Identity, Gender, and Tracking: The Reality of Boundaries for Veterinary Students

IDENTITY, GENDER, AND TRACKING

NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE HUMAN-ANIMAL BOND

Series editors: Alan M. Beck and Marguerite E. O’Haire, Purdue University

A dynamic relationship has always existed between people and animals. Each influences the psychological and physiological state of the other. This series of scholarly publications, in collaboration with Purdue University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, expands our knowledge of the interrelationships between people, animals, and their environment. Manuscripts are welcomed on all aspects of human-animal interaction and welfare, including therapy applications, public policy, and the application of humane ethics in managing our living resources.

Other titles in this series:

Dogs and Cats in South Korea: Itinerant Commodities

Julien Dugnoille

Assessing Handlers for Competence in Animal-Assisted Interventions

Ann R. Howie

The Canine-Campus Connection: Roles for Dogs in the Lives of College Students

Mary Renck Jalongo (Ed.)

Pioneer Science and the Great Plagues: How Microbes, War, and Public Health Shaped Animal Health

Norman F. Cheville

Cats and Conservationists: The Debate Over Who Owns the Outdoors

Dara M. Wald and Anna L. Peterson

That Sheep May Safely Graze: Rebuilding Animal Health Care in War-Torn Afghanistan

David M. Sherman

Transforming Trauma: Resilience and Healing Through Our Connections With Animals

Philip Tedeschi and Molly Anne Jenkins (Eds.)

A Reason to Live: HIV and Animal Companions

Vicki Hutton

Animal-Assisted Interventions in Health Care Settings: A Best Practices Manual for Establishing New Programs

Sandra B. Barker, Rebecca A. Vokes, and Randolph T. Barker

Moose! The Reading Dog

Laura Bruneau and Beverly Timmons

Leaders of the Pack: Women and the Future of Veterinary Medicine

Julie Kumble and Donald F. Smith

IDENTITY, GENDER, AND TRACKING

THE REALITY OF BOUNDARIES FOR VETERINARY STUDENTS

Jenny R. Vermilya

Purdue University Press • West Lafayette, Indiana

Copyright 2022 by Purdue University. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN: 978-1-61249-687-0 (hardback)

ISBN: 978-1-61249-688-7 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-1-61249-689-4 (epub)

ISBN: 978-1-61249-690-0 (epdf)

Cover image created using the following licensed imagery:

Eyes of the tiger by CrazyBaobab/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images

A close-up of a blue female human eye by kwasny221/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images

For the animals.

For the students who shared with me their stories.

And for me.

CONTENTS

Preface

Acknowledgments

PART 1. THE BACKSTORY

1.  Boundaries, Social Construction, and Tracking: An Introduction

2.  A Sociologist at Veterinary College: Research Methods

PART 2. THE STORIES

3.  Treatment Discourses and the Privileging of Knowledge

4.  Learning to Care: Collective Identity Work in the Tracking System

5.  Contesting Horses: The Equine Concentration as a Border Track

6.  Gendered Boundary Work in a Feminized Field

Conclusion

Appendix A: Advertisement for Participants

Appendix B: Interview Guide

Notes

References

Index

About the Author

PREFACE

This book is an ethnography that provides thick description of participant observations that span over four years of fieldwork. I use 42 in-depth qualitative interviews with veterinary medical students to explore the experience of being in an educational program that tracks students based on the species of nonhuman animals they wish to treat. Specifically, I examine how tracking produces multiple boundaries for veterinary students. The boundaries between different animal species produce consequences for the treatment of those animals; this has been well documented. Using a symbolic interactionist perspective, my research extends the body of knowledge on species boundaries by revealing other consequences of this boundary work. For example, I analyze the symbolic boundaries involved in the gendering of animals, practitioners, and professions. I also examine how boundaries influence the collective identity of students entering an occupation segmented into various specialties. The collective identity of veterinarian is one characterized by care; thus students have to construct different definitions of care to access and maintain the collective identity. The tracking system additionally produces consequences for the knowledge created and reproduced in different areas of animal medicine, creating a system of power and inequality based on whose knowledge is privileged, how, and why. Finally, socially constructed boundaries generated from tracking inevitably lead to cases that do not fit. In particular, horses serve as a border species for veterinary students, who struggle to place them into the tracking system. I argue that border species, like other metaphorical borders, have the potential to challenge discourses and lead to social change.

