Political Animals and Animal Politics
Political Animals and Animal Politics is a 2014
In part, Political Animals and Animal Politics arose from a
Reviewers identified the contributions from Driessen, Flanders and Boyer as of particular interest, but challenged the inclusion of chapters focused on the environment. They criticised the book's failure to include contributions from, or sufficiently engage with the work of, the key voices in the politically focused animal ethics literature, such as Robert Garner, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka, Alasdair Cochrane, Kimberly Smith, or Siobhan O'Sullivan. Wissenburg's chapter was identified as the one that engaged most directly with this literature, but his approach was a negative one. Garner has written that Political Animals and Animal Politics should be praised for its trailblazing, but predicted that it would be superseded by stronger collections on the same theme.
Production and release
The Dutch
The workshop featured a lecture by Michel Vandenbosch, of the Belgian organisation Global Action in the Interest of Animals. On the second day, those involved were joined by Niko Koffeman of the Dutch Party for the Animals and Karen Soeters of that party's Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation think tank. Footage from that day of the workshop, shot by Joost de Haas, was included in the documentary film De Haas in de Marathon (The Pacer in the Marathon, 2012).[5] The film was created by de Haas, who was commissioned by the Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation. It focuses on the Party for the Animals's first ten years, including interviews with people associated with the party and explorations of the party's public reception. The film premiered on 28 October 2012, during a gathering to celebrate the party's 10th anniversary. It has since been made available in numerous languages.[6]
Wissenburg and Schlosberg's workshop formed the basis of Political Animals and Animal Politics, a
Political Animals and Animal Politics was the first edited collection devoted to the "political turn in animal ethics", and the first "book-length attempt at seeking to define the contours" of this literature.[8] According to Siobhan O'Sullivan, the book may have been the first time that political turn in animal ethics—a phrase that had been used at European conferences for a number of years—appeared in print.[9] This "animal political philosophy" is identified by the editors as an academic literature at the meeting point of animal ethics, political philosophy and real-world (but theory-driven) politics. Wissenburg and Schlosberg posit that this literature, though at one time only a small part of more morally focused animal ethics, has developed into a separate field of enquiry in its own right. They single out two key texts: Robert Garner's 2013 A Theory of Justice for Animals (Oxford University Press) and Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka's 2011 Zoopolis (Oxford University Press).[10] Recognising the editors' identification of the political turn in animal ethics, Garner, writing with O'Sullivan and Alasdair Cochrane,[note 3] argues that the literature is both made distinct and unified by its focus on justice; contributions to this literature, these authors argue, "imagine how political institutions, structures and processes might be transformed so as to secure justice for both human and nonhuman animals. Put simply, the essential feature of the political turn is this constructive focus on justice."[11]
Synopsis
Political Animals and Animal Politics has three key aims, and, correspondingly, its chapters are split into three sections. These aims are the analysis of three key "innovations" that the editors identify in the book's introduction. The first of these is the move, in animal ethics, from thinking about personal change to thinking about the implementation of rules or norms of conduct at the societal level. The second of these is a possible
Section | No. | Chapter title | Author(s) | Affiliation[note 4] |
---|---|---|---|---|
— | 1 | "Introducing Animal Politics and Political Animals" | Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg | Radboud University/University of Sydney
|
Part I: The Politicization of the Animal Advocacy Discourse | 2 | "Rethinking the Human-Animal Divide in the Anthropocene" | Manuel Arias-Maldonado | University of Málaga |
3 | "An Agenda for Animal Political Theory" | Marcel Wissenburg | Radboud University
| |
4 | "Public Reason and Animal Rights" | Chad Flanders | Saint Louis University | |
