Sentientist Politics
democratic theory | |
Publisher | Oxford University Press |
---|---|
Publication date | 30 October 2018 |
Media type | Hardback; softback; ebook |
Awards | 2019 Susan Strange Best Book Prize (BISA) |
Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice is a 2018 book by the English
Sentientist Politics was inspired by Cochrane's hope to take discussions of animal rights beyond questions about how animals may be treated to how politics would have to change if animal rights were recognised. For him, the only previous substantial exploration of this question was in Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka's Zoopolis, of which Cochrane had earlier published a cosmopolitan critique. Research for Sentientist Politics was funded by a grant from the Leverhulme Trust, and work on international intervention on behalf of animals was conducted with Steve Cooke. Sentientist Politics was published on 30 October 2018, with a launch event at the University of Sheffield.
For the book, Cochrane was awarded the 2019 Susan Strange Best Book Prize by the British International Studies Association. Sentientist Politics was the subject of a symposium in the journal Politics and Animals, and praised by commentators for its readability, strength of argument, and ambition. It provoked questions about methodology in animal-rights scholarship, aid to wild animals, and the possibility of sentientist constitutionalism.
Development
Background
Alasdair Cochrane's 2010 book
Another important work in the political turn in animal ethics was
Writing
Cochrane was inspired to write Sentientist Politics by the question of what animal rights would mean for politics. Thus, he wanted to take discussions of animal rights beyond debates about what they entail in terms of (for example) eating and experimenting on animals – the kind of work that he and others had done previously. Human rights, Cochrane said, are understood to justify, constrain, and shape politics, and animal rights should too. It is this thought with which Cochrane begins the book, which is an attempt to explore what that would mean. While work like this had been done before, it had, he argued, only really been addressed at length in Zoopolis. The biggest departure of his approach in Sentientist Politics from that of Zoopolis is that his approach, unlike Donaldson and Kymlicka's, is grounded in cosmopolitanism. Thus, unlike Donaldson and Kymlicka, Cochrane places little importance on where an animal lives, pre-existing human relationships to the animals, and state borders. Though Cochrane sees cosmopolitanism and animal rights as natural bedfellows, few theorists of animal rights had considered obligations to animals across borders, and very few cosmopolitan theorists had considered what their approach means for human/animal relationships.[8] Consequently, though Sentientist Politics was not the first scholarly work extending cosmomopolitan theory to animals, it was the first monograph dedicated to doing so.[9]
The initial research and writing for Sentientist Politics was supported by a 2014
In 2016, the year in which Cochrane's paper with Cooke was published,[13] Cochrane discussed the manuscript that would become Sentientist Politics on an episode of Siobhan O'Sullivan's Knowing Animals podcast. Cochrane said that he was “writing a book on global justice and animal rights”. In this book, he said, he would address “what we owe to animals across borders” and “what we owe to animals internationally”, exploring “what a system of global governance or international relations would look like ... if it were built around not human rights ... but if it were actually built around sentient rights".[14] Ideas from the book were also presented at conferences and other events at the University of Birmingham, the University of Edinburgh, Newcastle University, the University of Leeds, the University of Cambridge, and the University of Fribourg prior to publication.[15]
Release
Sentientist Politics was published on 30 October 2018 by
Synopsis
Sentientist Politics opens with the assumption that some animals are
The second chapter addresses the moral worth of sentient animals and what this means for politics. Cochrane argues that, because they possess interests, sentient animals possess moral worth.
Chapter 3 asks what such political institutions would look like.
In chapter 4, Cochrane develops the sentientist democracy of the third chapter into a sentientist cosmopolitan democracy.
Donaldson and Kymlicka support granting wild animals sovereignty over their own spaces. Chapter 5 of Sentientist Politics challenges this claim, instead arguing that wild animals should be considered members of mixed-species societies with humans.
Having set out his political vision, Cochrane addresses two puzzles about its implementation. The first, the subject of chapter 6, concerns the issues of
The second challenge is addressed in chapter 7, which explores the realisation and maintenance of a sentientist cosmopolitan democracy.