Over the same amount of time it takes to finish veterinary college, I interviewed these veterinary students throughout the course of their lives as veterinary students: on their study breaks over coffee, in their empty classrooms, on their barn duty as they cared for animals. Thus, we did not just talk about their experiences; they also showed them to me. My own background pursuing the veterinary profession before changing direction and becoming a sociologist granted me a unique standpoint in our conversations. What I came to observe was that veterinary students operate within larger structures that shape their own understandings of their professional identities, their gendered roles, the knowledge they hold, and the animals they attend, ultimately learning how to construct boundaries around each. Boundaries they constantly work to draw, maintain, and even sometimes cross.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Numerous individuals helped to make up my support system throughout this fieldwork, data analysis, and writing process. I wish I could thank each of them here by name, but there are simply too many to count. So I will have to limit my acknowledgements to the most significant contributors to this final product.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my mentor, Leslie Irvine. She is the reason not only that I pursued a doctoral program but also that I decided to pursue sociology and human-animal studies as a career. She kindly took the time to respond to my inquiries about her field, even though I was an unknown undergraduate student living across the country. As I changed direction, deciding to no longer pursue veterinary medicine as a career, she helped me to realize that I could still do meaningful work with animals. After I became her graduate student, she guided me through the research process and tirelessly provided detailed feedback on my writing. This book has benefited greatly from her efforts to help me become a diligent sociologist. I thank her for her work for the discipline of sociology, for her students, and for all other animals.

Second, I would like to thank the other sociologists and human-animal studies scholars who helped me along my way: Patricia Adler, Amy Wilkins, Isaac Reed, and Harold Herzog. Each of them stimulated this project with thought-provoking questions and suggestions for new avenues of exploration.

Third, I would like to thank the Animals and Society Institute and the Human-Animal Studies Fellowship for their support during the summer of 2010, when I was in the middle of my fieldwork. The other fellows, Jane Harris, William Lynn, Robert McKay, Siobhan O’Sullivan, Krithika Srinivasan, and Dita Wickins-Drazilova, all helped bring multidisciplinary perspectives to my research.

Fourth, I would like to thank my writing partner over the years, Devon Thacker Thomas, who has sat in the trenches with me as we tried to work through tough analytical hurdles and writer’s block.

Fifth, I would like to thank my family. My husband, Eric Hardies, lovingly supports me in all the ways, including being an equal co-parent to our toddler, Benjamin, who is younger than this research project. As a gender scholar who has studied professions, and as an academic who identifies as a woman myself, the feat of this finished book within social structures that do not always support women and their work does not escape me.

And last, I would like to thank those in the veterinary profession, who work within complicated boundaries every day and who indeed do as much as this book will tell you about, and more.

PART 1

THE BACKSTORY

1

BOUNDARIES, SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION, AND TRACKING: AN INTRODUCTION

ALTHOUGH WHAT WE CONSIDER DIFFERENT SPECIES OF ANIMALS STEMS IN part from biology, the difference is also the product of social construction.¹ The category of species has real consequences for the treatment of animals and for the humans who interact with them. These consequences play out prominently in the profession of veterinary medicine and reveal themselves in what is referred to as a tracking system used in veterinary training. Briefly, tracking allows veterinary students to specialize in particular areas of animal medicine and focus on specific species.

This project uses tracking systems in veterinary medicine as a case study in the creation and maintenance of, as well as the changes to, the boundaries surrounding different animal species. By using veterinary medical education as a site to understand the manifestation of boundaries, this study contributes to several bodies of literature. Specifically, it engages with the literature that analyzes the maintenance of specialty knowledge and the resulting privileging of such knowledge. It also adds to the research on collective identity work done by animal caregivers, revealing how boundaries, borders, and cases that do not fit within boundaries can separate this work. In addition, by providing a gendered analysis, it enhances the understanding of each of these instances of boundary work.

