Analiza i Egzystencja


ISSN: 1734-9923     eISSN: 2300-7621    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/aie.2025.71-01
CC BY-SA   Open Access   DOAJ  ERIH PLUS  DOAJ

Issue archive / 71 (2025)
Autoetnografia odzwierzęca albo jak pisać o zwierzętach poza-ludzkich
(Animal autoethnography or how to write about non-human animals)

Authors: Oskar Szwabowski ORCID
Uniwersytet Pomorski w Słupsku
Keywords: animals writing autoethnography animal studies posthumanism
Whole issue publication date:2025
Page range:20 (5-24)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

The article discusses the issue of writing about non-human animals. I place my considerations in the field of animal studies of a posthumanist nature. The research problem is the issue of writing about those who are beyond writing, beyond human speech and ways of expressing themselves. Non-human persons and relationships with them become a challenge to classical, academic ways of writing. The author presents typical ways of writing about non-human animals. Points out the limitations of dominant narrative modes. He then presents a proposal for writing with love using magical realism and poetry. The text is an attempt to develop a specific style. Metaautothnography and philosophical analysis are used. The author reflects reflectively on his autoethnographic project, where he wrote about non-human animals.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Atallah Devin, G., Dutta, U., Masud, H.R., Bernal, I., Robinson, R., Del Rio, M., Voyard, C., Al-Ajarma, Y., Antilef, I., Kalam Azad, A., Bivens, D., Darwish, A., Contreras Painemal, C., Hakim, C., Hussain Kazi, S., Jones, D., Marrero, W., Mervin, A., Mitchell, S.S., Mullah, M., Musleh, A., Lizma Pilquil, E., Rosa, M., Tang Yan, C., Jara, G.C.T. (2022). Transnational Research Collectives as “Constellations of Co-Resistance”: Counterstorytelling, Interweaving Struggles, and Decolonial Love. Qualitative Inquiry, 28 (6), 681–693. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/10778004211068202.
2.Baratay, Ė. (2023). Zwierzęcy punkt widzenia. Inna wersja historii. Gdańsk: Wydaw- nictwo w podwórku.
3.Bochner, A.P. (2017). Heart of the Matter: A Mini-Manifesto for Autoethno- graphy. International Review of Qualitative Research, 10 (1): 67–80. https:// doi.org/10.1525/irqr.2017.10.1.67.
4.Bogusławski, M. (2020). Wariacje (post)humanistyczne. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
5.Bozalek, V.G. (2022). Doing Academia Differently: Creative Reading/Writing-With Posthuman Philosophers. Qualitative Inquiry, 28 (5), 552–561. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/10778004211064939.
6.Braidotti, R. (2014). Po człowieku. Tłum. J. Bednarek, A. Kowalczyk.Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
7.Cotzee, J.M. (2007). Foe. Tłum. M. Konikowska. Kraków: Znak.
8.Coulter, C. (2020). A Diffractive Story. Qualitative Inquiry, 26 (10), 1213–1221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420939207.
9.De Waal, F. (2019). Wiek empatii. Jak natura uczy nas życzliwości. Tłum. Ł. Lamża. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.
10.Denzin, N.K. (2009). Qualitative Inquiry under Fire: Toward a New Paradigm Dialogue. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
11.Denzin, N.K. (2017). Critical Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23 (1), 8–16.
12.Denzin, N.K. (2018). Performance Autoethnography. Critical Pedagogy and the Politics of Culture. London, New York: Routledge.
13.Donaldson, S., Kymlicka, W. (2018). Zoopolis. Tłum. M. Wańkowiczowa, M. Ste- fański. Warszawa: Oficyna 21.
14.Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I. A Methodological Novel about Autoethno- graphy. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
15.Ferrando, F. (2016). Posthumanizm, transhumanizm, antyhumanizm, metahu- manizm oraz nowy materializm. Różnice i relacje. Rocznik Lubski, 42 (2), 13–26.
16.Ferrando, F. (2019). Philosophical Posthumanism. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
17.Foster, V. (2023). Surreal Encounters: Playing with the More-Than-Human at a Community Farm. Qualitative Inquiry, 0 (0). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10778004231202936.
18.François, B. (2020). Elokwencja sardynki. Tłum. E. Janota, Katowice: Post Factum. Gale, K. (2016). Writing Minor Literature: Working with Flows, Intensities and the Welcome of the Unknown. Qualitative Inquiry, 22 (5), 301–308. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1077800415615615.
19.Gale, K., Pelias, R., Russell, L., Spry, T., Wyatt, J. (2013). Intensity: A Collaborative Autoethnography. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6 (1), 165–180.
20.Gale, K., Wyatt, J. (2017). Working at the Wonder: Collaborative Writing as Method of Inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23 (5), 355–364.
21.Gale, K., Wyatt, J. (2019). Autoethnography and Activism: Movement, Intensity, and Potential. Qualitative Inquiry, 25 (6), 566–568.
22.Gray, J. (2022). Kocia filozofia. Tłum. A. Wilga. Warszawa: Fundacja Kultura Liberalna.
23.Gurevitch, Z. (2000). The Serious Play of Writing. Qualitative Inquiry, 6 (1), 3–8.
24.Hare, B., Woods, V. (2022). Przetrwają najżyczliwsi. Tłum. K. Kalinowski. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.
