Starting off her talk with a story from her fieldwork about conflict between pig farmers and the local community arising from the issue of a ‘foul-smelling’ pig farm, Higa sketched out the multiple forms of ‘distance’ that are produced in the transition to industrialised pig farming. Examining the history of pig-human relations in Okinawa, Higa described the transformation from a culture of widespread pig-keeping, in which livestock was located close to people’s living spaces, towards a situation in which most residents lived separately from dedicated pig sheds, and eventually large-scale industrialised pig farms, resulting both in changing pig-human relations and also Okinawan social relations. This reshaping of human-animal relations in Okinawa from one of intimacy to one of distance was reflected in other points Higa made in her talk - for example in the ‘de-animalisation’ of pigs during the slaughtering process, and the objectification of pigs as part of their rearing - but was also reflected in comments made by other members. The euphemistic use of language in the meat production industry was discussed, as was the importance of eye contact in the production of intimate relationships, the latter being stimulated by Higa’s description of the layout of pig sheds and cages, and the ways in which architecture can be used to preclude the possibility of attachment and ‘inefficient’ forms of relationality.

This point also relates to a comment made by Higa about the structuring of work flow and space within industrialised pig farming to prevent feelings of sympathy towards the plight of livestock, and points to the way in which physical and symbolic distancing of pig farming and consumers is layered with forms of emotional distance-keeping. The extent to which emotional attachments can be formed within industrialised livestock farming was a point keenly discussed, with Higa stating that despite the objectification of animals, emotional responses towards livestock, as well as emotional responses read within individual animals, were observed in some pig farm workers. This perhaps hints at the limits of the objectification of livestock, and perhaps also talks to the impossibility of avoiding ‘contamination’ with that taken to be dirty, no matter the forms of distance constructed between humans and animals (whether in denying the existence of livestock beyond objects, or in avoidance of bad smells that arise from engagement with them).

The changing relationship between pigs and humans as described by Higa often intersected with discussion on hygiene and dirtiness. Smell, and particularly the connection between pigs, bad smells, and dirtiness, was at the heart of these discussions, particularly in terms of how smells change and become ‘bad’ (either by their removal from ‘familiar’ spaces, or in the way in which smells themselves change with time), how they are or are not distinguished from each other, and how we physically respond when we are confronted with them. The issue of hygiene was also mentioned frequently, both in terms of the practical ways in which hygiene rules are navigated, for example at meat markets, but also how changing conceptions of hygiene need to be located within the broader politics of Okinawa/America and Japan/America relations.

Finally, some time was devoted to discussion of an ethics of human-animal relations not predicated on their absence from society, that is, not based on the distance of consumers from the life (and death) of livestock. Rather, Higa proposed an ethics based on specific encounters, between this animal and this individual (as opposed to an abstracted relationship between a particular species and humans), predicated on discrete engagement (up to including the killing of a given animal). This links to an idea which came up repeatedly during the seminar, that is, of moving beyond a dichotomy between animals as cherished pets, invoking an ‘intimate’ relationship in which the killing and consumption of the animal becomes an impossibility, and objectified animals moving through an industrialised system, in which ‘intimacy’ is entirely stripped. Instead, it was suggested that various forms of intimacy could come to be recognised through highly specific engagement with other species, even with livestock raised for meat within efficient, de-personalised (‘de-animalised’?) systems.

Whether such an ethics based on constant, present engagement with livestock could become a reality within a world in which simple forms of interaction with other species are highly limited for many people, the importance of an ethics intrinsic to specific experience, engaging with ethical dilemmas regarding other species through detailed ethnographic study, was clear. We thank Higa for her stimulating talk and the opportunity to explore these important issues with her.