Gentofte Hovedbibliotek
Ahlmanns Allé 6,
DK - 2900 Hellerup

“We turn into our partners, and even our dogs, just by dwelling with
them,” Diprose observes (2002: 70). Such mutual influence, however,
may go well beyond mere traffic in gesture and expression. Leach directs
our attention to the parallel between the somatic transformations
observed in the archaeozoological record of animals going through
the early phases of domestication, and changes noted in human
morphology over corresponding periods—pointing to the shared shift
from robustness to gracility that is especially evident in the face and
head. A key factor in this convergence, she suggests, is the cultural
modification of the environment in ways that protect both humans
and their livestock from many of the physical challenges—and thus
the selective pressures—associated with a more free-ranging existence.
“For the human, the combination of adoption of a built environment,
change in diet consistency, and lowered mobility brought about
morphological changes similar to those seen in domestic animals”
(Leach 2003: 360).”

Nigel Clark, Animal Interface: The Generosity of Domestication, in Rebecca Cassidy & Molly Mullin, Where the Wild Things Are Now: Domestication Reconsidered, 2007

“Once out of the body you will be able to choose any form you like, and change it as often as you like. Animal, vegetable, mineral. The gods appeared in human form and animal form, and they changed others into trees or birds. Those were stories about the future. We have always known that we are not limited to the shape we inhabit.”

Jeanette Winterson, Frankissstein: A Love Story, 2019