@article{mullin_2013, place={New York}, title={Anthrozoology}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0072}, DOI={10.1093/obo/9780199766567-0072}, journal={Oxford Bibliographies In Anthropology}, publisher={Oxford University Press (OUP)}, author={Mullin, Molly}, editor={Jackson, JohnEditor}, year={2013}, month={Mar} }
 @inbook{mullin_2013, place={Cambridge, UK:}, title={Home Flocks: Deindustrial Domestications on the Coop Tour}, ISBN={9781107032606}, booktitle={The Politics of Species: Reshaping our Relationships with Other Animals}, publisher={Cambridge University Press}, author={Mullin, Molly}, editor={Corbey, Raymond and Lanjouw, AnnetteEditors}, year={2013} }
 @inbook{mullin_2012, place={New York}, title={Coming to Animals}, ISBN={9780231152945}, booktitle={Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies}, publisher={Columbia University Press}, author={Mullin, Molly}, editor={DeMello, MargoEditor}, year={2012}, pages={96–98} }
 @article{mullin_2012, title={Comment on John Knight's "The Anonymity of the Hunt"}, volume={53}, ISSN={0011-3204 1537-5382}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/665535}, DOI={10.1086/665535}, abstractNote={Hunter-gatherers are often ascribed a “monistic” worldview at odds with the nature-society dichotomy. The centerpiece of this claim is that they view hunting as similar to sharing within the band and prey animals as part of a common sphere of sociality. This article challenges this thesis. An examination of the work of its main proponents shows that it conflates two different senses of “animal”—the flesh-and-blood animals of the hunt and the animal Spirit that is said to control the animals. The sharing motif in hunting makes sense with respect to the anthropomorphic Spirit but not to the animals hunted. The conditions of the hunt as a spatiotemporal event provide further grounds for skepticism toward the idea of hunting-as-sharing. Drawing on biologist Robert Hinde’s model of relationships, I argue that hunting represents an anonymous one-off interaction that cannot develop into a personal relationship, in stark contrast to the durable forms of personalized sociality associated with the hunter-gatherer band. This is not to deny the possibility of human-animal cosociality in the form of personal relationships but rather to redirect the search away from the hunt to the interface with domesticated animals.}, number={3}, journal={Current Anthropology}, publisher={University of Chicago Press}, author={Mullin, Molly}, year={2012}, month={Jun}, pages={348} }
 @inbook{mullin_2010, place={New York}, title={Anthropology’s Animals}, ISBN={9781590561683}, booktitle={Teaching the Animal: Human-Animal Studies Across the Disciplines}, publisher={Lantern Press}, author={Mullin, Molly}, editor={DeMello, MargoEditor}, year={2010}, pages={145–154} }
 @article{cassidy_mullin_2007, title={Comment on Joseph S. Alter’s Once and Future "Apeman": Chimeras, Human Evolution, and Disciplinary Coherence}, volume={48}, DOI={10.1086/520133}, abstractNote={Many have argued that anthropology, as a four‐field discipline, lacks intellectual coherence. Recent developments in the field of biotechnology and the possibility of producing chimeras with recognizable human characteristics make it necessary to think in terms of a new kind of “old” four‐field holism. The production of a human/nonhuman chimera raises theoretical questions about the nature of the species barrier in human evolution and about the larger philosophical question of the relationship between humans and nonhuman animals. Engaging with these questions provides critical perspective on the evolution of Homo sapiens and on the relationship between culture and biology in the human past as this past increasingly anticipates the future.}, number={5}, journal={Current Anthropology}, author={Cassidy, Rebecca and Mullin, Molly}, year={2007}, month={Oct}, pages={644–645} }
 @inbook{mullin_2007, place={New York}, title={Feeding the Animals}, ISBN={9781845201524}, booktitle={Where the Wild Things are Now: Domestication Reconsidered}, publisher={Berg Press}, author={Mullin, Molly H.}, editor={Cassidy, Rebecca and Mullin, MollyEditors}, year={2007}, pages={277–304} }
 @inbook{mullin_2007, place={London}, title={Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural Studies of Human–Animal Relationships}, ISBN={9780415371841}, booktitle={Animals and Society: Critical Concepts in the Social Sciences}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Mullin, Molly}, editor={Wilkie, Rhoda and Inglis, DavidEditors}, year={2007} }
 @book{mullin_cassidy_2007, place={New York}, series={Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series}, title={Where the Wild Things are Now: Domestication Reconsidered}, ISBN={9781847883322}, publisher={Berg Press}, year={2007}, collection={Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series} }
 @article{mullin_2002, title={Animals and Anthropology}, volume={10}, DOI={10.1163/156853002320936854}, abstractNote={Anthropology encompasses four distinct subdisciplines: biological anthropology, social anthropology (known as “cultural anthropology” in North America), archaeology, and linguistics. Beyond these basic four Želds, one could further divide anthropology into a nearly endless array of specializations (primatology, legal anthropology, medical anthropology, and historical archaeology, to name just a few). Of course, all Želds have their divisions, but anthropology’s sub-Želds are unusual for their varying and complex ties to the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities. They differ radically in their preoccupations, basic assumptions, research methods, and connections to other disciplines. This diversity and scope make assessing anthropology’s relationship to Animal Studies especially challenging. Consideration of anthropology’s diversity and scope is important, however, for understanding what anthropology brings to Animal Studies and the promise Animal Studies holds for a revitalized anthropology.}, number={4}, journal={Society & Animals}, author={Mullin, Molly}, year={2002}, pages={387–393} }
