops has led to the death of pollinators and disconnection in caring about them; however, this has
The ways in which Alien Empire makes cultural and economic factors related to care visible are noteworthy. In the documentary, insects are not solely depicted within the confines of a natural history bias or as inhabitants of a world detached from human culture and environmental issues. Although the way the traditional wildlife mode depicts natural history is criticized as âsafe scienceâ or âold ecologyâ of awe and wonder, Alien Empire takes a different paradigm characterized by change, crisis, and challenge while bringing forth caring about insects and ecologies. Alien Empire âstays with the troubleâ and engages the viewer with a world shared with insects and humans and not always in a pleasant way.
5 Pollination
The exploration of insect â human relationships within the realm of wildlife documentaries has provided understandings of caring aesthetics and meaningful encounters. The analysis of Life in the Undergrowth, Microcosmos, and Alien Empire has brought forth the diverse strategies employed by these documentaries to engage viewers with the insect world. The documentary mode generates anticipation for a comprehensible, verifiable world of knowledge,47 while this pursuit of knowledge can be hindered by anthropocentrism. However, Bellacasaâs notion that âthinking and knowing require careâ deeply resonates in documentary knowledge. Care involves maintenance, ethics, and recognition of the connections between humans and nonhumans.
The documentaries serve as more than just representations of insects: they can bring forth a speculative and caring mode of engagement. The importance of technology in mediating these encounters is evident because it enables us to traverse the scale differences between human and insect worlds. Although some narratives and visuality of the documentaries I have explored can contest anthropocentrism between the human and insect worlds and encourage thinking with insects, they also remind us that caring is not a one-sided endeavor, but a reciprocal relationship that calls for attentiveness, curiosity, and understanding. Moreover, this analysis has demonstrated that caring about the insect world extends beyond a mere discourse â it manifests as ecological connection. The documentaries compel us to consider the complex interplay
In a world characterized by environmental challenges and biodiversity loss, no longer can we view insects as mere background characters in the narrative of our planet; instead, they emerge as essential cohabitants with whom we forge interwoven destinies. Framing insects and humans within separate worlds is unsustainable. Although there might be a discourse aimed at discussing and visualizing insects within distinct âworlds,â it is important to recognize that these worlds are inherently interconnected at the material level and cannot be examined in isolation: insects, humans, and technologies make worlds together.
Bibliography
Attenborough, David. Life on Air. Memoirs of the Broadcaster. London: BBC Books, 2010.
Berger, John. Why Look at Animals? London: Penguin Books, 2009.
Burt, Jonathan. âJohn Bergerâs âWhy Look at Animals?â A Close Reading.â Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 9, no. 2 (2005): 203â218.
Bousé, Derek. Wildlife Films. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000.
Dodd, Adam. âMinding Insects: Scale, Value, World.â In The Management of Insects in Recreation and Tourism, edited by Raynald Harvey Lemelin, 23â36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Fisher, Berenice and Joan Tronto. âTowards a Feminist Theory of Caring.â In Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Womenâs Lives, edited by E.K. Abel and M.K. Nelson, 35â62. Albany: SUNY Press, 1990.
Gaycken, Oliver. Devices of Curiosity: Early Cinema and Popular Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Giraud, Eva, and Gregory Hollin. âCare, Laboratory Beagles and Affective Utopia.â Theory, Culture & Society 33, no. 4 (2016): 27â49.
Haraway, Donna. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
Haraway, Donna. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016.
Harbord, Janet. Ex-Centric Cinema: Giogio Agamben and Film Archaeology. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.
Horton, Zachary. The Cosmic Zoom: Scale, Knowledge, and Mediation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021.
Jeffries, Michael. âBBC Natural History versus Science Paradigms.â Science as Culture 12, no. 4 (2003): 27â545.
Life in the Undergrowth. Producer: BBC, 2005.
Lorimer, Jamie. âNonhuman Charisma.â Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25, no. 5 (2007): 911â932.
MacDonald, Scott. âUp Close and Political: Three Short Ruminations on Ideology on the Nature Film.â Film Quarterly 59, no. 3 (2006): 4â21.
MacDonald, Scott. âInterview with Claude Nuridsany and Marie Pérennou.â In Adventures of Perception: Cinema as Exploration: Esseys/Interviews, 184â197. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009.