Part II: The Rapprochement between Animal Ethics and Ecologism | 5 | "Articulating Ecological Injustices of Recognition" | Christie Smith | University of Exeter |
6 | "Ecological Justice for the Anthropocene" | David Schlosberg | University of Sydney | |
7 | "Animal Deliberation" | Clemens Driessen | Wageningen University and Research
| |
Part III: The Introduction of Laws and Institutions for the Benefit of Animals | 8 | "Animal Party Politics in Parliament" | Simon Otjes | Groningen University
|
9 | "The Limits of Species Advocacy" | Kurtis Boyer | Lund University | |
10 | "Slaughter and Animal Welfarism in Sweden 1900–1944" | Per-Anders Svärd | Stockholm University | |
11 | "The Rights of Nature: Theory and Practice" | Mihnea Tanasescu | Free University of Brussels |
Contributions
- "Rethinking the Human-Animal Divide in the Anthropocene", Manuel Arias-Maldonado
Arias-Maldonado argues that traditional appeals to the value of nonhuman animals have failed to be sufficiently motivating, and that, instead, human/nonhuman relationships are appropriately grounded upon the ideas of
- "An Agenda for Animal Political Theory", Marcel Wissenburg
For the purposes of his contribution, Wissenburg takes many standard contentions in animal ethics for granted. However, he challenges mainstream animal ethicists' tendency to adopt the language of
- "Public Reason and Animal Rights", Chad Flanders
Flanders argues that nonhuman animals could be "below" politics, in that they do not have politically considerable interests, or "above" politics, in that they have
- "Articulating Ecological Injustices of Recognition", Christie Smith
Smith draws on
- "Ecological Justice for the Anthropocene", David Schlosberg
Schlosberg's contribution, is partly a response to challenges made to his Defining Environmental Justice (2007).
- "Animal Deliberation", Clemens Driessen
Driessen explores ways in which nonhuman animals might be understood to be engaging in political deliberation. His claim is
- "Animal Party Politics in Parliament", Simon Otjes
Otjes's approach is more empirical than that of many contributors to Political Animals and Animal Politics.
- "The Limits of Species Advocacy", Kurtis Boyer
Boyer observes the distinction between how nonhuman animals can receive political protection as individuals and as species. He argues that the latter form of protection is motivated by a desire to preserve human experience of the species rather than the experiences of the nonhuman animals themselves. Politically motivated species advocacy, Boyer argues, is highly
- "Slaughter and Animal Welfarism in Sweden 1900–1944", Per-Anders Svärd
Svärd, taking a more empirical approach than many other contributors,
- "The Rights of Nature: Theory and Practice", Mihnea Tanasescu
Tanasescu explores the idea of
Academic reception
External media | |
---|---|
Audio | |
Knowing Animals, episode 14: "Ecological justice and animals with David Schlosberg" David Schlosberg discusses his contribution to Political Animals and Animal Politics on the Knowing Animals podcast | |
Video | |
Defining Human-Animal Studies, video 14: "The Political Turn in Animal Ethics" Siobhan O'Sullivan defines "the political turn in animal ethics" for the Animals & Society Institute |
Political Animals and Animal Politics was reviewed by Garner for
Bendik-Keymer praised the book as having a "report-from-a-cutting-edge-conference quality", characterising two conceptual divides as shaping the volume: first, the distinction between theories endorsing human exceptionalism and those not; and, second, the disconnect between theory and practice. For him, the essays of part three—effectively three
Milburn questioned the success of the volume in achieving its second stated goal, concerning rapprochement between animal and environmental ethics; he considered the contributions respectively of Christie Smith, Schlosberg, and Tanasescu to be more clearly in the domain of environmental ethics than animal ethics, questioning the extent to which they belong in a volume about "animal politics".[12] Similarly, Hooley argued that Political Animals and Animal Politics was "less of a work in the emerging field of animal politics than it is a collection of essays in the field of environmental politics".[24] Alternatively, he claimed it could be viewed as a mixed work, noting that the contributions from Flanders, Otjes, Boyer and Svärd offered new contributions to the literature on animals and politics. Hooley thought it surprising that few authors engaged with the work of Donaldson and Kymlicka, and was critical of Wissenburg's discussion of the pair, which he claimed was "all too brief and ultimately disappointing".[24]
