Image: the cover of the book is a cream background with large lettering whose cookies fade across the rainbow. Zig zagging with these words are rectangles depicting photos. The top right is a fungus, below that to the left is a dolphin, below that to the right is a plant landscape, below that to the left is a pill bug on a leaf, below that to the right is a lizard and under that a sparrow. The yext alternating with the photos is "a little queer natural History" and "Josh l davis."
Going into reading Josh L. Davis' A Little Queer Natural History, I expected something of a coffee table book: Nice photos with some captions and information and the book can certainly function that way. However, I was pleasantly surprised at how much more complex it was. There is not a ton of text in this book, but it packs a lot of information and is definitely more than just a list of facts about the greater than human world.
I have known for some time of the colonial, patriarchal, white supremacist, etc nature of some of the more widely known naturalist publications and study out in the ether. There are also plenty of issues in the sciences today of people projecting their own insecurities, anthropocentrism, inability to admit wrong, ability to accept new ideas, and so on onto their research subjects and publications. This book however gave me some details I definitely had not heard about before in regards to studies of specific species.
Many of the things that I have read which discuss instances of other species not fitting into shallow binarist and heteronormative boxes focused more on detailing what these features were than the historical resistance to understanding them. Despite ALQNH's short length, Davis manages to highlight quite well the kind of bias that is so destructive to the sciences as well as greater respect for animals including human beings.
The photographs in the book are beautiful, the descriptions of the animals are vivid and inviting. The only objection I have there is that the author sometimes refers to animals as "it" which is archaic and also not in line with what I assume are goals of the book. I expected better.
I thought a lot about what makes other species "queer" while reading this book. I generally object to labeling anything different from the norm as queer (much like many cishet academics unfortunately try to do.) It is a political identity of gender, sexuality, and connection and also reclaimation of a slur. How can we apply this to other animals for whom what we call queerness is the norm? It is a bit tricky. However, I agree with how the author has done so in this book. Because humans' studies of other animals are so entrenched with bias, we end up projecting these things onto other animals anyway such that we share the effects of queerness with them. We are connected both in the great scheme of things and with every assessment and discovery of our behavior.
The oppression that queer human beings face is both strengthened by the bias placed upon other animals and other animals suffer oppression that is based on these biases. This is not only seen in incorrect assessments of wild animals' behavior and the resistance to reporting queer expressions in their worlds, but also in domesticated settings wherein farms, zoos, breeders, etc kill, forcefully/non-consensually breed, mutilate, separate, etc gay/intersex/asexual/etc animals who they cannot treat as products of consumption/entertainment/etc.
The fragility of many of the white men, and sometimes other demographics, who have discussed the greater than human world is a warning that all of us should heed but especially those of us in naturalist communities or scientific fields. How much more could we have understood at this point if we were more open to the rest of the world not being exactly like dominant culture falsely believes we are? Humans have a way of trying to force other animals into our own oppressive boxes while also refusing to grant them the consideration of being like us enough to deserve liberation or even the mildest respect. It is a horrible dance that is captured quite well and the little snippets of history that we get when reading about the species in this book.
I'm keeping it quite general because I want people reading to have the ability to experience the specific stories anew. I will say that many of the overall lessons of the book are that there is great diversity in nature. While I do not believe naturalness in and of itself denotes whether or not something is right, those who do use this as a cudgel to oppress lgbtq people are doing so outside of reality.
It is quite sad when I think about it. What must it be like to be these people who can only see the world through ideas so stunted that they deprive themselves of understanding and wonder? Reading about the naturalists and scientists who dared think outside the box being met with such resistance is incredibly frustrating. Reading about how every discovery was (and often still is) used to further the oppression of LGBTQ people gives me feelings of anger but also of connection to other species. There is no liberation in this world if we do not confront our relationships with the vast majority of beings on this planet with us.
The species in this book also teach us that socialization, sex, intimacy, expression, and so forth do not exist solely to reproduce or further ones genes (regardless of how many otherwise educated people may still insist that this is so.) Thank dog for that.
This was also posted to my goodreads and storygraph.
