An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
OCLC 793105423 | |
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory is a 2010 textbook by the British political theorist
An Introduction was reviewed positively in several academic publications. The political philosopher Steve Cooke said that Cochrane's own approach showed promise, and that the book would have benefited from devoting more space to it. Robert Garner, a political theorist, praised Cochrane's synthesis of such a broad range of literature, but argued that the work was too uncritical of the concept of justice as it might apply to animals. Cochrane's account of interest-based rights for animals was subsequently considered at greater length in his 2012 book Animal Rights Without Liberation, published by Columbia University Press. An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory was one of the first books to explore animals from the perspective of political theory, and became an established part of a literature critical of the topic's traditional neglect.
Background and publication
In the 1990s and 2000s, Alasdair Cochrane studied politics at the University of Sheffield and the London School of Economics (LSE). His doctoral thesis, supervised by Cécile Fabre with Paul Kelly acting as an adviser,[1] was entitled Moral obligations to non-humans.[2] He subsequently became a fellow and lecturer at the LSE.[3] During this time, Cochrane published articles in Res Publica, Utilitas and Political Studies presenting aspects of his interest-based theory of animal rights,[4][note 1] which is defended in the final chapter of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory.[10] The book was Cochrane's first,[3] and the political theorist Robert Garner acted as an important discussant during the writing process.[11]
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory was first published in the UK on 13 October 2010 by
Synopsis
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory begins by discussing the history of animals in political theory before considering the approaches taken to the status of animals by five schools of political theory: utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism. The final chapter outlines Cochrane's own approach, which he situates between liberalism and utilitarianism.[16]
Opening chapters
Cochrane establishes the book as a work of
Utilitarianism
Chapter three considers
Liberalism
Chapter four considers
Communitarianism
Chapter five assesses the relationship between animals and communitarianism. Communitarians criticise liberalism's focus on a state which does not interfere with individuals, instead favouring a political order which takes a stand on moral concerns, drawing from the shared moral values of a given society.[27] Cochrane initially argues that communitarianism, using British society as an example, can be used to expand justice to animals.[33] He devotes the remainder of the chapter to four arguments against this line of thought. First, communitarianism is particularist; that is, the principles it expounds are wholly contingent on the values in the particular society.[34] Second, there are difficulties inherent in finding "authentic" values within a given society.[35] Third, societies often favour some animals over others, leaving unfavoured animals vulnerable.[36] Fourth, there is the question of whose values within a society matter: states often contain multiple communities with very different attitudes to animals. Consideration of this fourth question involves analysis of multiculturalism.[37]
Marxism
Cochrane goes on, in chapter six, to consider
Feminism
Cochrane considers
Conclusion
In the final chapter Cochrane argues that each school has an important contribution to make to animal justice, particularly liberalism and utilitarianism. He then outlines his own approach.[47] He writes that, while talk of our political and moral obligations to animals is today more prominent than ever, it remains on the periphery of mainstream dialogue in political theory. He closes by arguing that this neglect is a problem for political theory, and that animals are owed justice. If the book's claims are correct, Cochrane concludes, questions concerning the treatment of animals should be considered some of the most pressing political issues today.[48]
Central argument
Cochrane argues that while each of the schools of thought he has considered has problems, they all have something important to contribute to the debate. Utilitarianism's most important contribution is its focus on sentience, but its major failing is its lack of respect for individuals. Liberalism, on the other hand, asserts the centrality of the individual. Communitarianism, though it is too ready to attribute cohesion to the values of a given society, observes that individuals can flourish only within appropriate communities, and stresses the importance of changing the views of society at large. This latter idea is shared by Marxism, which points out that legal change does not necessarily equate to effective change. While Cochrane does not agree that capitalism must be overthrown, he recognises that "fundamental shifts in the organisation, norms and institutions of society" are needed for justice to be extended to animals. Care-based feminist approaches, despite Cochrane's criticism, remind us that emotions and sympathy should not be ignored.[49]
Cochrane's own sympathies lie most strongly with utilitarianism and liberalism; his own account is most influenced by them.[50] He argues that rights derived from considerations of interests can protect individual animals and place limits on what can be done to them. These rights cannot be violated, even in the name of the greater good, which means that the cultural and economic practices of human beings will be affected. Anticipating criticism, Cochrane explains that not every interest leads to a right. A full consideration of this argument is outside the scope of the book.[51] The argument was expanded in Cochrane's Animal Rights Without Liberation (2012) which, though published after An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, was based on his doctoral thesis.[52]
Academic reception