In a concluding chapter, Cochrane argues that Sentientist Politics is distinct from other work in animal ethics because it foregrounds the duty to "create and maintain a political order dedicated to the interests of sentient animals".[54] Though Sentientist Politics is not the first book to take a "political turn" in animal ethics, it does defend a distinct vision, Cochrane says, of the appropriate political order. This is especially true in its cosmopolitanism.[55] However, the book's contribution is not only to animal ethics. Cochrane calls for a whole range of theorists working on areas of political significance explored in the book to take seriously the question of where animals fit into their frameworks, concluding that "the core questions of political philosophy ... need to be rethought".[56] The book also calls for a restructuring of political activism, and Cochrane closes the book with a call to animal activists to pay more attention to political change, with the ultimate aim of transforming existing political systems.[57]
Reception and response
Symposium
A symposium on Sentientist Politics was published in the journal Politics and Animals in 2019, based on the comments made at the 2018 launch event. It featured a summary of the book by Cochrane, critical comments from O'Sullivan and Milburn, and responses from Cochrane.[18]
O'Sullivan predicted that the book would not be widely read by animal activists or those with little interest in "abstract political or philosophical ideas". However, it would be, she predicted, "an instant classic" with scholars of animal studies and "essential reading" for those interest in the political turn in animal ethics – the latter being a field for which the book marks "a maturing", beginning a "process of specialization". She called the book's presentation of sentientist cosmopolitan democracy "deeply thought out, beautifully articulated, and carefully constructed in relation to the existing literature, [while] new, refreshing, innovative, and boundary breaking".[58] On pragmatic grounds, O'Sullivan challenged Cochrane's commitment to cosmopolitanism. She argued that, for Cochrane, the realisation of cosmopolitan values is not a precondition of animals' rights being respected; it is simply a theory he chose. She therefore poses a series of questions: "is it responsible, ideal, or wise to make cosmopolitanism a pre-condition for animal wellbeing? An estimated 150 billion animals are purposefully slaughtered globally each year. Is it fair for those individuals to be made to wait for utopian futures, when practical solutions could ease their suffering in the here and now?"[59] Not only, she says, are cosmopolitan institutions deeply unlikely to be achieved in even the long term, but cosmopolitan theorists are hostile or indifferent to animals. On the other hand, she says, the liberal status quo can find some room for animals, and working within it can have practical benefits for animals.[60] On that basis, she wrote that, in contrast to Cochrane,
I am going to keep plugging away in the here and now. I believe that liberalism provides us with enough tools to challenge speciesism, and I will continue to work with those tools until such a time as I am confident that they will be replaced with a different set of instruments. But that time is not now.[61]
In his response, Cochrane argued that there is room for both pragmatic and utopian approaches to political theory, and that the latter has value; that cosmopolitanism is not as utopian as it may first seem; and that all political principles (not just cosmopolitanism) are contested.[62] Cochrane considers cosmopolitan theory's anthropocentrism, though problematic, striking for its inconsistency with cosmopolitan commitments to impartiality. Due to this commitment, Cochrane sees cosmopolitanism and animal rights as natural companions.[63]
Like O'Sullivan, Milburn praised Sentientist Politics, calling it "tightly argued, provocative, innovative, engaging, and—
perhaps most importantly—compelling".
Reviews
Sentientist Politics was reviewed by Tore Fougner, a scholar of
Fougner praised the book, saying that "Undoubtedly, [Cochrane] argues very well and with great clarity, systematically supporting his ideas and proposals with chains of arguments, while acknowledging difficulties and engaging with possible objections throughout. Overall, the book makes a significant contribution to the 'political turn' in Animal Ethics, which he and others have promoted for some time".[67] He endorsed Cochrane's call for animals to be taken seriously in political science, and suggested that Sentientist Politics could be important for both research and teaching in that area. Fougner predicted that the book would face criticism from those subscribing to a "common sense view" of humans being more valuable than animals, but also from some advocates of animal rights. The latter group may be worried about Cochrane's commitment to the moral significance of "cognitive complexity", resulting in animals having different rights to, or weaker rights than, many humans. They may also object, Fougner claimed, to Cochrane's "liberal-reformist approach to social change"; in this sense, Cochrane can be contrasted to more radical voices in critical animal studies.[67]
Garner identified several areas of Sentientist Politics he thought open to challenge. First, Cochrane is highly idealistic, and, Garner thinks, optimistic in his claims that international bodies are already moving towards his goals.
For Adenitire, Sentientist Politics was "clear, succinct and, most of all, unapologetically ambitious".
