An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory is a 2010 textbook by the British political theorist Alasdair Cochrane. It is the first book in the publisher Palgrave Macmillan's Animal Ethics Series, edited by Andrew Linzey and Priscilla Cohn. Cochrane's book examines five schools of political theory—utilitarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, Marxism and feminism—and their respective relationships with questions concerning animal rights and the political status of (non-human) animals. Cochrane concludes that each tradition has something to offer to these issues, but ultimately presents his own account of interest-based animal rights as preferable to any. His account, though drawing from all examined traditions, builds primarily upon liberalism and utilitarianism.
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,Cochrane 2012a, p. vii. was entitled Moral obligations to non-humans.Cochrane 2007b He subsequently became a fellow and lecturer at the LSE. During this time, Cochrane published articles in Res Publica, Utilitas and Political Studies presenting aspects of his interest-based theory of animal rights,Cochrane 2007a; Cochrane 2009a; Cochrane 2009b. which is defended in the final chapter of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory.Cochrane 2010, chap. 8. The book was Cochrane's first, and the political theorist Robert Garner acted as an important discussant during the writing process.Cochrane 2010, p. viii.
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory was first published in the UK on 13 October 2010 by Palgrave Macmillan in paperback, hardback and eBook formats. It was the first book to appear as part of the Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series,Cochrane 2010, p. i. a partnership between Palgrave Macmillan and the Ferrata Mora Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.Cochrane 2010, pp. vi–vii; Linzey and Linzey 2014. The series's general editors are Andrew Linzey and Priscilla N. Cohn. Interdisciplinary in focus, the Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series aims to explore the practical and conceptual challenges posed by animal ethics."The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series". Palgrave Macmillan. Accessed on 8 June 2016.
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.
Opening chapters
Cochrane establishes the book as a work of normative political theory asking to what extent animals should be included in the domain of justice.Cochrane 2010, pp. 2–3. States can and do regulate human-animal relationships, whether the animals in question are used in agriculture, as companions, or in some other way. Cochrane's focus is not on why laws are passed or on comparing laws, but in exploring what kind of laws should be passed.Cochrane 2010, pp. 1–2. As his focus is on political theory, he is less concerned with questions about individual moral obligations than he is with institutional arrangements.Cochrane 2010, p. 3. He notes, however, that questions about animals have been neglected in political theory.Cochrane 2010, p. 4. In the second chapter, Cochrane considers the history of thinking on the relationship between justice and animals. He argues that within ancient philosophy there was disagreement about the inclusion of animals within accounts of justice, in medieval Christian philosophy there was a consensus that they should be excluded, and in modern philosophy there has been a return to disagreement.Cochrane 2010, p. 10.
Utilitarianism
Chapter three considers utilitarianism, according to which the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the extent to which it promotes utility—a concept equated, by classical utilitarians, with pleasure. As a political theory, then, classical utilitarianism entails that "it is the obligation of political communities to formulate policies and institutions which promote pleasure".Cochrane 2010, pp. 29–30. Utilitarianism as a whole, Cochrane argues, posed a challenge to the medieval and early modern assumption that animals are owed nothing. Its focus on welfare and sentience, and its egalitarian nature, allow the extension of justice to animals.Cochrane 2010, pp. 29–31. The ideas of Peter Singer are outlined. Cochrane then defends Singer's account both against those presenting arguments in defence of speciesism, and against critics (such as R. G. Frey) who maintain that animals do not have interests.Cochrane 2010, pp. 31–8. He then considers utilitarian critics of Singer, who argue that meat-eating maximises utility, even when animal interests are taken into account. This leads to the criticism that judging the best consequences is an extremely difficult task for political communities, but Cochrane concludes that a utilitarian consensus does at least support the abolition of factory farming.Cochrane 2010, pp. 38–42. Finally, he addresses critics who argue that Singer's position offers insufficient protection for animals. Martha Nussbaum's argument that animals can suffer unfelt harms is considered, as is Tom Regan's criticism that, under Singer's account, animals are protected only insofar as their protection maximises welfare, rather than in their own right.Cochrane 2010, pp. 42–8.
Liberalism
Chapter four considers liberalism, a political theory which, according to Cochrane, has as its defining feature a valuation of "the free and equal individual person".Cochrane 2010, p. 7. Cochrane focuses primarily upon John Rawls, whose social contract account offers two reasons for the rejection of animals from issues of basic justice: questions of reciprocity, for which animals are ill-suited, and questions of personhood, as all parties to the contract must be moral persons.Cochrane 2010, pp. 53–6. Cochrane criticises Rawls's exclusion of animals,Cochrane 2010, pp. 56–60. before identifying the risks to animals inherent within liberal pluralism.Cochrane 2010, pp. 60–1. The possibility of a Rawlsian account including animals, such as those offered by Donald Van De Veer and Mark Rowlands, is considered and rejected; Cochrane outlines problems with placing questions of species membership behind the veil of ignorance and outlines Garner's fundamental criticisms of Rawls.Cochrane 2010, pp. 61–5. Modified versions of personhood that include animals are discussed. Cochrane closes the chapter by arguing that personhood and welfare should both be considered important; in so doing, he points towards his own conception of justice for animals.Cochrane 2010, pp. 65–70.
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. Cochrane initially argues that communitarianism, using British society as an example, can be used to expand justice to animals.Cochrane 2010, pp. 75–6. 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.Cochrane 2010, p. 76. Second, there are difficulties inherent in finding "authentic" values within a given society.Cochrane 2010, p. 79. Third, societies often favour some animals over others, leaving unfavoured animals vulnerable.Cochrane 2010, p. 81. 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.Cochrane 2010, pp. 85–91.
Marxism
Cochrane goes on, in chapter six, to consider Marxism. Unlike the other political theories explored in An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, Marxism is purportedly not a normative account but a scientific theory which predicts and explains the end of the state and the beginning of communism. This is understood as the inevitable conclusion of the history of the changing forms of economic relationships.Cochrane 2010, pp. 93–5. Cochrane outlines the discontinuities between humans and animals that exist for Karl Marx and considers the extent to which animal-rights thinking is an example of bourgeois morality. These analyses serve to illustrate how Marxist thinking can be used to exclude animals, but counterarguments are offered.Cochrane 2010, pp. 96–105. Cochrane then draws upon the work of Catherine Perlow and Barbara Noske, who have argued that animals may represent an exploited group in a Marxist sense, but he is critical of the argument that this exploitation is caused by capitalism and that overthrowing capitalism would be a necessary step for achieving justice.Cochrane 2010, pp. 105–8. He next considers the work of David Sztybel and Ted Benton, who have drawn upon the adage of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" in relation to animals; Cochrane is wary about the use of the phrase for three reasons. First, it is unclear how central the idea is to Marxist thought; second, it is a principle only for societies in advanced stages of communism; and third, even if we assume we can know the needs of animals, the principle would entail the extension of justice beyond sentient animals, which is an idea that Cochrane rejects.Cochrane 2010, pp. 108–12. Finally, Cochrane considers Benton's proposal that liberal rights-based approaches to animal justice cannot achieve their goal, and that Marxism can be used as a resource for political achievement. This is, for Cochrane, Marxism's most important contribution in the area.Cochrane 2010, pp. 112–3.
Feminism