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory was reviewed by Garner for the
Palgrave Macmillan advertised the book with quotes taken from Cooke and Garner's respective reviews, as well as with quotes from
If only Cochrane had been writing when I was an undergraduate political science student! But this book's appeal will not be limited to students. This is one of the first comprehensive articulations of what mainstream political values might mean for animals—something the academic community has desperately needed for far too long. It's a great read and an important contribution.[12]
Cooke considered Cochrane's own account to be "interesting and worthy of further consideration" and found his supporting arguments to be "convincing", but he worried that the account was not considered in the depth it warranted. He wrote that An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory would have benefited if more space had been given to the interest-based account. Further, Cooke noted that, in covering such a wide array of positions, Cochrane had to sacrifice depth of argument; Cooke considered this unproblematic, as readers could easily follow up the thinkers cited.[16] Seymour was particularly critical of Cochrane's coverage of feminism, which was, for him, "an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise fascinating review". Seymour argued that Cochrane's critique was superficial or "[missed] the point entirely". Instead, he suggested, feminist approaches provide a potentially highly productive approach to the subject.[53] Similarly, though Rasmussen praised the book's first five chapters as "providing an invaluable resource for undergraduates or scholars new to political theory", he felt that Cochrane's coverage of Marxism and feminism was somewhat less thorough.[54]
In response to An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, Garner raised two themes, the first of which was the use of the concept of justice.[55] Agreeing with Cochrane that the concept is the defining feature of a political account, as opposed to more general accounts of animal ethics, Garner nevertheless found Cochrane's account of justice to be "too broad and loose".[55] In the book, Cochrane considers justice for animals to be "about recognising that the treatment of animals is a matter for political communities to enforce" and "recognising that the treatment of animals is something that political communities ought to enforce for the sake of animals themselves".[19] For Garner,
The problem with this is that it arguably includes too much—for it implies that once the state recognizes that we have direct duties to animals, that what we do to them matters to them, then the demands of justice are met. This means that, with the exception of those who hold that we have only indirect duties to animals, all the traditions that Cochrane discusses can lay claim to offering a theory of justice for animals.[55]
Further, Garner suggests that Cochrane is "perhaps unduly uncritical of the utility of employing justice as a means to protect the interests of animals".
The second theme Garner identified was the divide between ideal and nonideal theory,[55] which he understands as a way political theory may be used to contextualise animal ethics and further the debate.[58] Ultimately, for Garner, Cochrane's theory serves as a challenge to abolitionism, which, Garner fears, both polarises the debate and is unrealistic.[59] The themes of this review were built upon in Garner's 2013 book A Theory of Justice for Animals.[60] In the course of his review of the book, Garner looked forward to the release of Cochrane's second book,[61] Animal Rights Without Liberation, which offers a lengthier defence of the interest-based rights theory.[62]
Legacy
The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics described An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory as "the first introductory level text to offer an accessible overview on the status of animals in contemporary political theory",[63] while commentators noted that it was one of the first works—previous books on the subject having been written by Garner and Nussbaum—to link the question of animal rights to the concept of justice in political philosophy.[64] Since the book's publication, a number of works exploring animals in political theory have been published; these works have been collectively referred to as belonging to the "political turn" in animal ethics/animal rights, or the disciplines of "animal political philosophy" and "Animal Politics".[65] Both An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory and Animal Rights Without Liberation have become an established part of this literature.[66]
Formats
The book has been published in paperback, hardback and eBook formats.[12]
- Hardback: Cochrane, Alasdair (13 October 2010). An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23925-8.
- Paperback: Cochrane, Alasdair (13 October 2010). An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-23926-5.
- eBook: Cochrane, Alasdair (13 October 2010). An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-29059-4.
Notes
- ^ At the time their respective reviews were published, Cooke was based at the University of Manchester,[16] while Seymour was based at the LSE.[53] Rasmussen was based at the University of Delaware.[54]
References
- ^ Cochrane 2012a, p. vii.
- ^ Cochrane 2007b
- ^ The University of Sheffield. Archived from the originalon 10 February 2012. Retrieved 12 June 2013.
- ^ Cochrane 2007a; Cochrane 2009a; Cochrane 2009b.
- ^ Cochrane 2009b
- ^ Garner 2011
- ^ Hadley 2013
- ^ Schmidt 2015
- ^ Giroux 2016
- ^ Cochrane 2010, chap. 8.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. viii.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-230-23926-5. Retrieved 11 June 2016.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. i.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. vi–vii; Linzey and Linzey 2014.
- ^ "The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series". Palgrave Macmillan. Accessed on 8 June 2016.
- ^ a b c d Cooke 2012, p. 95.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 2–3.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 1–2.