25.Henriksen, L., Kjær K.M., Blønd M., Cohn M., Cakici B., Douglas-Jones R., Ferreira P., Feshak V., Gahoonia S.K., Sandbukt S. (2021). Writing Bodies and Bodies of Text: Thinking Vulnerability through Monsters. Gender, Work & Organization, 29 (2), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12782.
26.Höpfl, H. (2000). The Suffering Mother and the Miserable Son: Organizing Women and Organizing Women’s Writing. Gender, Work and Organization, 7 (2), 98–105.
27.Kępa, E. (2014). Autoetnografia nie wzięła się znikąd – rozważania o ciągłości i zmianie. Parezja, 1 (1), 79–89.
28.Konecki, K.T. (2005). Ludzie i ich zwierzęta. Warszawa: Scholar.
29.Konecki, K.T. (2008). Touching and Gesture Exchange as an Element of Emo- tional Bond Construction. Application of Visual Sociology in the Research on Interaction between Humans and Animals [93 paragraphs]. Forum Qua- litative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9 (3), Art. 33. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-9.3.1154.
30.Konecki, K.T. (2022a). Lifeworld and Deathworld in Human and Nonhuman Animal Relationships. Symbolic Interaction, 45 (3), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1002/ symb.590.
31.Konecki, K.T. (2022b). The Meaning of Contemplation for Social Qualitative Research. Applications and Examples. London, New York: Routledge.
32.Körner, J. (1999). Nasi bracia pies i kot. Warszawa: W.A.B.
33.Lorenz, K. (2014). Rozmowy ze zwierzętami. Tłum. B. Tarnas. Warszawa: W.A.B.
34.Matsuoka, A., Sorenson, J. (2018). Introduction. W: A. Matsuoka, J. Sorenson (red.), Critical Animal Studies. Trans-Species Social Justice (s. 1–17). London, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
35.McHugh, S. (2022). Human-Animal Studies. W: S. Herbrechter, I. Callus, M. Rossini, M. Grech, M. de Bruin-Molé, Ch.J. Müller (red.), Palgrave Handbook of Cri- tical Posthumanism (s. 823–839). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-030-42681-1_17-1.
36.Muhr, S.L., Rehn, A. (2015). On Gendered Technologies and Cyborg Writing. Gender, Work and Organization, 22 (2), 129–138.
37.Pelias, R.J. (2005). Performative Writing as Scholarship: An Apology, an Argument, an Anecdote. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 5 (4), 415–424.
38.Pindel, T. (2010). Realizm magiczny. Przewodnik (praktyczny). Kraków: Universitas.
39.Pławski, M., Szwabowski, O., Szczepaniak, C., Wężniejewska, P. (2019). Friendly Writing as Non-inquiry: The Problems of Collective Autoethnographic Writing about Collective Autoethnographic Writing. Qualitative Inquiry, 25 (9–10), 1002–1010. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800418809134.
40.Podgórniak, A. (2004). Realizm magiczny jako strategia postkolonialna – recenzja. Er(r)go, 8 (1), 189–192.
41.Pollock, D. (2007). The Performative „I”. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodo- logies, 7 (3), 239–255.
42.Pullen, A., Rhodes, C. (2008). Dirty Writing. Culture and Organization, 14 (3), 241–259.
43.Rogowska-Stangret, M. (2020). Opowiedzieć świat inaczej. O praktykowaniu utopii w antropocenie. W: M. Gurowska, M. Rosińska, A. Szydłowska (red.), ZOEpolis. Budując wspólnotę ludzko-nie-ludzką. Warszawa: Fundacja Bęc Zmiana.
44.Rogowska-Stangret, M. (2021). Być ze świata. Gdańsk: słowo/ obraz terytoria.
45.Sławek, T. (2020). Śladami zwierząt. Gdańsk: słowo/ obraz terytoria.
46.Spry, T. (2016). Autoethnography and the Other: Unsettling Power through Utopian Performatives. New York, NY: Routledge.
47.Szwabowski, O. (2016). Dociekania robotnicze. Analiza filozoficzna. Forum Oświatowe, 28 (1/55), 77–94. Pobrano z: https://forumoswiatowe.pl/index. php/czasopismo/article/view/401.
48.Szwabowski, O. (2019). Nekrofilna produkcja akademicka i pieśni partyzantów. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Pedagogiki Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
49.Szwabowski, O. (2023a). Nie-ludzka wspólnota cierpienia. Nie-ludzkie relacje i kruchość. Poznań: Rys.
50.Szwabowski, O. (2023b). An Introduction to Responding Autoethnography. Qualita- tive Inquiry, 29 (10), 1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231155878.
51.Tesar, M. (2021). “Philosophy as a Method”: Tracing the Histories of Intersec- tions of “Philosophy,” “Methodology,” and “Education”. Qualitative Inquiry, 27 (5), 544–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420934144.
52.Ulmer, J.B. (2017). Critical Qualitative Inquiry Is/as Love. Qualitative Inquiry, 23 (7), 543–544. DOI: 10.1177/1077800417718298.
53.Vocelle, L.A. (2022). Miau. Kompletna historia kota. Warszawa: Marginesy.
54.Waight, E. (2022). More-than-Human Economies of Writing. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 54 (2), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0308518X211060843.
55.Wężniejewska, P., Szwabowski, O., Szczepaniak, C., Pławski, M. (2020). The Praise of Collective Autoethnography. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 20 (4), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708619863447.
56.Wolfe, C. (2009). Human, All too Human: “Animal Studies” and the Humani- ties. PMLA, 124 (2), 564–575.
57.Wolfe, C. (2013). Animal studies, dyscyplinarność i post(humanizm). Teksty Drugie, 1–2, 125–153.
58.Wyatt, J., Gale, K., Gannon, S., Davies, B. (2010). Deleuzian Thought and Colla- borative Writing: A Play in Four Acts. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (9), 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410374299.