 @book{mullin_2001, place={Durham, NC}, title={Culture in the Marketplace: Gender, Art, and Value in the American Southwest}, ISBN={978-0-8223-8060-3}, DOI={https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822380603}, publisher={Duke University Press}, author={Mullin, Molly}, year={2001} }
 @article{mullin_1999, title={Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural Studies of Human-Animal Relationships}, volume={28}, ISSN={0084-6570 1545-4290}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.201}, DOI={10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.201}, abstractNote={▪ Abstract  Humans' relationships with animals, increasingly the subject of controversy, have long been of interest to those whose primary aim has been the better understanding of humans' relationships with other humans. Since this topic was last reviewed here, human-animal relationships have undergone considerable reexamination, reflecting key trends in the history of social analysis, including concerns with connections between anthropology and colonialism and with the construction of race, class, and gender identities. There have been many attempts to integrate structuralist or symbolic approaches with those focused on environmental, political, and economic dimensions. Human-animal relationships are now much more likely to be considered in dynamic terms, and consequently, there has been much interdisciplinary exchange between anthropologists and historians. Some research directly engages moral and political concerns about animals, but it is likely that sociocultural research on human-animal relationships will continue to be as much, if not more, about humans.}, number={1}, journal={Annual Review of Anthropology}, publisher={Annual Reviews}, author={Mullin, Molly H.}, year={1999}, month={Oct}, pages={201–224} }
 @inbook{mullin_1995, place={Berkeley, CA}, title={The Patronage of Difference: Making Indian Art "Art, Not Ethnology"}, ISBN={9780520088467}, booktitle={The Traffic in Culture: Refiguring Art and Anthropology}, publisher={University of California Press}, author={Mullin, Molly H.}, editor={Marcus, George and Myers, Fred R.Editors}, year={1995}, pages={166–200} }
 @inbook{mullin_1994, place={Indianapolis}, title={Art, Philanthropy, and Multiculturalism: Santa Fe's Indian Market}, booktitle={Short Takes on Nonprofit Governance}, publisher={Indiana University Center on Philanthropy}, author={Mullin, Molly}, editor={Wood, Miriam MasonEditor}, year={1994} }
 @article{mullin_1992, title={The Patronage of Difference: Making Indian Art “Art, Not Ethnology”}, volume={7}, ISSN={0886-7356 1548-1360}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/can.1992.7.4.02a00010}, DOI={10.1525/can.1992.7.4.02a00010}, abstractNote={When the Exposition of Indian Tribal Arts opened at Grand Central Art Galleries in Manhattan in 1931, critics announced the "first truly American art exposition." The Exposition brochure described the event as the first exhibition of "Indian art as art, not ethnology," and quoted one critic's statement that 'the cry for 'American' art has been answered." According to John Sloan, the New Yorkbased painter and one of the key organizers of the Exposition, "Spreading the consciousness of Indian art in America affords [a] means by which American artists and patrons of art can contribute to the culture of their own continent, to enrich the product and keep it American" (SAR, AEWC, a). Such statements suggest connections between a popular acceptance of relativist notions of culture associated with anthropology and attempts to use art-an honorific category intimately related to class-structured distinctions1-and taste as a way of reimagining American national and regional identities. These newly imagined identities celebrated cultural pluralism, particularly as expressed through commodities validated as art. In this article I explore how such a utopian affirmation of cultural difference-an early, more colonial version of multiculturalism-reflected elite responses to the rise of consumer capitalism. The 1920s and 1930s were a period of heightened concern with representations of the national identity as well as with the implications of mass consumption (Alexander 1980; Susman 1973, 1984). For patrons of Indian art, including those who sponsored the 1931 Exposition, commodity consumption represented both problem and solution in matters of identity; part of the solution involved recasting carefully selected commodities, produced by ethnic and racial Others, as art.2 Relationships among art, national identity, and class-related distinctions have been neglected in some of the more influential examinations of Primitivism}, number={4}, journal={Cultural Anthropology}, publisher={Wiley}, author={Mullin, Molly H.}, year={1992}, month={Nov}, pages={395–424} }
 @article{mullin_1991, title={Representations of History, Irish Feminism, and the Politics of Difference}, volume={17}, number={1}, journal={Feminist Studies}, author={Mullin, Molly}, year={1991}, pages={29–50} }