In this chapter I first introduce the literature on boundaries and borders. I then explain how, in this research, the social construction of species will constitute a particular type of boundary work. I go on to describe how the tracking system in many veterinary colleges represents similar divisions, then conclude by presenting the goals and questions for this research project.

BOUNDARIES AND BORDERS

Abundant research in the social sciences examines the related concepts of boundaries and borders. Informed by the literature outlined here, I use the term boundaries to refer to the invisible lines veterinary students create and maintain around species, medical practices, knowledge, identities, and gender. I use the term borders to refer to the spaces along or close to the boundary lines that students admit are characterized by unclear ambiguity but also flexible potential for changeability. In doing so, I build on the work of Eviatar Zerubavel (1991), who describes boundaries as the mental fences (p. 2) that we place around geographic regions, temporal distance, historical events, ideas, groups, and other phenomena so that they seem similar, contiguous, or somehow related (see also Zerubavel, 1996). Along with others in the boundary literature, Zerubavel argues that clear, objective lines do not exist around any domain or slice of reality (Ashforth et al., 2000, p. 474; see also Michaelson & Johnson, 1997; Nippert-Eng, 1996a, 1996b). As he puts it, the islands of meaning that result from the boundary creation process are not part of nature (Zerubavel, 1996, p. 442). He defends the flexibility and ambiguity in social life and challenges the notion that boundaries are essentialized truths. Similarly, Barbara J. Morehouse (2004) describes borderlands as spaces where the everyday realities of boundaries are played out and where cultural identity, sheltered by the boundary, becomes blurred, mixed, creolized (p. 19). While bounded spaces can appear well defined and securely enclosed, borders along those boundaries can often be ambiguous and unclear. Morehouse (2004) and other scholars who focus on social and collective identities study how boundaries create differentiation between us and them (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000; Jenkins, 1996). People create collective identities through a process of internal and external definitions; individuals must internally distinguish themselves from others through a sense of belonging to their group, but external others must also recognize this distinction in order for a collective identity to emerge (Jenkins, 1996). Henri Tajfel’s (1982) classic work on social identity theory made in-groups and out-groups important social psychological concepts. He noted that in-groups discriminate against out-groups to improve their own self-image. Similarly, Robert Merton (1972) used the term reference groups to describe how groups use one another to compare and contrast characteristics to evaluate themselves.

This study contributes to and extends these fields of thought by introducing in-groups and out-groups that exist within a larger in-group. For example, I will show how the specialties in veterinary medicine provide enough difference for veterinary students to discriminate against one another, even though they still consider themselves unified under the title of future veterinarian. In this way, boundaries assist in the creation of identities, while borders can allow for new variations of identities to exist.

Extensions of the use of boundaries in creating different categories and subsequent identities focus on the consequences of these differences. For instance, work on geographies of exclusion examines access to resources associated with membership in certain groups (Sibley, 1995). Boundaries around group membership not only distinguish and separate categories but can contribute to inequality that comes from defining difference and attaching value to those differences. This inequality becomes particularly clear in class, ethnic and racial, and gender and sexual categories. For example, Pierre Bourdieu’s (1979/1984) work on class boundaries focused on how cultural capital—the knowledge of the culture of the dominant class—awards privilege. The boundaries between those who possess varying degrees of cultural capital help shape the different social classes. Fredrick Barth (1969) similarly used a relational approach with ethnicity. Instead of defining ethnicity simply as shared culture, Barth claimed that we define ethnic membership in opposition to the perceived identities of other ethnic groups. Therefore, we define ethnic difference by understanding the boundaries of different groups and our own relation to them. Gendered categorization also relies heavily on boundaries. The unconscious, but constant, boundary construction of the binaries of masculine and feminine helps explain gender inequality (Ridgeway, 1997). When gender falls in a border zone, such as when individuals violate gender norms or when ambiguous cases exist outside of the binary system (e.g., intersex or transgender individuals), stigmatization and punishment follow (Epstein, 2006; Norton & Herek, 2013). Here, boundaries and borders lead to inequality.