Milburn thought that the opening chapters (and introduction) did well to establish the volume, and was happy with the inclusion of the more empirical contributions, given their potential theoretical significance. He picked out the chapters by Driessen, Boyer, and Wissenburg respectively as highlights, suggesting that the contributions of Driessen and Boyer seemed to challenge the volume's second stated goal, and noting that, though it was strong, he disagreed with the claims of Wissenburg's chapter.[12] Garner highlighted the contributions of Flanders and Driessen, and commended the editors for putting together the book.[8] Hooley concluded his review by claiming that the book offered something to those interested in the place of animals in politics, but that much of its contents would be of more interest for those looking to read about environmental political theory.[24]
Legacy
Garner identified Political Animals and Animal Politics as the first edited collection devoted to the political turn in animal ethics. Though he claimed that it was likely to be superseded, he argued that Political Animals and Animal Politics should be "welcomed for its trailblazing".[8] Subsequent collections identified in reviews of the literature in the political turn include Garner and O'Sullivan's The Political Turn in Animal Ethics and Andrew Woodhall and Gabriel Garmendia da Trindade's Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues.[11][25][26] Another publication identified in these reviews is the open access journal Politics and Animals;[11][25][26] this published its first issue in 2015 with an "editorial collective" consisting of Boyer, Svärd, Katherine Wayne and Guy Scotton.[27]
Notes
- Radboud University and the University of Sydney respectively.[2] At the time of the book's publication, Wissenburg was Professor of Political Theory at the Department of Public Administration and Political Science at Radboud, and Schlosberg was Professor of Environmental Politics in the Department of Government and International Relations at Sydney.[3]
- ^ University affiliations match those at the time of the "Political Animal and Animal Politics" workshop.[2]
- ^ Both Cochrane and O'Sullivan are identified by Wissenburg and Schlosberg as contributors to the animal political philosophy literature.[10]
- ^ At the time of the book's publication.[3]
- Case-Western Reserve University,[23] Milburn was based at Queen's University Belfast,[12] and Hooley was based at the University of Toronto.[24]
References
- ^ a b c d "Political Animals and Animal Politics". Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
- ^ a b c d "Political Animals and Animal Politics". European Consortium for Political Research. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
- ^ a b "Notes on Contributors". In: Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg (eds.) Political Animals and Animal Politics. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. x–xii.
- ^ a b c d O'Sullivan, Siobhan (12 October 2015). "Episode 14: Ecological justice and animals with David Schlosberg". Knowing Animals (Podcast). Retrieved 9 June 2016.
- ^ a b Wissenburg, Marcel, and David Schlosberg (2014). "Acknowledgements". In: Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg (eds.) Political Animals and Animal Politics. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. viii–ix.
- ^ "About the film". De Haas in de Marathon. Archived from the original on 14 August 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2016.
- ^ "The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series". Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
- ^ S2CID 232345246.
- ^ O'Sullivan, Siobhan (26 July 2018). "Defining The Political Turn with Siobhan O'Sullivan – ASI's Defining Human-Animal Studies 14" (video). Animals & Society Institute. Retrieved 7 June 2018 – via YouTube.
- ^ .
- ^ S2CID 147783917.
- ^ S2CID 147998881.
- .
- ^ .
- .
- .
- ^ .
- ^ .
- ^ .
- .
- .
- ^ .
- ^ .
- ^ S2CID 148848582.
- ^ .
- ^ Boyer, Kurtis, Guy Scotton, Per-Anders Svärd and Katherine Wayne (2015). "Editors' introduction". Politics and Animals 1 (1): 1–5.
Further reading
- Donaldson, Sue, and Will Kymlicka (2011). Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Garner, Robert (2013). A Theory of Justice for Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Garner, Robert, and Siobhan O'Sulluvan, eds. (2016). The Political Turn in Animal Ethics. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
- Woodhall, Andrew, and Gabriel Garmendia da Trindade, eds. (2017). Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. .