This page is referenced by:

• 1 2018-10-17T08:48:34-07:00 Chickens, video games and human-animal relations. 5 plain 2021-05-03T04:45:31-07:00  
  • „‘aggressive othering’ that results in violence towards animals. 
  • „ that humans occupy a higher symbolic plane than animals because they are made in ‘God's image’, and therefore justifying any ill treatment to them. ​
  •  Animal Worlds Literature Review
  
  As explored within this e-book, the hierarchal structure created by mankind for the natural world places the human at the top. Within Jason Wyckoff’s article “Hierarchy, Global Justice and Human- Animal relations” the dichotomy between human and animal is one which is powered through the classification of ‘wildness’. Furthermore, Wyckoff (2016, p.250) argues that humans often only engage with animals in highly manipulated conditions such as zoos or museums in which:
  
  “Human uses of animals for food or hunting are often emphasised, along with wild animal aggression”.
  
  
  Drawing upon this idea of manipulated realties, I wanted to explore the virtual world and animals. Within the virtual world of video games, the animal of the chicken is often a targeted and re-emerging presence. Players are often able to interact with these chickens in various settings, often a violent and aggressive action is offered. In an article by Tyr Fothergill and Catherine Flick, the ethics of human- chicken relationships in video games derive from real world associations. Fothergill and Flick explore the role of the chicken in human history from food source to religious figure (the sacred chicken) and a representation of gender politics. Chickens for the most part have historically been “engaged with ancient divinity… violence. Commodified and women’s work and men’s play” (Fothergill and Flick, 2015 p.100).  As the article argues, perception of chickens has been associated with negative cowardly connotations and to a certain extent femininity as opposed to the more fearless masculine connotations associated with roosters (Fothergill and Flick, 2015 p.101). Furthermore, the virtual space offers players the option to violently kill the chicken without the mess of real world implications. This violent killing of a chicken as Fothergill and Flick argue (2015 p.106) is reflection with real world consumption and killing of chickens.
   
  The virtual chicken is one that represents human to animal relationships. The disposable nature of these virtual animals is one that continues to perpetuate the notion of human supremacy over animals. Yet perhaps in a sense this is also farfetched as the virtual world of video games offer players a fantasy and imaginative space to explore beyond their own worlds.
   
  Fothergill, B., & Flick, C. (2016). The ethics of human-chicken relationships in video games. ACM SIGCAS Computers And Society, 45(3), 100-108. doi: 10.1145/2874239.2874254
  Wyckoff, J. (2016). Hierarchy, Global Justice, and Human–Animal Relations. Journal Of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 19(3), 236-255. doi: 10.1080/13880292.2016.1204884
  
  
  Natalie Cheung