↓ Skip to main content

Humanity at the Edge: The Moral Laboratory of Feeding Precarious Lives

Overview of attention for article published in Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Humanity at the Edge: The Moral Laboratory of Feeding Precarious Lives
Published in
Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11013-017-9519-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mette N. Svendsen, Iben M. Gjødsbøl, Mie S. Dam, Laura E. Navne

Abstract

At the heart of anthropology and the social sciences lies a notion of human existence according to which humans and animals share the basic need for food, but only humans have the capacity for morality. Based on fieldwork in a pig laboratory, a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and a dementia nursing home, we follow practices of feeding precarious lives lacking most markers of human personhood, including the exercise of moral judgment. Despite the absence of such markers, laboratory researchers and caregivers in these three sites do not abstain from engaging in questions about the moral status of the piglets, infants, and people with dementia in their care. They continually negotiate how their charges belong to the human collectivity and thereby challenge the notion of 'the human' that is foundational to anthropology. Combining analytical approaches that do not operate with a fixed boundary between human and animal value and agency with approaches that focus on human experience and virtue ethics, we argue that 'the human' at stake in the moral laboratory of feeding precarious lives puts 'the human' in anthropology at disposal for moral experimentation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Student > Master 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 22 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Psychology 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 28 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,505,282
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#226
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,618
of 424,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.