Microcosmos (Microcosmos: Le peuple de lâherbe). Producer: Jacques Perrin, 1996.
Neri, Janice. The Insect and the Image: Visualizing Nature in Early Modern Europe, 1500â1700. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011.
Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001.
Puig de la Bellacasa, Maria. Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017.
Richards, Morgan. âGreening Wildlife Documentary.â In Environmental Conflict and the Media, edited by Libby Lester and Brett Hutchins, 171â186. New York: Peter Lang, 2013.
Smaill, Belinda. âEncountering Animals: Re-Viewing the Cinema of Jean Painlevé.â Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture 42 (2017): 82â99.
Adam Dodd, âMinding Insects: Scale, Value, World,â in The Management of Insects in Recreation and Tourism, ed. Raynald Harvey Lemelin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 31, 33.
Dodd, âMinding Insects,â 33.
David Attenborough, Life on Air. Memoirs of the Broadcaster (London: BBC Books, 2010), 386.
Donna Haraway, When Species Meet (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007), 46.
Jamie Lorimer, âNonhuman Charisma,â Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25, no. 5 (2007): 920.
Belinda Smaill, âEncountering Animals: Re-Viewing the Cinema of Jean Painlevé,â Antennae: The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture 42 (2017).
Haraway, When Species Meet, 249.
Smaill, âEncountering Animals,â 97.
Maria Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2017), 69.
Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care, 141.
Berenice Fisher and Joan Tronto, âTowards a Feminist Theory of Caring,â in Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Womenâs Lives, ed. E.K. Abel and M.K. Nelson (Albany: SUNY Press, 1990), 40.
Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care, 5.
Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care, 66, 69.
Derek Bousé, Wildlife Films (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000), 14â15.
Scott MacDonald, âUp Close and Political: Three Short Ruminations on Ideology on the Nature Film,â Film Quarterly 59, no. 3 (2006): 19.
Smaill, âEncountering Animals,â 93.
Lorimer, âNonhuman Charisma,â 920.
Morgan Richards, âGreening Wildlife Documentary,â in Environmental Conflict and the Media, ed. Libby Lester and Brett Hutchins (New York: Peter Lang, 2013).
Michael Jeffries, âBBC Natural History versus Science Paradigms,â Science as Culture 12, no. 4 (2003): 543.
Lorimer, âNonhuman Charisma,â 917.
Attenborough, Life on Air, 392.
Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care.
Zachary Horton, The Cosmic Zoom: Scale, Knowledge, and Mediation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021), 7.
Dodd, âMinding Insectsâ.
Scott MacDonald, âInterview with Claude Nuridsany and Marie Pérennou,â in Adventures of Perception: Cinema as Exploration: Esseys/Interviews (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009), 188â189.
MacDonald, âInterview,â 190.
Dodd, âMinding Insectsâ; Oliver Gaycken, Devices of Curiosity: Early Cinema and Popular Science (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015); Janice Neri, The Insect and the Image: Visualizing Nature in Early Modern Europe, 1500â1700 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011).
Neri, The Insect and the Image, XIIâXIII.
Eva Giraud and Gregory Hollin, âCare, Laboratory Beagles and Affective Utopia,â Theory, Culture & Society 33, no. 4 (2016).
Giraud and Hollin, âLaboratory Beagles,â 30.
Smaill, âEncountering Animals,â 84.
Janet Harbord, Ex-Centric Cinema: Giorgio Agamben and Film Archaeology (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016), 138.
Harbord, Ex-Centric Cinema, 145.
Gaycken, Devices of Curiosity, 39â40.
Haraway, When Species Meet, 36.
Dodd, âMinding Insects,â 33.
Jeffries, âBBC Natural History,â 543.
Lorimer, âNonhuman Charisma,â 918.
Donna Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham: Duke University Press, 2016).
Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care, 164.
John Berger, Why Look at Animals? (London: Penguin Books, 2009), 27.
Jonathan Burt, âJohn Bergerâs âWhy Look at Animals?â A Close Reading,â Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 9, no. 2 (2005): 207.
Giraud and Hollin, âLaboratory Beaglesâ.
Bill Nichols, Introduction to Documentary (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001).
Neri, The Insect, XIII.
Puig de la Bellacasa, Matters of Care, 78â79.
Smaill, âEncountering Animals,â 97.