This chapter interrogates Turkey’s long-standing coexistence with free-roaming dogs as a window onto wider struggles over public space, property and sovereignty. It shows how successive campaigns of culling, sterilisation, and confinement have repeatedly attempted—and failed—to turn street dogs either into pets or to eliminate them altogether. By tracing these cycles, the chapter argues that street dogs expose a fault-line in modern governance: they remain neither property nor citizen, yet they compel municipalities, activists and residents to negotiate forms of care, responsibility and urban belonging that exceed a human-only frame. The chapter also demonstrates that every proposed “solution”—killing, sheltering, or petification—rests on the same anthropocentric claim to restructure city life around human convenience. Re-politicising dogs’ lives therefore requires questioning car-centered planning, growth-oriented pet industries, and the broader biopolitics that decides which animals may live in public and which must die.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Street or Leash: Urban Dogs and the Privatization of Care

  • Sezai Ozan Zeybek

摘要

This chapter interrogates Turkey’s long-standing coexistence with free-roaming dogs as a window onto wider struggles over public space, property and sovereignty. It shows how successive campaigns of culling, sterilisation, and confinement have repeatedly attempted—and failed—to turn street dogs either into pets or to eliminate them altogether. By tracing these cycles, the chapter argues that street dogs expose a fault-line in modern governance: they remain neither property nor citizen, yet they compel municipalities, activists and residents to negotiate forms of care, responsibility and urban belonging that exceed a human-only frame. The chapter also demonstrates that every proposed “solution”—killing, sheltering, or petification—rests on the same anthropocentric claim to restructure city life around human convenience. Re-politicising dogs’ lives therefore requires questioning car-centered planning, growth-oriented pet industries, and the broader biopolitics that decides which animals may live in public and which must die.