Sarah Abbott’s revised book chapter, published in Phillip Vannini’s anthology The Routledge International Handbook of Ethnographic Film and Video, 2nd edition.
Extending from millennia of Western beliefs in human superiority, the history of film is loaded with disregard for participants beyond the human, be they main actors, cast in supporting roles, or present as “background.” Delineated by a long trail of Western philosophers and scholars, the dichotomy of ecological nonhumans as mechanical unthinking matter and humans and God as sole holders of thinking and perceptual capacity enables humans to “have no scruples about manipulating, exploiting, or experimenting upon other animals [and all eco-nonhumans] in any manner we see fit” (Abram, 2017, p. 48). From its early days, film revolved around the notion that animals are disposable (Bousé, 2000; Collard, 2016). Walt Disney’s documentary nature films from the outset aligned with his primary goal of creating entertainment to increase profit and stakeholder value (Wasko, 2016). The “Disneyfication” of animals and all eco-nonhumans in any genre (documentary, fiction, animation) is manipulation, meddling, objectification, extraction, domination, and detriment for the purpose of human entertainment (Meamber, 2011; Stanton, 2021).
(Abbott, 2026, p.369)
Abbott, S. (2025). Multispecies Filmmaking and Research. In P. Vannini (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of ethnographic film and video (2nd ed.), (pp. 369-382). London, UK: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781003604884-41.
ABSTRACT
Historical and contemporary human research and filmmaking with more than human participants hold ethical tension regardless of the presence of exploitation, disregard, care, relational awareness, or respect on the part of humans. There are always co-constitutional impacts and research footprints with ecological nonhuman worlds. Ethnography and ethnographic films evidence relationality. Inquiry and filmmaking with econonhumans require the same standards of ethical consideration and rigor as for human subjects, with the added need to decenter human perspectives and agendas. This chapter considers Indigenous and Western approaches to knowing with econonhumans; philosophies, values and approaches foundational to multispecies filmmaking as a methodology; multispecies methods and technologies; and examples of film, artistic, and research approaches and representation that support, disregard, or misrepresent econonhumans and their realities. These holistic, practical approaches disrupt Western traditions of nature/culture separation toward recognition and integration of econonhuman agency with respect and reciprocity.
References
Abram, D. (2017). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. Vintage Books.
Bousé, D. (2000). Wildlife films. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Collard, R. C. (2016). Electric elephants and the lively/lethal energies of wildlife documentary film. Area, 48(4), 472–479.
Meamber, L. A. (2011). Disney and the presentation of colonial America. Consumption Markets & Culture, 14(2), 125–144.
Stanton, R. R. (2021). The Disneyfication of animals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wasko, J. (2016). Challenging Disney myths. In D. Brode & S. T. Brode (Eds.), Debating Disney: Pedagogical perspectives on commercial cinema. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Link to book here.
Photo credit: Sarah Abbott, Praying Mantis, Ecuador
