| Chapter 1: | Theoretical Foundations |
|
|
in its import. It would seem to well justify the research attention of sociologists. As students of society and social behavior, we can no more appropriately ignore the zoological dimension, than an analysis of drama can ignore seminal actors in a play. To truly understand human social behavior in all its vagaries, and to be completely sensitive to the full array of its nuances and subtleties, we must enhance our appreciation of its zoological dimension. Accordingly, we might all be well advised to add animals to the lexicon of our discipline” (p. 417).
Two decades later, Flynn (2001) revisited the notion of a “zoological connection” and asserted that Bryant's critique remained. Flynn argued that sociologists should be concerned specifically with animal cruelty because:
Clifton Flynn ends his article in a manner very reminiscent of Bryant (1979), with a call to action: “The time has come for sociologists to acknowledge the significant and extensive role that nonhuman animals play in the lives of