Adenitire also drew attention to the high levels of responsibility Cochrane places upon humans to aid wild animals. For him, this again rises from Cochrane's reluctance to see animals as having an interest in controlling their own lives, which leads him to reject Donaldson and Kymlicka's account of animal sovereignty.[78] Against Cochrane, Adenitire argues that wild animals can validly make claims to sovereignty, and thus that Cochrane's burdensome paternalism can be rejected. This could mean that a liberal sentientist constitutionalist state should discourage domestication, making proposals about the just treatment of domesticated animals redundant in the long term.[79] Cochrane's sentientist cosmopolitan democracy thus has an advantage over Adenitire's sentientist constitutionalism: "it takes seriously the lived bond between human and non-human which may sustain it in the long term".[80] However, Adenitire thinks that this advantage can be exaggerated.[81]
Johannsen considered Sentientist Politics "an excellent book that makes a significant contribution to the political turn in animal ethics", and he highly recommended it. Johannsen argued that, despite first appearances, Sentientist Politics did leave considerable room for contextual considerations. For example, interventions in wild ecosystems must be decided with reference to the specifics of the particular ecosystem. This was only one of the book's strengths, for Johannsen; he called it "well written and well argued". Though he praised the discussion of wild animals as "interesting", he questioned whether it was necessary for them to be considered members of political communities in order for them to be afforded significant protection. He also questioned whether it was plausible that communities refusing to intervene in nature be subject to coercive intervention. It was the question of whether the international community should tolerate non-intervention, Johannsen argued, that distinguishes duties of justice from mere humanitarian duties on Cochrane's theory.[9]
Zuolo saw Cochrane as offering a much-needed contribution to animal ethics in offering a rigorous exploration of political institutions; the most original chapter, he argued, was the third.[82] Despite praising the book's "many ... merits",[83] Zuolo identified three shortcomings. The most significant, he argued, concerned Cochrane's proposal of animal representatives. Zuolo raised the question of how many representatives there should be, and also asked whether animal representatives might be appropriate as a "transitory or remedial measure", unnecessary in "a truly sentientist polity".[83] Zuolo also criticised Cochrane's rejection of personhood as the basis of moral equality, which he argued was too quick, and the fact that Cochrane failed to consider the range of means to secure sentientist cosmopolitan democracy between civic education and violence, including various forms of direct action.[84]
Awards
For Sentientist Politics, Cochrane was awarded the 2019 Susan Strange Best Book Prize by the British International Studies Association (BISA). The prize was awarded as part of the BISA's 44th Annual Conference in London, June 2019.[85]
References
Footnotes
- ^ Ahlhaus & Niesen 2015.
- ^ Garner 2012; Milburn 2019.
- ^ Painter 2014; Ebert 2015; Meijer 2016.
- ^ Ahlhaus & Niesen 2015; Cochrane, O'Sullivan & Garner 2016; Milligan 2015; Wissenburg & Schlosberg 2014.
- ^ Donaldson & Kymlicka 2011.
- ^ Cochrane 2013a.
- ^ Cochrane 2013b.
- ^ O'Sullivan 2018.
- ^ a b c Johannsen 2020.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. vii; Leverhulme 2014.
- ^ Leverhulme 2014.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. vii; Cochrane & Cooke 2016.
- ^ Cochrane & Cooke 2016.
- ^ O'Sullivan 2016.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. vii.
- ^ OUP n.d.
- ^ O'Sullivan 2018; Cochrane, O'Sullivan & Milburn 2019.
- ^ a b Cochrane, O'Sullivan & Milburn 2019.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. 3.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 3–7.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. 8.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 9–11.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 14–18.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 18–25.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 26–30.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. 30.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 30–1.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 30–3.
- ^ a b Cochrane 2018, p. 12.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 36–7.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 37–40.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 40–7.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 47–9.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 49–56.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 56–60.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 63–9.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 69–72.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 73–75.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 75–8.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. 79.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 80–2.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 82–7.
- ^ a b Cochrane 2018, pp. 87–8.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. 100.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 101–105.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 105–115.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 115–8.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 100, 119.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 120–123.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 123–6.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 126–8.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 128–35.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 135–8.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, p. 140.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 140–1.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 141–2.
- ^ Cochrane 2018, pp. 142–3.
- ^ O'Sullivan 2019, p. 4.
- ^ O'Sullivan 2019, p. 14.
- ^ O'Sullivan 2019, pp. 14–15.