- ^ a b Cochrane 2010, p. 3.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. 4.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. 10.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 29–30.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 29–31.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 31–8.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 38–42.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 42–8.
- ^ a b Cochrane 2010, p. 7.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 53–6.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 56–60.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 60–1.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 61–5.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 65–70.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 75–6.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. 76.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. 79.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. 81.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 85–91.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 93–5.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 96–105.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 105–8.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 108–12.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 112–3.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, p. 115.
- ^ a b Cochrane 2010, pp. 117–23.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 123–30.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 130–4.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 136–45.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 145–6.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 136–41.
- ^ a b Garner 2012, p. 98.
- ^ Cochrane 2010, pp. 141–5.
- ^ Cochrane 2012, p. vii.
- ^ a b c Seymour, Richard (12 December 2012). "Book Review: An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, by Alasdair Cochrane". LSE Review of Books. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
- ^ a b c d Rasmussen 2011
- ^ a b c d e Garner 2012, p. 99.
- ^ Garner 2012, pp. 99–100.
- ^ Garner 2013, pp. 44–75.
- ^ Garner 2012, p. 100.
- ^ Garner 2012, pp. 100, 102–3.
- ^ Garner 2013.
- ^ Garner 2012, pp. 101–2.
- ^ Cochrane 2012.
- ^ "Launch of Pioneering Book Series on Animal Ethics". Ferrata Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics. 1 February 2011. Retrieved 15 July 2013.
- ^ Donaldson and Kymlicka, 2012, p. 1; Garner 2012, p. 98; Garner 2013, pp. 1, 169.
- ^ Ahlhaus and Niesen 2015; Boyer et al. 2015; Cochrane, Garner and O'Sullivan 2016; Donaldson and Kymlicka 2015; Garner 2016; Milligan 2015; Wissenburg and Schlosberg 2014.
- ^ Boyer et al. 2015, p. 2; Donaldson and Kymlicka 2015, fn. 9.
Bibliography
- Ahlhaus, Svenja and Peter Niesen (2015). "What is Animal Politics? Outline of a new research agenda". Historical Social Research 40 (4): 7–31. .
- Boyer, Kurtis, Guy Scotton, Per-Anders Svärd and Katherine Wayne (2015). "Editors' introduction". Politics and Animals 1 (1): 1–5.
- Cochrane, Alasdair (2007a). "Animal rights and animal experiments: An interest-based approach". Res Publica 13 (3): 293–318. .
- (2007b). Moral obligations to non-humans (Ph.D. thesis).
- (2009a). "Ownership and justice for animals". Utilitas 21 (4): 424–42. .
- (2009b). "Do animals have an interest in liberty?". Political Studies 57 (3): 660–679. .
- (2010). An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
- (2012). Animal Rights Without Liberation. New York: Columbia University Press.
- Cochrane, Alasdair, Siobhan O'Sullivan and Robert Garner (2016). "Animal ethics and the political". Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. .
- Cooke, Steve (2012). "Beyond Animal Rights: Food, Pets and Ethics – By Tony Milligan; An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory – By Alasdair Cochrane". Political Studies Review 10 (1): 94–5. .
- Donaldson, Sue and Will Kymlicka (July 2012). "Do we need a political theory of animal rights?" (conference paper). Minding Animals Conference, Utrecht.
- (2015). "Animals in political theory". In Linda Kalof (ed). The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. .
- Garner, Robert (2011). "In defence of animal sentience: A critique of Cochrane's liberty thesis". Political Studies 59: 175–187. .
- (2012). "Towards a theory of justice for animals". Journal of Animal Ethics 2 (1): 98–104. .
- (2013). A Theory of Justice for Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- (2016). "M. Wissenburg and D. Schlosberg (eds.), Political Animals and Animal Politics (Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series)". Environmental Values 25 (4): 491–492.
- Giroux, Valéry (2016). "Animals do have an interest in liberty". Journal of Animal Ethics 6 (1): 20–43. .
- Hadley, John (2013). "Liberty and valuing sentient life". Ethics and the Environment 18 (1): 87–103. .
- Linzey, Andrew and Clair Linzey (2014). "Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics". In .
- Milligan, Tony (2015). "The political turn in animal rights". Politics and Animals 1 (1): 6–15.
- Rasmussen, C. E. (2011). "Cochrane, Alasdair. An introduction to animals and political theory". Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 48 (12): 2401.
- Schmidt, Andreas T. (2015). "Why animals have an interest in freedom". Historical Social Research 40 (4): 92–109. .
- Wissenburg, Marcel and David Schlosberg (2014). "Introducing animal politics and political animals". In Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg (eds). Political Animals and Animal Politics. Basingstoke, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 1–14.
External links
- An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory at SpringerLink