From a functionalist perspective, boundaries serve to organize bodies of knowledge. Specifically, scholars have studied the creation of professions and academic disciplines through this boundary work; further, they have recognized how these boundaries create additional divisions between experts and laypeople (Abbott, 1981, 2014; Collins, 1979; Foucault, 2002; Sarfatti-Larson, 1979). Others expanded this notion of institutionalizing difference and alternatively suggested that boundaries not only act as dividers but also can act as communication interfaces in the form of boundary objects (Bowker & Star, 1999; Star & Griesemer, 1989). Boundary objects can be material objects, organizational forms, conceptual spaces, or procedures. They can facilitate exchanges across communities; in this case study, for example, they can facilitate exchanges across subfields within animal medicine. The concept of boundary objects has broadened the conversation on boundaries and borders to include not only distinction and exclusion but also connection and inclusion. Coordinated social action can occur through the bridging across boundaries that boundary objects provide, and potentially lead to social change.

Human-animal studies scholars have applied the border metaphor to explain how constructed boundaries shape and influence human-animal interactions. Geographers Jennifer Wolch and Jody Emel (1998) use the concept of the border to examine how permeable border zones of metropolitan regions inhabited by both people and animals represent zones of potential coexistence (p. xvii). For example, the category of city-dwellers can include both humans and wildlife. As geographers, Wolch and Emel examine cases of negotiation/struggle over sharing space (p. xvii). In their research, borders are physical places, whereas I additionally situate borders in human cultural thought. While the physical places animals reside affect their use by humans, the border spaces that they occupy in the human imagination are a result of much more than simply physical location; they have to do with constructed social meanings. Importantly, places on the margin "are never simply locations. Rather, they are sites for someone and of something" (Shields, 1991, p. 6; emphasis added). Similar extensions of animal geography focus on the social definitions of animals and their additional placement in human imaginings (Philo &Wilbert, 2000).

Each of these schools of thought on the subject of boundaries and borders, including those that investigate collective identities, the consequent inequality, the social organization of knowledge, and human-animal relationships, contribute to this study of the consequences of boundaries and borders in the field of veterinary medicine.

BOUNDARY WORK AND THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF SPECIES

I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties.

— CHARLES DARWIN (1859, P. 48)

Human-animal studies scholarship that focuses on the role of boundaries in the social construction of species is particularly applicable to the ways that veterinary medicine also performs boundary work. To begin, the designation of species connotes not only a position in taxonomy but also how humans regard the beings who occupy that position. What humans understand as distinct species are actually matters of debate. Biologist Ernst Mayr (1942) first noted that scientists use different species concepts to place an animal into a species category. Species concepts represent the differing interpretations of different biologists, consequently creating a species problem that states that taxonomy is not entirely objective (Hey, 2006; Pigliucci & Kaplan, 2010). Thus, we socially construct animals in the academic discipline of biology, and then we further construct them when we place social value on species categories. In analyzing the attribution of social value on species, Arnold Arluke and Clinton R. Sanders (1996) termed the resulting hierarchy the sociozoologic scale. They argue that ‘being’ an animal in modern societies may be less a matter of biology than it is an issue of human culture and consciousness (p. 9).

Although some scholars (see Singer, 1975) have attributed placement in the hierarchy to consumption practices, the sociozoologic scale categorizes animals according to whether humans designate animals as morally good or bad. The animals considered best fall just below us on the sociozoologic scale. We grant these animals a nearly human status, and we describe some of them as companion animals or pets (Bryant, 2007; Gardyn, 2001; Veevers, 1985; Vitulli, 2006). We expect companion animals to be subservient to us, to provide us with love and affection (Tuan, 1984), and to adjust their behavior to fit into human spaces (e.g., becoming housebroken). Good animals also include those used as tools in research laboratories, on farms and ranches, or in occupations such as those involving therapy. We do not see these animals as family members, but they still have a collectively defined, instrumental function within society (see also Cassuto, 2007; Wilkie, 2005). We construct animals within the tools category as either scientific data or food (Arluke, 1988; Phillips, 1994; Ryder, 1975; Thompson, 1983; Vialles, 1994; Wilkie, 2010). Using them in these ways requires that they "be deanthro-pomorphized, becoming lesser beings or objects that think few thoughts, feel