- ^ O'Sullivan 2019, p. 15.
- ^ Cochrane 2019a, pp. 17–18.
- ^ Cochrane 2019a, pp. 18–19.
- ^ Milburn 2019, p. 20.
- ^ Milburn 2019, pp. 22–5.
- ^ Cochrane 2019b, pp. 27–8.
- ^ a b c Fougner 2019.
- ^ Garner 2019.
- ^ Zuolo 2020.
- ^ Adenitire 2019.
- ^ Garner 2019, p. 1167-1166.
- ^ a b c d Garner 2019, p. 1166.
- ^ a b Adenitire 2019, p. 588.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, p. 589.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, pp. 589–90.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, pp. 590–691.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, pp. 591–2.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, p. 593.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, pp. 594–595.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, p. 595.
- ^ Adenitire 2019, pp. 595–6.
- ^ Zuolo 2020, p. 164.
- ^ a b Zuolo 2020, p. 165.
- ^ Zuolo 2020, pp. 165–6.
- ^ BISA n.d.; BISA 2019, p. 20.
Bibliography
- Adenitire, John (2019). "Sentientist politics". Jurisprudence. 10 (4): 588–596. S2CID 210648513.
- Ahlhaus, Svenja; Niesen, Peter (2015). "What Is Animal Politics? Outline of a New Research Agenda". .
- BISA (n.d.). "BISA Susan Strange Book Prize Recipients". British International Studies Association. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
- ——— (2019). The British International Studies Association 44th Annual Conference (programme). London: British International Studies Association.
- Cochrane, Alasdair (2013a). "Cosmozoopolis: The Case Against Group-Differentiated Animal Rights". Law, Ethics and Philosophy. 1: 127–41. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
- ——— (2013b). "International Animal Protection: An Introduction". .
- ——— (2018). Sentientist Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-878980-2.
- ——— (2019a). "Cosmopolitianism for animals: Response to O'Sullivan". Politics and Animals. 5: 16–19.
- ——— (2019b). "The place of wild animals in a sentientist politics: Response to Milburn". Politics and Animals. 5: 26–28.
- Cochrane, Alasdair; Cooke, Steve (2016). "'Humane Intervention': The International Protection of Animal Rights" (PDF). Journal of Global Ethics. 12 (1): 106–21. S2CID 155805532.
- Cochrane, Alasdair; S2CID 147783917.
- Cochrane, Alasdair; O'Sullivan, Siobhan; Milburn, Josh (2019). "Book Symposium: 'Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice'". Politics and Animals. 5: 1–31.
- ISBN 978-0-19-959966-0.
- Fougner, Tore (2019). "Book Review – Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice". Global Policy. Retrieved 2 February 2020.
- .
- Ebert, Rainer (2015). "Review: Animal Rights Without Liberation by Alasdair Cochrane". Journal of Animal Ethics. 5 (1): 114–6. .
- ——— (2019). "Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice. By Alasdair Cochrane. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. 176p. $80.00 cloth". S2CID 210480366.
- Johannsen, Kyle (2020). "Alasdair Cochrane, Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice". S2CID 225144533.
- Leverhulme (2014). "Research Fellowships 2014". Leverhulme Trust. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
- Meijer, Eva (2016). "Animal rights, without liberation?". Society & Animals. 24 (3): 317–9. .
- Milburn, Josh (2019). "Sentientist politics gone wild". Politics and Animals. 5: 20–25.
- Milligan, Tony (2015). "The Political Turn in Animal Rights". Politics and Animals. 1 (1): 6–15. Retrieved 20 August 2016.
- Knowing Animals(Podcast). Retrieved 1 August 2016.
- ——— (15 October 2018). "Episode 89: Sentientist Politics with Alasdair Cochrane". Knowing Animals(Podcast). Retrieved 29 December 2019.
- ——— (2019). "Sentientist Politics, a worthwhile utopia". Politics and Animals. 5: 9–15.
- Painter, Corinne (2014). "The connection between animal rights and animal liberation". .
- OUP (n.d.). Sentientist Politics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-878980-2. Retrieved 2 February 2019.
- ISBN 978-1-137-43461-6.
- Zuolo, Federico (2020). "Sentientist politics". S2CID 216300811.
Further reading
- Jones, Robert C. (2021-02-01). "Alasdair Cochrane, Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice". Environmental Values. 30 (1): 134–136. S2CID 234033597.